Assessing <i>DSM-5</i> Section III Personality Traits and Disorders With the MMPI-2-RF
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 it