Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Bagby, Et Al., 2005
Bagby, Et Al., 2005
Abstract
The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of
repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its
flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of
personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five-Factor Model of
personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet
traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to
clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of
psychiatric patients (n ¼ 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of
the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as
measured by a semi-structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor
Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self-report questionnaire, the Revised
NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). These results
provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured
by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and
scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a
way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the
limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders. Copyright # 2005
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
*Correspondence to: R. Michael Bagby, Ph.D., C. Psych., Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Clarke Site,
250 College Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 1R8. E-mail: michael_bagby@camh.net
The publication of the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) in 1980 by the American Psychiatric Association (APA, 1980) set forth
an innovative and influential formal classification system for the identification and
diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs). Although many specific modifications have been
made in subsequent editions of DSM, the basic structure and core features remain in the
most recent version—DSM-IV-TR (APA, 2000). The influence of this system in psychiatry
and clinical psychology is profound, dominating the research discourse and shaping
clinical consciousness on personality psychopathology for 25 years. These disorders have
created a common language from which clinicians draw to communicate quickly
important clinical description—the words ‘Borderline’, ‘Narcissistic’, and ‘Antisocial’,
for example, connote readily recognized ‘patient types’.
It is perhaps this, by now, intuitive diagnostic and clinical template that has kept the
Axis II personality disorder system in place, despite repeated criticisms and substantial
empirical evidence documenting its flaws (see e.g. Livesley, 1998; Westen & Arkowitz-
Westen, 1998; Widiger & Frances, 2002). Such criticisms have focused on the difficulties
in discriminating various traits, low levels of clinician agreement, and high levels of
comorbidity (Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997). Other concerns relate to the clinical utility
of the PDs, the extent to which PDs accurately and thoroughly cover the domain of
personality psychopathology (Westen & Arkowitz-Westen, 1998), and even the very
notion of maintaining discrete PD categories (Livesley, 1991). These latter problems, in
particular, cast doubt on the capacity of the DSM PDs to be fixed by simply tinkering with
existing concepts (Bornstein, 2003; Ryder, Bagby, & Schuller, 2002).
Over the past 10 years, in response to these and other issues, many researchers have
developed alternative models to describe and classify personality psychopathology (see
e.g. Clark, 1990; Clark, McEwen, Collard, & Hickok, 1993; Cloninger, 1987; Cloninger,
Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993; Harkness, 1992; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995;
Livesley, 1991; Livesley, Jackson, & Schroeder, 1989, 1991; Westen & Shedler, 1999a,
1999b). Among these efforts has been the application of existing and well validated
models of general personality functioning to understand personality psychopathology.
Prominent, in this regard, is the Five-Factor Model of Personality (FFM) as conceptualized
by Costa and McCrae (1992). The FFM is composed of five broad trait domains—
Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness (O), Conscientiousness (C), and Agree-
ableness (A)—each of which contains six lower-order trait facets. The domains emerged,
initially, from factor analysis of adjectives found in different languages. This method of
inquiry is referred to as the lexical–semantic hypothesis and posits that the most socially
relevant and salient personality characteristics have become encoded in the natural
language (John & Srivastava, 1999). Using this method, the same five domains or factors
have been repeatedly extracted and replicated in samples across a variety of languages and
cultures (McCrae & Costa, 1997; McCrae & Allik, 2002). Factor analytic investigations of
a variety of personality scales measuring traits not identified with the lexical approach
have typically uncovered the same five factors (see e.g. McCrae & Costa, 1997), further
substantiating the robustness of this model.
There are many aspects of the FFM that make it an appealing model for understanding
and conceptualizing personality pathology. Not only is the taxonomy widely used; each of
the five domains and 26 of the 30 personality traits facets are highly inheritable, with
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 309
additive genetic effects accounting for 25–65% of the reliable specific variance (Jang,
McCrae, Angleitner, Riemann, & Livesley, 1998). Moreover, a factor analytic
investigation using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa and
McCrae, 1992) in a diagnostically heterogeneous psychiatric sample revealed that the
same five factors extracted in non-patient samples could be recovered in patient samples
(Bagby et al., 1999).
In the current study we examine the relations between the FFM facets and DSM-IV PDs
using previously published hypothesized predictions as a theoretical basis for the current
hypotheses. Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (2002) updated a previous set of
predicted relations, which was based on the combined diagnostic criteria of the DSM-III-R
and the related literature for each PD (Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, & Costa, 1994)
using DSM-IV diagnostic criteria only, in order to tie them more specifically to DSM-IV
PD symptomatology. This recent prediction-set is thus based solely on the diagnostic
criterion sets for each of the disorders as specified in DSM-IV (see Appendix I). In contrast,
Lynam and Widiger (2001) expanded the predicted associations by obtaining FFM facet
descriptions of prototypic cases of each PD from 120 PD researchers. These FFM
descriptions are not confined to the DSM-IV diagnostic criteria and provide appreciably
more comprehensive and thorough FFM descriptions of each PD (see Appendix II). For
example, the Antisocial PD researchers’ FFM description of prototypic cases of this PD
included low anxiousness, low self-consciousness, high assertiveness, and low modesty (in
addition to facets of low C and low A) and the Obsessive–Compulsive PD researchers
included low impulsiveness, low excitement-seeking, low openness to values and ideas,
high anxiousness, high self-discipline, and high competence. These are potential aspects
of the personality profiles of prototypic cases of these PDs that may not be adequately
represented by the existing DSM-IV diagnostic criterion sets.
