Advertisement

Self-Ratings of Personality Pathology: Insights Regarding Their Validity and Treatment Utility

  • Kasey StantonEmail author
  • Matthew F. D. Brown
  • Meredith A. Bucher
  • Caroline Balling
  • Douglas B. Samuel
Personality Disorders (M Zimmerman, Section Editor)
  • 13 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Personality Disorders

Abstract

Purpose of review

The validity of self-ratings of personality pathology often is questioned because personality disorders (PD) historically have been viewed as being characterized by poor insight. However, recent research indicates that PD self-ratings are valid in many ways and have significant clinical utility. Building upon this growing literature, our goal here is to provide practical discussion of how incorporating dimensional PD ratings into assessment protocols can benefit diagnosis and treatment.

Recent findings

We first review evidence suggesting that PD self-ratings are particularly useful for assessing constructs related to individuals’ own subjective experiences (e.g., propensities for experiencing negative mood states). We then highlight research indicating that PD self-ratings (a) change positively with intervention and (b) meaningfully inform diagnosis, treatment planning, and treatment outcome. Finally, we illustrate how freely available, well-validated self-report PD measures can be used to efficiently obtain clinically useful information in a manner comprehensible to both practitioners and patients.

Summary

Self-ratings of personality pathology are valid and useful in many ways and can be efficiently incorporated into assessment protocols. Key future directions for advancing knowledge of self-report PD assessment include examining the extent to which self-ratings of antagonism—a core PD trait—are accurate across contexts.

