Personality Disorder in University Students: A Multitrait-Multimethod Matrix Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the prevalence of personality disorders (PDs) in a sample of first-year university students. The three self-report measures used to assess personality disorders were the (a) Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI); (b) Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II); and (c) Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Personality Disorder Scale (MMPI-PD). The prevalence of PD was estimated by including the number of participants above the cut-off scores selected for each of the three PD instruments. The results indicate prevalence in the range of 0% to 16% for the males, and approximately 1% to 26% for the females. These findings generally confirm the prevalence range of 5% to 15% reported in other investigations of nonpatient samples. With few exceptions, the three tests are generally consistent in their estimates of PD prevalence of all the 11 personality disorders. The multitrait-multimethod matrix reveals that the disorders are generally positively correlated with each other on all the three tests, suggesting considerable construct overlap. Specifically, passive-aggressive and schizotypal disorders produce the most convergent correlations. On the MMPI-PD, however, schizoid is a relatively more discriminant disorder.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".