Some investigators have examined the associations between the FFM trait domain and
facets and the PDs using theoretically driven a priori predictions (i.e. Bagby, Schuller,
Marshall, & Ryder, 2004; Dyce & O’Connor, 1998; Huprich, 2003; Trull, Widiger, &
Burr, 2001; Trull et al., 1998; Yang et al., 2002) and other studies have examined this
question using the full set of FFM facets (Axelrod, Widiger, Trull, & Corbitt, 1997;
Huprich, 2003; Miller, Pilkonis, & Morse, 2004; Miller, Reynolds, & Pilkonis, 2004;
Reynolds & Clark, 2001). The results of these studies suggested that a better test of the
hypothesized relationships between the FFM and PDs might be obtained when analyses
are conducted at the level of the 30 facets of the FFM rather than the broader five domains
of personality functioning. The current study goes beyond previously conducted research
by including two different methods for the assessment of the FFM, self-report, and semi-
structured interview. Although previous investigations have examined the relations
between DSM PDs and the FFM using either self-report or semi-structured interview when
assessing the domains and facets of the FFM, no study has used both in validation research
efforts. Multi-modal personality trait assessment offers clear advantages over mono-
method assessment (Campbell & Fiske, 1959).
The current investigation examines the relations between the DSM-IV PDs and the FFM
in a sample of Canadian psychiatric patients using both the broad FFM trait domains and
two sets of specific FFM trait facets—those hypothesized by Widiger et al. (2002) to be
diagnostically prescriptive of individual PDs and those considered to be phenomen-
onologically prototypic of individual PDs (Lyman & Widiger, 2001; see Appendices I and
II for a full list of PD symptom-to-FFM trait predictions from which the hypotheses were
derived).
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
310 R. M. Bagby et al.
METHOD
Research participants
The sample consisted of 115 patients (53 men and 62 women) assessed at the Psycho-
logical Assessment Service at a large tertiary care, medical-school affiliated, psychiatric
facility located in a large metropolis. The mean age of this sample was 40.2 (SD ¼ 11.45).
The primary DSM-IV-based, Axis I diagnoses derived from the Structured Clinical
Interview for DSM-IV, Axis I Disorders—Patient version (SCID-I/P; First, Spitzer,
Gibbon, & Williams, 1995) consisted primarily of patients with mood and anxiety dis-
orders, but included some inpatients and some individuals with schizophrenia or substance
dependence.
Measures
The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders Questionnaire
(SCID-II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997a, 1997b)
The SCID-II is designed to assess the Axis II personality disorders and is the companion to
the SCID-I/P. The standard and recommended procedure for administering the SCID-II
follows a two-tiered procedure. First, respondents complete a 119-item self-report
questionnaire (SCID-II/PQ, First et al., 1997b) using a Yes/No response format. The 119
questions correspond to the diagnostic criteria for the 10 different personality disorders in
the main text of DSM-IV and the two additional PDs listed in Appendix B of DSM-IV (the
additional PDs were not considered in the current study). After the respondents have
completed the questionnaire, the interviewer/examiner identifies those personality dis-
orders for which the respondent endorsed the minimum criteria required for a diagnosis,
according to DSM-IV criteria. We did not include interview data in the current study, as full
interview data for every PD was not obtained, depending instead on the results of the
questionnaire. However, we did examine the correlations between questionnaire and
interview across those instances were both instruments were administered, and found that
the two methods were highly correlated despite the restriction in range caused by this
approach (r ¼ 0.70, p < 0.01).
Following the methodology used in previous investigations (see e.g. Huprich, 2003),
composite scales for each disorder (i.e. SCID-II PD scores) were constructed by summing
the item scores. Such scores provide a systematic and comprehensive assessment of each
PD in contrast to the SCID-II interview procedure, which typically involves deriving
categorical ratings for a subset of disorders. A number of studies have shown the
dimensional self-report scales to have reasonable validity (Carey, 1994; Ekselius,
Lindstrom, von Knorring, Bodlund, & Kullgren, 1994; Huprich, 2003; Jacobsberg, Perry,
& Frances, 1995; Neal, Fox, Carrol, Holden, & Barnes, 1997). Although the self-report
portion of the SCID-II has a tendency to over-diagnose (Jacobsberg et al., 1995), it is
thought to be a useful source of information related to the symptom traits of the DSM-IV
personality disorders as reflected by the patients’ view of their typical manner of thinking,
feeling and relating to others (Carey, 1994).
