The Hierarchical Structure of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hierarchical personality models have the potential to identify common and specific components of DSM-IV personality disorders (PDs), and may offer a solution for the re-tooling of personality pathology in future versions of the DSM. In this paper, we examined the hierarchical structure of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley & Jackson, 2009) and the capacity of various trait components at different levels to predict DSM-IV PD symptoms. Participants were 275 psychiatric outpatients and 365 undergraduate students. Goldberg's (2006) bass-ackwards method was used to investigate the hierarchical structure of the DAPP-BQ. The predictive capacity of hierarchy components was assessed. We found that Level 5 of the hierarchy enhanced the capacity of the DAPP-BQ for predicting DSM PD symptoms beyond a four-factor structure, particularly for borderline PD.
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) | 0.002 | 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 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".