The DAPP-BQ in the Netherlands: Factor structure and relationship with basic personality dimensions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
0.20 in a sample of 223 normal subjects, Cronbach's α coefficients were calculated for the remaining items in the 18 scales of this instrument. The ‘Dutch’ α coefficients proved to be satisfactory. Furthermore, the Dutch DAPP-BQ scales were factor analyzed, retaining four factors. Three of these factors proved to be identical (Emotional Dysregulation and Dissocial) or nearly identical (Compulsivity) to the Canadian factors. However, the original factor Inhibition was not the same as the remaining Dutch factor Intimacy Problems. In a sample of 115 students, the estimated scores for the Dutch Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) factors were correlated with the scales of Van Kampen's Four-Dimensional Personality Test. As expected, Emotional Dysregulation was found to correlate with Neuroticism, Dissocial with Insensitivity, and Compulsivity with Orderliness. The Intimacy Problems factor proved to be negatively correlated with Extraversion. The results obtained are embedded in the context of the evidence favoring a dimensional model of personality disorder. Furthermore, Livesley's proposal that separate diagnostic criteria for the existence of a personality disorder must be formulated to supplement the assessment by means of the DAPP-BQ is critically 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 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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".