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 311
Table 1. Means, standard deviations and scale reliabilities for the domain and facets of the SIFFM
and NEO PI-R
FFM domain and facets SIFFM NEO PI-R SIFFM/
NEO-PI-R
Mean SD rm Mean SD rm rtt
Neuroticism 21.03 10.11 0.90 0.26 66.99 12.89 0.94 0.24 0.60
N1 Anxiety 3.34 2.59 0.85 0.60 62.33 11.70 0.84 0.40 0.54
N2 Angry Hostility 3.03 2.50 0.77 0.46 58.58 12.94 0.85 0.41 0.62
N3 Depression 4.77 2.31 0.76 0.45 69.77 12.24 0.87 0.47 0.46
N4 Self-consciousness 4.19 2.58 0.79 0.48 61.70 13.01 0.78 0.30 0.54
N5 Impulsiveness 2.02 1.84 0.63 0.29 52.96 11.61 0.70 0.23 0.42
N6 Vulnerability 3.68 2.40 0.74 0.42 70.34 15.00 0.81 0.35 0.43
Extraversion 20.26 10.32 0.91 0.29 38.54 12.51 0.91 0.18 0.72
E1 Warmth 3.47 2.03 0.62 0.29 39.23 13.91 0.81 0.36 0.38
E2 Gregariousness 3.57 1.95 0.68 0.34 43.78 11.73 0.77 0.30 0.55
E3 Assertiveness 3.38 2.69 0.82 0.53 42.85 10.87 0.77 0.30 0.69
E4 Activity 3.82 2.40 0.75 0.43 42.99 11.27 0.70 0.23 0.54
E5 Excitement-seeking 2.88 2.05 0.68 0.37 47.74 9.87 0.61 0.18 0.45
E6 Positive emotions 4.14 2.46 0.73 0.40 35.41 14.52 0.84 0.40 0.64
Openness 23.61 6.65 0.80 0.14 52.25 12.77 0.91 0.17 0.76
O1 Fantasy 2.53 1.60 0.59 0.31 53.58 11.56 0.79 0.31 0.51
O2 Aesthetics 4.44 1.72 0.69 0.34 53.45 11.31 0.81 0.36 0.64
O3 Feelings 5.77 1.82 0.53 0.23 51.95 12.86 0.76 0.29 0.62
O4 Actions 2.69 1.84 0.68 0.35 45.85 10.41 0.53 0.13 0.51
O5 Ideas 3.86 1.89 0.62 0.29 50.34 13.12 0.87 0.44 0.65
O6 Values 4.32 1.65 0.45 0.15 52.33 10.23 0.68 0.22 0.51
Agreeableness 30.89 5.59 0.67 0.08 49.56 12.13 0.89 0.15 0.51
A1 Trust 4.63 1.67 0.45 0.18 41.17 14.49 0.87 0.47 0.51
A2 Straightforwardness 5.77 1.56 0.51 0.25 50.06 10.04 0.67 0.20 0.45
A3 Altruism 5.02 1.73 0.43 0.15 47.78 12.71 0.78 0.31 0.41
A4 Compliance 5.02 1.86 0.56 0.24 48.09 12.41 0.71 0.23 0.48
A5 Modesty 5.37 1.82 0.59 0.26 57.94 12.42 0.80 0.34 0.47
A6 Tender-mindedness 5.08 1.98 0.58 0.26 53.74 10.98 0.61 0.18 0.42
Conscientiousness 28.77 7.80 0.81 0.14 37.02 14.85 0.94 0.23 0.79
C1 Competence 5.21 2.05 0.51 0.21 36.87 15.20 0.76 0.30 0.50
C2 Order 3.63 2.10 0.65 0.29 42.06 13.24 0.76 0.29 0.73
C3 Dutifulness 5.48 1.23 0.06 0.03 41.00 12.75 0.70 0.22 0.27
C4 Achievement striving 4.10 1.86 0.50 0.20 39.77 15.22 0.82 0.36 0.68
C5 Self-discipline 4.77 2.42 0.69 0.35 33.13 15.34 0.87 0.46 0.67
C6 Deliberation 5.58 2.01 0.63 0.30 49.74 12.77 0.81 0.35 0.64
rm ¼ mean inter-item correlation; ¼ Cronbach’s alpha; rtt ¼ corresponding correlation between SIFFM and
NEO PI-R.
C. The NEO PI-R consists of 240 self-report items answered on a five-point scale, with
separate scales for each of the five domains. Each scale consists of six correlated facets or
subscales with eight items for a total of 48 items for each scale (for a list of the facets
within each domain, see Table 1).
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
312 R. M. Bagby et al.
or 2 (present and may result in significant dysfunction). Initial research with the SIFFM
indicates good-to-excellent internal consistency and test–retest reliability, and excellent
convergent and discriminant validity with the NEO PI-R (Trull & Widiger, 1997; Trull
et al., 1998).
