A bifactor model of personality organization in adolescence: the validity of a brief screening measure assessing severity and core domains of functioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Both the latest edition of the DSM-5 as well as the new ICD-11 have established a new focus in the diagnosis of personality disorders: the assessment of personality functioning. This recent shift in focus converges with long-standing psychodynamic conceptualizations of personality pathology, particularly Kernberg's object relations model. Although a significant amount of research supports these models in adults, much less is known about the validity of these frameworks in youth. Considering the paucity of brief measures of personality functioning in adolescents, the current study aimed to develop and investigate the validity of the Inventory of Personality Organization for Adolescents-Short Form, a theoretically-informed measure assessing severity and core domains of functioning in adolescents. METHODS: A total sample of N = 525 adolescents aged 13 to 19 years were recruited through a community University-Health Psychology Clinic as current patients (n = 94) or who responded to an online research call (n = 431). RESULTS: Results indicate that a bifactor model provided the best fit to the data and consisted of a general factor reflecting core self-other functioning and three specific factors, representing additional dimensions of personality organization. CONCLUSIONS: A brief 15-item version of the IPO-A was successfully derived for time-efficient screening of personality pathology in youth. Similarities with the ICD-11 framework are discussed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".