The Dutch DAPP-BQ: Improvements, Lower- and Higher-Order Dimensions, and Relationship with the 5DPT
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After modifying 53 items in a previous Dutch translation of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley & Jackson, 2002), the present DAPP-BQ scales (with or without Self-Harm included) were subjected to a principal components analysis with oblimin or varimax rotation in a general population sample of 478 subjects, retaining four factors. All four (higherorder) factors (Emotional Dysregulation, Dissocial, Inhibition, and Compulsivity) proved identical to the factors originally derived in Canada, with Tucker coefficients of factor similarity approaching unity. Particularly the (unexpected) finding that the present Dutch version of the DAPP-BQ also resulted in an Inhibition factor (and not, like the former Dutch version, in an Intimacy Problems factor) was considered positive. In addition, a principal components analysis with oblimin rotation was conducted on the 282 items contained in the 18 DAPP-BQ scales, investigating the lower-order structure of the DAPP-BQ; in this case, 18 factors were retained. Although the structure originally derived by Livesley and colleagues could not be recovered completely, the degree of similarity was of such a magnitude that the 18 DAPP-BQ scales were considered to give a dependable account of the "true" lower-order structure of disordered personality. Moreover, based on the finding that the 18 scales are sufficiently reliable (Cronbach's alpha) and correlate as predicted in a subsample of 284 subjects with the normal personality scales of Van Kampen's 5DPT (or, Five-Dimensional Personality Test), the DAPP-BQ appears to be a valuable instrument.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".