Procedure
All patients were assessed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis I
Disorders (Version 2.0/Patient Form) (SCID-I/P; First et al., 1995) and the SCID-II and
also completed the SIFFM and NEO PI-R. Advanced clinical psychology interns (n ¼ 5),
two M.A. level clinical psychologists, and a post-doctoral clinical fellow conducted the
interviews. Although inter-rater agreement was not formally determined, all interviewers
were trained extensively in the interview procedures and carefully observed and approved
by a Ph.D. level clinical psychologist prior to conducting any interview.
Although not the primary aim of the study, the first set of analyses examined the
psychometric properties of the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM and the correlations between
the domain and facets scales from these two instruments, as the validity and reliability
of the SIFFM has yet to be examined extensively, especially in clinical samples. Next, the
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First
et al., 1997a, 1997b) was also administered. The next set of analyses examined the
predicted relations between the facets of the FFM and the PDs using bivariate correlations
between PD symptom counts from the SCID-II and scores from the SIFFM and NEO PI-R.
Finally, a series of hierarchical, linear regression analyses were performed to assess which
of the hypothesized SIFFM and NEO PI-R traits were significant predictors of PDs.
RESULTS
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 313
Estimates of scale homogeneity for both the domains and facets for the NEO PI-R and
SIFFM are also displayed in Table 1. Overall, these estimates are in the range indicating
acceptable scale homogeneity (Briggs & Cheek, 1986; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994),
although the alpha coefficient and mean inter-item correlation for the SIFFM A domain
scale were somewhat below the recommended standards. Some of the facet scores were
less than optimal, with one particularly outstanding example being the Dutifulness facet of
C for the SIFFM.
The SIFFM and NEO PI-R demonstrated good to excellent convergent validity for most
of their assessments of the domains and facets of the FFM. Convergent cross-method
validity coefficients for the domains of N, E, O, and C ranged from 0.74 to 0.82. The
convergent validity for the assessment of the domain of A, however, was 0.54, reflecting
perhaps the relatively low internal consistency obtained by the SIFFM assessment of this
domain. No off-diagonal coefficients exceeded an absolute value of 0.40, suggesting good
discriminant validity at the domain level. Convergent validity coefficients for the
assessment of facets of the FFM were also generally high; the lowest convergent
coefficients were found for the dutifulness facet of C and the altruism facet of A.
Examination of facet-level discriminant validity was beyond the scope of this paper, as
such investigation begins to explore the construct validity of the FFM, and not simply the
convergence of two methods of measuring this model.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Table 2. Zero-order correlations between the NEO PI-R and SIFFM facets and SCID-II Personality Disorder Scales
314
Paranoid Schizoid Schizotypal Antisocial Borderline Histrionic Narcissistic Avoidant Dependent Obsessive-Compulsive
SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO SIFFM NEO
PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R PI-R
Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r Pred. r r
Neuroticism 53** 39** 18* 19* 51** 37** 16 10 66** 57** 01 09 38** 40** 57** 63** 38** 46** 24* 31**
N1: Anxiety 43** 33** 16 19* (H) H 44** 41** L 06 04 (H) H 50** 53** 03 02 22* 32** (H) H 49** 54** (H) H 40** 38** H 21* 22*
N2: Angry Hostility (H) H 46** 44** 16 15 27** 24** (H) H 17 22* (H) H 53** 55** 01 22* (H) H 38** 45** 18 32** 13 21* 28** 33**
N3: Depression 44** 31** 29** 16 40** 27** 08 00 (H) H 47** 38** (H) 16 04 13 22* (H) 49** 54** 32** 39** 13 28**
N4: Self-consciousness 28** 29** 10 10 (H) H 37** 31** L 05 04 39** 36** (H) L 06 03 (H) L 22* 27** (H) H 60** 59** (H) H 21* 33** 11 30**
N5: Impulsiveness 26** 22* 12 13 19* 13 H 28** 10 (H) H 44** 38** H 32** 14 49** 32** L 09 35** 34** 32** L 14 12
N6: Vulnerability 38** 19* 15 13 45** 31** 09 04 (H) H 48** 38** 04 05 24** 26** (H) H 51** 51** (H) H 25** 46** 14 15
R. M. Bagby et al.
Extraversion 28** 25** 46** 37** 35** 27** 08 07 22* 24** 37** 22* 04 08 60** 58** 19* 24* 04 11
E1: Warmth L 18* 28** (L) L 40** 32** (L) L 26** 27** 07 08 15 29** (H) 39** 11 L 01 24** 42** 40** (H) 08 12 05 18
E2: Gregariousness L 25** 19* (L) L 44** 33** (L) L 32** 28** 06 01 29** 29** (H) H 20* 12 15 11 (L) L 40** 50** 14 20 03 14
E3: Assertiveness 24** 24* L 33** 20* 33** 27** H 12 10 17 21* 17 03 H 05 04 (L) L 60** 56** (L) L 26** 34** (H) 04 05
E4: Activity 26** 12 L 36** 27** 20* 06 H 06 11 15 01 H 37** 27** 02 07 45** 30** 14 08 08 06
Pred. ¼ Five Factor Model facet traits predicted to be associated with DSM-IV PDs. L ¼ low score on facet and H ¼ high score on facet. Parenthesized letters refer to Widiger et al.
