Validation of MMPI-2–RF Personality Disorder Spectra scales in a psychiatric sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The diagnostic operationalization of personality disorders is at the crossroads. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5), includes 2 separate systems for the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs)-1 that is purely categorical (Section II) and 1 that is primarily dimensional (Section III). The International Classification of Diseases (11th ed.) will use a dimensional approach for the diagnosis of PDs. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) PD Spectra scales were developed as measures of both the traditional and the alternative and scientifically supported systems. The current study examined the criterion and construct validity of these scales in a sample of 343 psychiatric patients. Patients completed the MMPI-2-RF, a measure of traditional personality disorders, a measure of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder traits, and a measure of the 5-factor model of personality. Overall, with the exception of the Narcissistic and the Obsessive-Compulsive PD Spectra scales, the criterion and construct validity findings were quite supportive of these scales. Implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".