Structure of Personality Pathology in Normal and Clinical Samples: Spanish Validation of the DAPP-BQ
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given that the DSM taxonomy of personality disorders is flawed by severe classificatory problems, the development of alternative classificatory systems, such as the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ), has now become a priority. This study examined the internal consistency, second-order factor structure, and criterion validity of a Spanish translation of the DAPP-BQ in two samples: subjects with personality disorder (n = 155) and subjects from the general population (n = 300). Alpha coefficients ranged satisfactorily from .75 to .93. Four second-order factors of Emotional Dysregulation, Dissocial Behavior, Inhibitedness, and Compulsivity were obtained, which were replicable between samples and identical to those reported in the literature. Finally, disordered subjects scored significantly higher than normal subjects on 17 of the 18 DAPP-BQ traits. Some pending issues in the construction of an alternative taxonomy of personality disorders are discussed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".