(2002) diagnostic based prediction and non-parenthesized letters refer to Lynam & Widiger (2001) expert-based consensus predictions. **p < 0.01; *p < 0.05.
Comparable support was obtained for the hypothesized relationships with the Avoidant
PD. All of the predicted associations with the four facets of low E were confirmed with
both the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM (i.e. low gregariousness, low assertiveness and low
excitement-seeking), as were the predicted associations with low openness to actions and
high modesty. Three of the N facet predictions were confirmed with both the SIFFM and
the NEO PI-R (i.e. self-consciousness, anxiousness, and vulnerability). The researchers’
description of the prototypic Avoidant as being low in impulsiveness was not confirmed,
but the prediction by Widiger et al. (2002) of an association with depressiveness was
demonstrated using both assessment instruments.
The two sets of facet predictions obtained more modest support in four further PDs. Low
trust, angry hostility, low straightforwardness, and low compliance are FFM facets that are
perhaps particularly important for the FFM conceptualization of the Paranoid PD (Widiger
et al., 2002) and all four of these predicted associations were confirmed by the NEO PI-R,
as were the researchers’ additional descriptions of low warmth, low gregariousness, low
altruism, and low tender-mindedness. The predictions for low openness to activities and
low openness to values were not confirmed with either the NEO PI-R or the SIFFM,
suggesting that these FFM facets are not in fact central to the psychopathology of this PD.
Most of the facet predictions for the Narcissistic PD were also confirmed with the NEO PI-
R, notably low modesty, low altruism, high openness to fantasy, and angry hostility.
Confirmed for the Antisocial PD were the predicted association with facets of antagonism
(i.e. the exploitation of low altruism and the aggression and opposition of low compliance)
and low C (low dutifulness and low deliberation), along with the N facet of angry hostility.
The Histrionic PD is conceptualized by the FFM primarily in terms of E (Millon et al.,
1994; Widiger et al., 2002). Predicted correlations were obtained for the E facets of
warmth, gregariousness, activity, excitement-seeking, and positive emotionality, as well as
for the facet of openness to fantasy.
Weak results, however, were obtained for two PDs: Dependent and Obsessive–
Compulsive. From the perspective of the FFM, the Dependent PD is defined to a great
extent in terms of maladaptively excessive A and the Obsessive–Compulsive PD is defined
by maladaptively excessive C (Widiger et al., 2002). However, none of the facets of A
correlated positively with Dependent PD symptomatology and none of the facets of C
correlated with Obsessive–Compulsive PD.
Regression analyses—domain level
Table 3 provides the results from regression analyses using the NEO PI-R and SIFFM
domain scores as the predictor variables and the SCID-II for each of the 10 criterion
variables. The domain scores of both the NEO PI-R and SIFFM were statistically
significant predictors for each of the ten DSM-IV PDs, suggesting that traits derived from
the realm of general personality can account for much of the variance associated with
DSM-IV personality psychopathology. At the domain level, both the NEO PI-R and the
SIFFM were particularly effective in predicting symptom counts associated with
Borderline, Narcissistic, and Avoidant PDs. On the other hand, both instruments were
poorer predictors of Antisocial PD traits.
The NEO PI-R and SIFFM performed remarkably similar to one another in the
prediction of PD psychopathology, with neither instrument or method conferring a clear
predictive advantage over the other. In combination, the NEO PI-R and the SIFFM always
yielded higher effect sizes than either single instrument, although the differences between
the mean R2 values did not attain statistical significance (i.e. using Fisher’s Z-tests).
