Reliability and construct validity of the general factor of personality disorder.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Criterion B of the alternative model of personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), outlines maladaptive trait dimensions that characterize personality disorders. Emerging evidence from bifactor confirmatory factor analyses suggest these traits are related at a higher order level by a general factor of personality disorder (g-PD). Further, emerging evidence points to traits most closely related to borderline personality disorder as underpinnings of g-PD. Further investigation is required to better understand the shared basis of personality disorder, with attention to the reliability and validity of g-PD. The g-PD theory was examined in a clinical (n = 242), and community sample (n = 252) of adults, using a brief form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Structural analyses supported a correlated 6-factor model and a bifactor solution, validating the g-PD structure. Reliability indices supported the unidimensionality, reliability, and replicability of the g-PD factor. The strongest loading and most unidimensional items on the g-PD factors were from the Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition trait domains, partially replicating the trait profile of borderline personality disorder traits. In validity analyses, the nomological network of the general and specific factors were examined. g-PD was more strongly correlated with internalizing measures and impairment than specific factors, but specific factors were more strongly correlated with thought disorder and externalizing measures than g-PD. Our results support the nature and reliability of a general factor characterized by Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition unifying personality disorder traits in a brief form of the PID-5. Implications for the alternative model of personality disorder, PID-5, and g-PD theory are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".