Meta-analysis to derive an empirically based set of personality facet criteria for the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alternative model for personality disorders (AMPD) is outlined in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition. This model includes 25 dimensional trait facets that are used as criteria for six personality disorders in addition to impairment in functioning. Numerous previous studies have examined the degree to which the proposed trait facets converge with the Section II personality disorders (PDs) they are meant to capture, but the results from these various studies have been inconsistent. The current investigation sought to provide a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data, and in particular, to develop empirically derived trait criterion profiles for each of the six AMPD PDs. A total of 25 independent data sets utilizing diverse samples and methods that included measurement of AMPD traits and at least one Section II PD derived from both published and unpublished work were considered for this review. The findings indicated general support for the traits proposed for each of the six PDs within the AMPD, with obsessive-compulsive PD the notable exception. The discriminant validity, however, was questionable for several of the PDs; several nonproposed traits also correlated with the Section II PD counterparts at moderate to large degrees. Intraclass correlations used to model the agreement across the empirically derived trait profiles for each of the six PDs, however, revealed that most of the disorders were relatively distinct from one another. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.048 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.034 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".