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
316 R. M. Bagby et al.
Table 3. Hierarchical regression predicting SCID-II Personality Disorder Symptom Counts with
SIFFM and NEO PI-R domain scores
Predictions
Table 4. Hierarchical regression predicting SCID-II Personality Disorder Symptom Counts with
Widiger et al. (2002) predicted facets of the SIFFM and NEO PI-R
Predictions
R2 F df R2 F df R2 F df
Paranoid 0.34 14.40** 4, 110 0.29 11.36** 4, 110 0.41 9.23** 8, 106
Schizoid 0.28 10.78** 4, 110 0.24 8.68** 4, 110 0.33 6.57** 8, 106
Schizotypal 0.44 9.35** 9, 105 0.30 4.88** 9, 105 0.50 5.32** 18, 96
Antisocial 0.18 2.49* 9, 105 0.24 3.61** 9, 105 0.28 2.12* 18, 96
Borderline 0.48 12.37** 8, 106 0.46 11.30** 8, 106 0.60 9.28** 16, 98
Histrionic 0.22 3.30** 9, 105 0.13 1.71 9, 105 0.28 2.02* 18, 96
Narcissistic 0.26 5.36** 7, 107 0.38 9.20** 7, 107 0.43 5.43** 14, 100
Avoidant 0.55 18.87** 7, 107 0.50 15.50** 7, 107 0.62 11.80** 14, 100
Dependent 0.20 2.88** 9, 105 0.20 2.88** 9, 105 0.35 2.91** 18, 96
Obsessive–Compulsive 0.05 0.78 7, 107 0.11 1.94 7, 107 0.17 1.47 14, 100
Mean R2 0.30 0.28 0.42
Range 0.05–0.55 0.11–0.50 0.17–0.62
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 317
Table 5. Hierarchical regression predicting SCID-II Personality Disorder Symptom Counts with
Lynam and Widiger (2001) predicted facets of the SIFFM and NEO PI-R
Predictions
R2 F df R2 F df R2 F df
Paranoid 0.38 6.28** 10, 104 0.31 4.70** 10, 104 0.48 4.40** 20, 94
Schizoid 0.30 5.76** 8, 106 0.28 5.24** 8, 106 0.39 3.88** 16, 98
Schizotypal 0.28 5.94** 7, 107 0.20 3.75** 7, 107 0.32 3.36** 14, 100
Antisocial 0.22 1.66 17, 97 0.27 2.16** 17, 97 0.36 1.30 34, 80
Borderline 0.52 14.67** 8, 106 0.51 13.99** 8, 106 0.64 11.03** 16, 98
Histrionic 0.30 3.63** 12, 102 0.20 2.09* 12, 102 0.35 2.01** 24, 90
Narcissistic 0.30 3.33** 13, 101 0.35 4.14** 13, 101 0.42 2.41** 26, 88
Avoidant 0.57 13.63** 10, 104 0.54 12.00** 10, 104 0.66 9.21** 20, 94
Dependent 0.19 3.62** 7, 107 0.24 4.75** 7, 107 0.32 3.40** 14, 100
Obsessive–Compulsive 0.24 2.51** 13, 101 0.26 2.79** 13, 101 0.37 2.00** 26, 88
Mean R2 0.33 0.31 0.43
Range of scores 0.19–0.57 0.20–0.54 0.32–0.66
Facet-to-domain comparison
It is evident from Tables 4 and 5 that the proportion of variance accounted for by the FFM
instruments was generally higher when the analyses used the facets rather than the domain
scales. The domains never accounted for more variance than did the facets in the
prediction of individual PDs.
Method comparison
Overall, the R2 values for the NEO PI-R and SIFFM facets were largely the same as they
were at the broader domain level. Across the individual PDs, regardless of the prediction-
set used, neither instrument was consistently better than the other. Notably, on the 26
occasions when an a priori prediction was supported by only one instrument, that
instrument was the NEO PI-R in 73% of the cases. This finding is attributable, at least in
part, to some shared method between the SCID-II and the NEO PI-R. As with the domains,
multimethod assessment yielded higher effect sizes although again these differences
generally did not reach conventional levels of statistical significance.
Facet prediction-set comparison
Examination of the combined SIFFM and NEO PI-R trait facet predictors in comparison of
the Widiger et al. (2002) and Lynam and Widiger (2001) predictors also reveals that each
set of predictor traits performed about the same in assessing PD symptoms. Finally, for the
56 agreed upon by both sets of authors, 52% were confirmed by both instruments;
however, one-quarter of these theoretically more robust predictions were not confirmed by
either instrument.
DISCUSSION
The DSM-IV PDs are the result of a rich history of clinical experience and clinical theory
(Millon et al., 1994). A commonly raised criticism, however, is that the diagnoses have
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
318 R. M. Bagby et al.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 319
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
320 R. M. Bagby et al.
proceed, it also suffers from the same lack of theoretical consistency as the existing PDs.
Moreover, the success of these models in predicting DSM personality disorder
psychopathology is hardly a surprise, given that both dependent and independent variables
share a common ancestry. The success of the FFM in predicting many of these same PDs,
in contrast, is striking. Despite being developed using a different starting point and for
different populations, its conception of ‘normal’ personality has proven broad enough to
encompass many abnormal variants. Although there remain areas of weakness in
FFM PAR SZD SZT ATS BDL HST NAR AVD DEP OBC
Neuroticism
Anxiety H H H H
Angry Hostility H H H H
Depression H H H
Self-consciousness H H H H H
Impulsiveness H
Vulnerability H H H
Extraversion
Warmth L L H H
Gregariousness L L H L
Assertiveness L L H
Activity
Excitement seeking H H L
Positive emotions L L H
Openness to Experience
Fantasy H H H
Aesthetics
Feelings L H
Actions H
Ideas H
Values L
Agreeableness
Trust L L L H H
Straightforwardness L L
Altruism L L H
Compliance L L L H L
Modesty L H
Tender mindedness L L
Conscientiousness
Competence L H
Order H
Dutifulness L H
Achievement striving H H
Self-discipline L
Deliberation L
Adapted from Costa and Widiger (2002); H ¼ high; L ¼ low; Personality disorders: PAR ¼ Paranoid;
SZD ¼ Schizoid; SZT ¼ Schizotypal; ATS ¼ Antisocial; BDL ¼ Borderline; HST ¼ Histrionic; NAR ¼ Narcissis-
Narcissistic; AVD ¼ Avoidant; DEP ¼ Dependent; OBC ¼ Obsessive–compulsive.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 321
FFM PAR SZD SZT ATS BDL HST NAR AVD DEP OBC
Neuroticism
Anxiety H L H H H H
Angry Hostility H H H H
Depression H
Self-consciousness H L L L H H
Impulsiveness H H H L L
Vulnerability H H H
Extraversion
Warmth L L L L
Gregariousness L L L H L
Assertiveness L H H L L
Activity L H H
Excitement seeking L H H H L L
Positive emotions L L H L
Openness to Experience
Fantasy H
Aesthetics
Feelings L H H L L
Actions L L H H H H L L
Ideas H L
Values L L
Agreeableness
Trust L L H L H
Straightforwardness L L L
Altruism L L L
Compliance L L L H
Modesty L L H H
Tender mindedness L L L
Conscientiousness
Competence H
Order L H
Dutifulness L H
Achievement striving H
Self-discipline L L H
Deliberation L L L H
Adapted from Lynam and Widiger (2001); H ¼ high; L ¼ low; Personality disorders: PAR ¼ Paranoid;
SZD ¼ Schizoid; SZT ¼ Schizotypal; ATS ¼ Antisocial; BDL ¼ Borderline; HST ¼ Histrionic; NAR ¼ Narcissis-
Narcissistic; AVD ¼ Avoidant; DEP ¼ Dependent; OBC ¼ Obsessive–compulsive.
