Assessing <i>DSM-5</i> Section III Personality Traits and Disorders With the MMPI-2-RF
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An alternative model for diagnosing personality disorders (PDs) appears in DSM-5 Section III. This model includes a set of dimensional personality traits, which along with impairment in personality functioning can be configured to represent one of six PDs. Although specific assessment instruments for these personality traits have already been developed (e.g., the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]), clinicians will likely continue to use omnibus measures of psychopathology that are familiar to them to inform diagnostic decision making. One such measure, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), will likely remain in the test armamentarium of many practitioners and be employed to assess the DSM-5 dimensional traits. In the current investigation, we examined the associations between MMPI-2-RF scale scores and the PID-5 trait scores and DSM-5 Section III PDs in a combined sample of university students (n = 668) from the United States and Canada. Our results indicated that the MMPI-2-RF scale scores mostly converge with PID-5 dimensional traits as well as the Section III PDs in a conceptually expected manner. As such, we conclude that the MMPI-2-RF is a potentially useful instrument in assessing personality psychopathology as conceptualized in DSM-5 Section III.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".