Change in self-reported personality during major depressive disorder treatment: A reanalysis of treatment studies from a demoralization perspective.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Change in self-reported personality trait scores (especially Neuroticism and Extraversion) over the course of treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD) has been robustly demonstrated. We believe that these observed changes on personality trait scales may reflect reduction in demoralization rather than changes in personality per se. Data were combined from 3 archival samples: a randomized clinical trial and 2 naturalistic follow-up studies. All participants (N = 300) received either psychotherapy or psychopharmacological treatment. Pre- and posttreatment participants were assessed with the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R), the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HRSD-I7), and Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II). Comparisons were made between "unadjusted" and "adjusted" NEO-PI-R substantive personality trait scales-in which demoralization-related items were removed from their original trait scale (i.e., adjusted NEO-PI-R scales) and also used to form a separate NEO demoralization scale (NEOdem). The NEOdem scale changed more over the course of treatment (d = .41) compared with the adjusted NEO-PI-R scales, which manifested only small changes (d < |.19|). Moreover, the adjusted NEO-PI-R trait scales revealed much smaller changes compared with their unadjusted counterparts. The study provides further support for the utility of distinguishing between demoralization and NEO-PI-R traits in clinical assessment and research. A substantial part of change in self-reported personality during treatment for depression resulted from a reduction in demoralization. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".