predicting some aspects of personality psychopathogy (areas that could benefit from the
predictions offered by competing models), it is our contention that future editions of the
diagnostic nomenclature can, and should, be represented by a dimensional model
structured around the FFM. Not only would such a shift eliminate many of the current
problems associated with relying on a categorical system of PDs; it would also confer upon
this complex field the conceptual unity provided by an overarching, and oft-studied,
general model of personality functioning.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
322 R. M. Bagby et al.
REFERENCES
Alden, L. E., Laposa, J. M., Taylor, C. T., & Ryder, A. G. (2002). Avoidant personality disorder:
Current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 1–29.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental
disorders (4th edn., Text Revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Axelrod, S. R., Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., & Corbitt, E. M. (1997). Relations of five-factor model
antagonism facets with personality disorder symptomatology. Journal of Personality Assessment,
69, 297–313.
Bagby, R. M., Bindseill, K. D., Rector, N. A., Schuller, D. R., Joffe, R. J., Young, L. T., Seeman,
M. V., & Cooke, R. G. (1997). The relationship between the five-factor model of personality and
unipolar, bipolar, and schizophrenia. Psychiatry Research, 70, 83–94.
Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T. Jr., McCrae, R. R., Livesley, W. J., Kennedy, S. H., Levitan, R. D., Levitt,
A. J., Joffe, R. T., & Young, L. T. (1999). Replicating the five factor model of personality in a
psychiatric sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1135–1139.
Bagby, R. M., Schuller, D. R., Marshall, M. B., & Ryder, A. G. (2004). Depressive Personality
Disorder: Rates of comorbidity with personality disorders and relations to the Five-Factor Model
of Personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 542–554.
Blais, M. A. (1997). Clinician ratings of the five-factor model of personality and the DSM-IV
personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 185, 388–393.
Bornstein, R. F. (2003). Behaviorally referenced experimentation and symptom validation:
A paradigm for 21st century personality disorder research. Journal of Personality Disorders,
17, 1–18.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of
personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54, 106–148.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait–
multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Carey, K. B. (1994). Use of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality
Questionnaire in the presence of severe axis I disorders: A cautionary note. Journal of Nervous
and Mental Disease, 182, 669–671.
Clark, L. A. (1990). Toward a consensual set of symptom clusters for the assessment of personality
disorder. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 8).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. (1997). Personality disorder assessment: The challenge of
construct validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 205–231.
Clark, L. A., McEwen, J. L., Collard, L. M., & Hickok, L. G. (1993). Symptoms and traits
of personality disorder: Two new methods for their assessment. Psychological Assessment, 5,
81–91.
Cloninger, C. R. (1987). A systematic method for clinical description and classification of
personality variants. Archives of General Psychiatry, 44, 573–588.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of
temperament and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975–990.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1994). ‘Set like plaster’? Evidence for the stability of adult
personality. In T. Heatherton, & J. Weinberger (Eds.), Can personality change? (pp. 21–40).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dyce, J. A., & O’Connor, B. P. (1998). Personality disorders and the five-factor model: A test of the
facet-level predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 31–45.
Ekselius, L., Lindstrom, E., von Knorring, L., Bodlund, O., & Kullgren, G. (1994). SCID II
interviews and the SCID Screen questionnaire as diagnostic tools for personality disorders in
DSM-III-R. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 90, 120–123.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
Personality disorder and the Five-Factor Model 323
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997a). Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders. Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Press.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997b). Structured
Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders Self-Report. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, J. B. W. (1995). Structured Clinical Interview
for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders—Patient edition (Version 2.0). New York: New York Biometrics
Research Department.