Keywords

Self-report assessment Personality pathology Personality disorder Clinical utility Dimensional models 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Kasey Stanton declares that he has no conflict of interest. Matthew F. D. Brown declares that he has no conflict of interest. Meredith A. Bucher declares that she has no conflict of interest. Caroline Balling declares that she has no conflict of interest. Douglas B. Samuel declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Human and animal rights and informed consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as:• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publishing; 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Clarkin JF, Cain NM, Lenzenweger MF. Advances in transference-focused psychotherapy derived from the study of borderline personality disorder: clinical insights with a focus on mechanism. Curr Opin Psychol. 2018;21:80–5.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.09.008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Diamond D, Yeomans FE, Stern B, Levy KN, Hörz S, Doering S, et al. Transference focused psychotherapy for patients with comorbid narcissistic and borderline personality disorder. Psychoanal Inq. 2013;33:527–51.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07351690.2013.815087.
  4. 4.
    Krueger RF. Continuity of Axes I and II: toward a unified model of personality, personality disorders, and clinical disorders. J Personal Disord. 2005;19:233–61.  https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.3.233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Haeffel GJ, Howard GS. Self-report: psychology’s four-letter word. Am J Psychol. 2010;123:181–8.  https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.2.0181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Carlson EN, Vazire S, Oltmanns TF. You probably think this paper’s about you: narcissists’ perceptions of their personality and reputation. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2011;101:185–201.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023781.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller JD, Sleep CE, Lamkin J, Vize C, Campbell WK, Lynam DR. Personality disorder traits: perceptions of likability, impairment, and ability to change as correlates and moderators of desired level. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2018;9:478–83.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Samuel DB, Suzuki T, Bucher MA, Griffin SA. The agreement between clients’ and their therapists’ ratings of personality disorder traits. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2018;86:546–55.  https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    • Bucher MA, Suzuki T, Samuel DB. A meta-analytic review of personality traits and their associations with mental health treatment outcomes. Clinical Psychology Review. 2019;70:51–63.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2019.04.002 Meta-analytic research indicating that personality traits meaningfully predict treatment outcome in many ways.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Med. 2012;42:1879–90.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Watson D, Clark LA. Personality traits as an organizing framework for personality pathology. Personality and Mental Health Advance online publication doi. 2019.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1458.
  12. 12.
    Widiger TA, Sellbom M, Chmielewski M, Clark LA, DeYoung CG, Kotov R, et al. Personality in a hierarchical model of psychopathology. Clin Psychol Sci. 2019;7:77–92.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618797105.
  13. 13.
    Watson D, Stanton K, Khoo S, Ellickson-Larew S, Stasik-O’Brien SM. Extraversion and psychopathology: a multilevel hierarchical review. J Res Pers. 2019;81:1–10.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.04.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wright AGC, Simms LJ. On the structure of personality disorder traits: conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2014;5:43–54.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000037.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    • Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., . . . Zimmerman, M. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 454–477. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258 Key article presenting a dimensional nosological framework that represents an alternative to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
  16. 16.
    • Sleep CE, Lamkin J, Lynam DR, Campbell WK, Miller JD. Personality disorder traits: testing insight regarding presence of traits, impairment, and desire for change. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. 2019;10:123–31 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000305Recent study demonstrating that individuals possess considerable insight into their own pathological personality traits.
  17. 17.
    Carlson EN. Honestly arrogant or simply misunderstood? Narcissists’ awareness of their narcissism. Self Identity. 2013;12:259–77.  https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2012.659427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    LeDoux JE, Hofmann SG. The subjective experience of emotion: a fearful view. Curr Opin Behav Sci. 2018;19:67–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cobeha.2017.09.011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Naragon-Gainey K, McMahon TP, Park J. The contributions of affective traits and emotion regulation to internalizing disorders: current state of the literature and measurement challenges. Am Psychol. 2018;73:1175–86.  https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vazire S. Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2010;98:281–300.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0017908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Hopwood CJ, Morey LC, Edelen MO, Shea MT, Grilo CM, Sanislow CA, et al. A comparison of interview and self-report methods for the assessment of borderline personality disorder criteria. Psychol Assess. 2008;20:81–5.  https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.1.81.
  22. 22.
    Samuel DB, Suzuki T, Griffin SA. Clinicians and clients disagree: five implications for clinical science. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016;125:1001–10.  https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sun J, Vazire S. Do people know what they’re like in the moment? Psychol Sci. 2019;30:405–14.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618818476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gnambs T. A meta-analysis of dependability coefficients (test–retest reliabilities) for measures of the Big Five. J Res Pers. 2014;52:20–8.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2014.06.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Allan J, Leeson P, De Fruyt F, Martin S. Application of a 10 week coaching program designed to facilitate volitional personality change: overall effects on personality and the impact of targeting. International Journal of Evidence Based Coaching and Mentoring. 2018;16:80–94.  https://doi.org/10.24384/000470.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Roberts BW, Hill PL, Davis JP. How to change conscientiousness: the sociogenomic trait intervention model. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2017;8:199–205.  https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    • Roberts BW, Luo J, Briley DA, Chow PI, Su R, Hill PL. A systematic review of personality trait change through intervention. Psychological Bulletin. 2017;143:117–41.  https://doi.org/10.1037/bul000008 Key meta-analytic study indicating that personality traits can be positively changed with intervention.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Hudson NW, Fraley RC. Volitional personality trait change: can people choose to change their personality traits? J Pers Soc Psychol. 2015;109:490–507.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hudson NW, Briley DA, Chopik WJ, Derringer J. You have to follow through: attaining behavioral change goals predicts volitional personality change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Advance online publication. 2018.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000221.
