Revising the trait model of the alternative model of personality disorders: Comment on Clark and Watson’s structural review.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their review of examination of the self-report Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5; PID-5) factor structure and joint factor analysis of this instrument with other self-report measures of personality and psychopathology, Clark and Watson (2022) make argument for a set of modifications to the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD)-the AMPD-5.1. In this commentary we offer opinion that their proposed modifications to the AMPD are problematic. In particular, we express concern that their modifications are based solely on research that uses a single instrument to measure the model and that this instrument employs a self-report measure methodology. We argue further that this method of assessment is vulnerable to response bias which could potentially alter the substantive structure of the model. We suggest that any proposed revised model should also be informed by other forms of measurement (e.g., informant report and structured interviews). In addition, we also argue that the best approach to delineating the universe of pathological personality traits should also include clinician input. Such input would maximize the clinical utility of any revised model. We believe that to propose a modified model that is based on self-report only and does not include other sources of information is presumptive and premature. At best, we think that Clark and Watson (2022) have only provided suggestions for a revision and expansion of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (i.e., the PID-5.1). (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 | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 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".