Frances, A., & Widiger, T. A. (1986). Methodological issues in personality disorder diagnosis. In T.
Millon, & G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in psychopathology: Toward the DSM-
IV (pp. 381–400). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of NEO-PI-R items. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 77, 339–358.
Harkness, A. R. (1992). Fundamental topics in the personality disorders: Candidate trait dimensions
from lower regions of the hierarchy. Psychological Assessment, 4, 251–259.
Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology Five
(PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104–114.
Huprich, S. K. (2003). Evaluating NEO Personality Inventory—Revised profiles in veterans with
personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 17, 33–44.
Hyer, L., Braswell, L., Albrecht, B., Boyd, S., Boudewyns, & Talbert, S. (1994). Relationship of
NEO-PI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50, 699–707.
Jacobsberg, L., Perry, S., & Frances, A. (1995). Diagnostic agreement between the SCID-II
screening questionnaire and the personality disorder examination. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 65, 428–433.
Jang, K. L., McCrae, R. R., Angleitner, A., Riemann, R., & Livesley, W. J. (1998). Heritability of
facets-level traits in a cross-cultural twin sample: Support for a hierarchical model of personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1556–1565.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and
theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory
and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford.
Livesley, W. J. (1991). Classifying personality disorders: Ideal types, prototypes, or dimensions?
Journal of Personality Disorders, 5, 52–59.
Livesley, W. J. (1995). Past achievements and future directions. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), The DSM-IV
personality disorders (pp. 497–505). New York: Guilford.
Livesley, W. J. (1998). Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of
personality disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 137–147.
Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N., & Schroeder, M. L. (1989). A study of the factorial structure of
personality psychopathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3, 292–306.
Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N., & Schroeder, M. L. (1991). Dimensions of personality
psychopathology. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36, 557–562.
Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five-factor model to represent the DSM-IV
personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110,
401–412.
McCrae, R. R., & Allik, J. (2002). The Five-Factor Model across cultures. New York: Kluwer–
Plenum.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American
Psychologist, 52, 509–516.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P.
John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 130–153). New York:
Guilford.
Miller, J. D., Pilkonis, P. A., & Morse, J. Q. (2004a). Five factor model prototypes for personality
disorders: The utility of self-reports and observer ratings. Assessment, 11, 127–138.
Miller, J. D., Reynolds, S. K., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2004b). The validity of the five-factor model
prototypes for personality disorders in two clinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 16,
310–322.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)
324 R. M. Bagby et al.
Millon, T., Davis, R. D., Millon, M., Wenger, A., Van Zuilen, M. H., Fuchs, M., & Millon, R. B.
(1994). Disorders of personality. DSM-IV and beyond. New York: Wiley.
Morey, L. C., Gunderson, J., Quigley, B. D., & Lyons, M. (2000). Dimensions and categories: The
‘Big Five’ factors and the DSM personality disorders. Assessment, 7, 203–216.
Neal, L. A., Fox, C., Carroll, N., Holden, M., & Barnes, P. (1997). Development and validation of a
computerized screening test for personality disorders in DSM-III-R. Acta Psychiatrica
Scandinavica, 95, 351–356.
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from domains
and facets of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199–222.
Ryder, A. G., Bagby, R. M., & Schuller, D. R. (2002). The overlap of depressive personality disorder
and dysthymia: A categorical problem with a dimensional solution. Harvard Review of Psychiatry,
10, 337–352.
Shiner, R. L. (1998). How shall we speak of children’s personalities in middle childhood? A
preliminary taxonomy. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 308–322.
Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI-2
Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5), the NEO-PI, and NEO-PI-R. Psychological
Assessment, 7, 508–516.
Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (1997). Structured interview for the five-factor model of personality:
Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., & Burr, R. (2001). A structured interview for the assessment of the five-
factor model of personality: Facet-level relations to the Axis II personality dimensions. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 69, 175–198.
Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Useda, J. D., Holcomb, J., Doan, B. T., Axelrod, S. R., Stern, B. L., &
Gershuny, B. S. (1998). A structured interview for the assessment of the five-factor model of
personality. Psychological Assessment, 10, 229–240.
Westen, D., & Arkowitz-Westen, L. (1998). Limitations of axis II in diagnosing personality
pathology in clinical practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 1767–1771.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999a). Revising and assessing axis II: I—Developing a clinically and
empirically valid assessment method. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 258–272.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (1999b). Revising and assessing axis II: II—Toward an empirically based
and clinically useful classification of personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 156,
273–285.
Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. J. (2002). Toward a dimensional model for the personality disorders. In
P. T. Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality (pp. 23–44). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). A description of the
DSM-III-R and DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In P. T.
Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality
(pp. 41–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2002). A description
of the DSM-IV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa, Jr., &
T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 9–
99). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Yang, J., Dai, X., Yao, S., Cai., T., Gao, B., McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2002). Personality
disorders and the five-factor model of personality in Chinese psychiatric patients. In P. T. Costa,
Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 215–
221). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Copyright # 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Pers. 19: 307–324 (2005)