  30. 30.
    Lahey BB. Public health significance of neuroticism. Am Psychol. 2009;64:241–56.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sisti D, Segal AG, Siegel AM, Johnson R, Gunderson J. Diagnosing, disclosing, and documenting borderline personality disorder: a survey of psychiatrists’ practices. J Personal Disord. 2016;30:848–56.  https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ozer DJ, Benet-Martínez V. Personality and the prediction of consequential outcomes. Annu Rev Psychol. 2006;57:401–21.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Samuel DB, Sanislow CA, Hopwood CJ, Shea MT, Skodol AE, Morey LC, et al. Convergent and incremental predictive validity of clinician, self-report, and structured interview diagnoses for personality disorders over 5 years. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2013;81:650–9.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032813.
  34. 34.
    Gunderson JG, Links PS, Reich JH. Competing models of personality disorders. J Personal Disord. 1991;5:60–8.  https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1991.5.1.60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bach B, Markon K, Simonsen E, Krueger RF. Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders: six cases from practice. J Psychiatr Pract. 2015;21:3–25.  https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pra.0000460618.02805.ef.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Glover NG, Crego C, Widiger TA. The clinical utility of the five-factor model of personality disorder. Personal Disord Theory Res Treat. 2012;3:176–84.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024030.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Morey LC, Skodol AE, Oldham JM. Clinician judgments of clinical utility: a comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model for DSM-5 personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:398–405.  https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Samuel DB, Widiger TA. Clinicians’ use of personality disorder models within a particular treatment setting: a longitudinal comparison of temporal consistency and clinical utility. Personal Ment Health. 2011;5:12–28.  https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Herpertz SC, Huprich SK, Bohus M, Chanen A, Goodman M, Mehlum L, et al. The challenge of transforming the diagnostic system of personality disorders. J Personal Disord. 2017;31:577–89.  https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_338.
  40. 40.
    Tyrer P, Mulder R, Kim YR, Crawford MJ. The development of the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders: an amalgam of science, pragmatism, and politics. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2019;15:481–502.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095736.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Oltmanns JR, Widiger TA. A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional trait model proposal: the personality inventory for ICD-11. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:154–69.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A, Dahlstrom WG, Kaemmer B. MMPI–2: manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Rev. ed. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press; 2001.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hofmann SG, Hayes SC. The future of intervention science: process-based therapy. Clin Psychol Sci. 2019;7:37–50.  https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618772296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    du Pont A, Rhee SH, Corley RP, Hewitt JK, Friedman NP. Are rumination and neuroticism genetically or environmentally distinct risk factors for psychopathology? J Abnorm Psychol. 2019;128:385–96.  https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Stanton K, Rozek DC, Ellickson-Larew S, Stasik-O’Brien SM, Watson D. A transdiagnostic approach to examining the incremental predictive power of emotion regulation and basic personality dimensions. J Abnorm Psychol. 2016;125:960–75.  https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Maples JL, Guan L, Carter NT, Miller JD. A test of the International Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five-factor model. Psychol Assess. 2014;26:1070–84.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    • Waszczuk, M. A., Zimmerman, M., Ruggero, C., Li, K., MacNamara, A., Weinberg, A., . . . Kotov, R. (2017). What do clinicians treat: diagnoses or symptoms? The incremental validity of a symptom-based, dimensional characterization of emotional disorders in predicting medication prescription patterns. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 79, 80–88. doi:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.04.004 Key study indicating that psychiatric medication prescription corresponds more closely with homogeneous symptom dimensions than heterogenous diagnostic categories.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Simms LJ, Goldberg LR, Roberts JE, Watson D, Welte J, Rotterman JH. Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: introducing the CAT–PD Project. J Pers Assess. 2011;93:380–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.577475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Crego C, Oltmanns JR, Widiger TA. FFMPD scales: comparisons with the FFM, PID-5, and CAT-PD-SF. Psychol Assess. 2018;30:62–73.  https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Fossati A, Somma A, Borroni S, Markon KE, Krueger RF. The personality inventory for DSM-5 brief form: evidence for reliability and construct validity in a sample of community-dwelling Italian adolescents. Assessment. 2017;24:615–31.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mullins-Sweatt SN, Jamerson JE, Samuel DB, Olson DR, Widiger TA. Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the five-factor model. Assessment. 2006;13:119–37.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106286748.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Biskin RS. The lifetime course of borderline personality disorder. Can J Psychiatry. 2015;60:303–8.  https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371506000702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Stanton K, McDonnell CG, Hayden EP, Watson D. Transdiagnostic approaches to psychopathology measurement: recommendations for measure selection, data analysis, and participant recruitment: Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Advance online publication; 2019.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kasey Stanton
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Matthew F. D. Brown
    • 2
  • Meredith A. Bucher
    • 3
  • Caroline Balling
    • 3
  • Douglas B. Samuel
    • 3
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentVirginia Polytechnic Institute and State UniversityBlacksburgUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyWestern UniversityLondonCanada
  3. 3.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations