Criterion a of the alternative model of personality disorders: Structure and validity in a community sample.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The alternative model of personality disorders were designed to represent the presence of personality dysfunction (Criterion A) and pathological personality traits (Criterion B). Much of the empirical attention toward this model has been directed toward testing the performance of Criterion B. However, the development of the Levels of Personality Functioning Scale-Self-Report (LPFS-SR) has sparked a growing amount of interest and debate around Criterion A. Specifically, there is significant disagreement in the research examining the validity of the LPFS-SR, with ongoing discrepancies regarding the measure's underlying structure and measurement of Criterion A. The present study aimed to compare four models (one-factor, four-factor, higher order, and bifactor models) in a sample of 416 adults (49.5% women, 63.5% White) to better understand the structure of the LPFS-SR. This study also built on existing efforts to establish convergent and divergent validity of the LPFS-SR by examining how criteria are related to independent measures of both self and interpersonal pathology. The results from the present study supported a bifactor model. Additionally, the four subscales of the LPFS-SR each captured unique variance above and beyond the general factor. Structural equation models predicting identity disturbance and interpersonal traits demonstrated that while the strongest relationships were found between the general factor and the scales, some support was found for the convergent and discriminant validity of the four factors. This work advances our understanding of the LPFS-SR and provides support for the LPFS-SR as a valid marker of personality pathology in clinical and research settings. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".