Trastornos de Personalidad-Ryder, 2007

Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(6), 626–637, 2007
 2007 The Guilford Press

EVALUATION OF THE SCID-II PERSONALITY
DISORDER TRAITS FOR DSM-IV:
COHERENCE, DISCRIMINATION, RELATIONS
WITH GENERAL PERSONALITY TRAITS,
AND FUNCTIONAL IMPAIRMENT
Andrew G. Ryder, PhD, Paul T. Costa, Jr., PhD,
and R. Michael Bagby, PhD, C Psych

The utility of the DSM personality disorder (PD) system remains a con-
cern. The strategy employed represents one approach designed to eval-
uate and improve the diagnostic efficiency of the SCID-II PDs. Using a
sample of 203 patients, SCID-II PD items—based on the criterion sets
of the 10 DSM-IV PDs—were evaluated with respect to (a) convergent
validity; (b) divergent validity; (c) relation to general personality traits;
and (d) association with functional impairment. Only Borderline PD
items were satisfactory on all four evaluation criteria. Histrionic and
Obsessive-Compulsive PD items met criteria for convergent and diver-
gent validity and relation to personality dimensions of the Five-Factor
Model of Personality (FFM) but were not related to functional impair-
ment, suggesting they might be reconsidered as disorders. Schizotypal
PD items met three of the four criteria but showed no relation to FFM
dimensions, suggesting that it may be a candidate for reassignment to
Axis I.

The flaws of the DSM PD system are well known and include excessive
within-disorder diagnostic heterogeneity, poor reliability and validity, high
rates of between disorder diagnostic overlap (both Axis I and II), poor rela-
tion to impairment, and failure to capture the full domain of personality
psychopathology (Widiger, 1997; Widiger & Frances, 2002). Previous in-
vestigators have examined the coherence of the traits within each PD crite-
rion set as well as overlap with other PD criteria (Blais, Hilsenroth, & Cas-
tlebury, 1997; Blais & Norman, 1997; Grilo et al., 2001; Maffei et al., 1997;
McGlashan et al., 2000). These studies provided information on which in-
dividual PD traits contribute significantly to the overall diagnostic inclu-

From Concordia University (A. G. R.); National Institute of Aging (P. T. C.); and Centre for
Addiction and Mental Health, University of Toronto (R. M. B.).
Address 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

626

EVALUATION OF THE SCID-II 627

sion criteria, revealing that many individual PD traits lack utility. We be-
lieve that these earlier studies left unexamined two important issues—the
relation of PD traits to general personality trait dimensions and the associ-
ation of PD traits with functional impairment.
Overall, internal consistency and inter-rater reliability of the DSM-IV
personality disorder criteria meet or exceed standard cut-offs (Blais & Nor-
man, 1997; Blais et al., 1997; Maffei et al., 1997). The major concern is
instead with co-morbidity across diagnoses. Blais and colleagues (Blais &
Norman, 1997; Blais et al., 1997) reported several significant correlations
between individual DSM-IV PD criteria and nonparent scales indicating a
lack of discriminant validity. McGlashan and colleagues (2000) found that
despite high retest and inter-rater reliability for diagnoses of Schizotypal,
Borderline, Avoidant, and Obsessive-Compulsive obtained using multiple
interview measures, each of these diagnoses was on average co-morbid
with 1.4 other PD diagnoses. Skodol and colleagues (2005) report, mean-
while, that the personality dimensions underlying the PDs have more clini-
cal validity than do the the PDs themselves, especially including a much
greater degree of temporal stability. A steadily increasing number of re-
ports by personality and PD researchers suggest that the problematic PD
categories should ultimately be replaced by dimensional alternatives (e.g.,
Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997; Ryder, Bagby, & Schuller, 2002; Skodol et
al., 1999).
There is considerable evidence that the DSM-IV PD traits have a struc-
ture mostly compatible with the Five-Factor Model (FFM), suggesting that
PD traits may be pathological variants of core personality features (Bagby
et al., 1999; Costa & Widiger, 2002; Saulsman & Page, 2004; Widiger,
2005). From a clinical perspective, the FFM can be used to describe ade-
quately the characteristic features of individual PDs (Lynam & Widiger,
2001). Warner and colleagues (2004) demonstrated that most of the stabil-
ity observed for individual PDs over a two year interval is accounted for by
FFM traits associated with individual PDs. Establishing the relation be-
tween PDs and personality dimensions is important, as the traits that
compose the FFM were derived in nonpathological populations and thus
are not conflated with Axis I psychopathology. Although previous studies
have looked at the relation between PDs and the FFM, this study considers
whether each constituent PD trait can be said to relate in some way to the
broad domain of personality. Instances in which PD traits are not linked
to the FFM will require future investigation to determine whether our un-
derstanding of personality requires broadening to include additional con-
tent, or whether certain PD traits are better seen as Axis I psychopath-
ology.
Perhaps the cardinal attribute of a PD criterion is its association with
overall impairment, an aspect of clinical utility. According to the DSM-IV,
the assignment of a PD diagnosis is predicated on the assumption that
each of the traits in the criterion set is related to significant impairment.
PD traits that are not related to impairment may well represent important

628 RYDER, COSTA, AND BAGBY

features of personality, but it is questionable whether they should be la-
beled pathological and regarded as such. One could argue that these traits
should nonetheless be retained because it is only necessary for collections
of traits (i.e., specific PDs) to be associated with impairment. We would
argue that as researchers increasingly cast doubt on the integrity of the
DSM-IV PDs and instead turn to the individual traits as pathological trait
indicators, it is important to consider whether these indicators describe
psychopathology. Moreover, most, if not all, of the individual PD traits are
written in such a way to imply maladjustment and clinicians will in part
decide whether a trait should be recorded as being present based on the
extent to which it interferes with normal functioning. Investigating the re-
lation of individual PD traits to impairment is consistent with First and
colleagues’ (2004) call for increased attention to clinical utility.
In this study we attempt to replicate previous investigations examining
the PD criterial traits. We extend evaluation of these earlier efforts beyond
the issue of symptom-to-disorder diagnostic validity by examining each
criterion in terms of (a) convergent validity, (b) divergent validity, (c) associ-
ation with FFM personality traits, and (d) ratings of functional impairment.

METHOD
PARTICIPANTS

The sample consisted of 203 patients (108 men, 95 women) assessed at a
large tertiary care, medical-school affiliated, psychiatric facility (M age =
39.2 years, SD = 11.5). Of these, 167 (82%) were outpatients (M age = 37.8,
SD = 10.8) and 36 were inpatients (M age = 35.4, SD = 11.6). This sample
was diagnostically heterogeneous, composed of patients with a variety of
Axis I diagnoses, including alcohol dependence, affective disorders, anxi-
ety disorders, schizophrenia, somatoform disorder, and substance depen-
dence and use. Seventy patients (35%) also met criteria for one or more
Axis II PD diagnoses—all ten PDs were represented.

MEASUREMENT AND PROCEDURE

Patients were evaluated in an assessment and consultation service and
interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis I Disor-
ders (SCID-I/P; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, & Williams, 1995) and the Struc-
tured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First,
Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997). Patients also completed the
SCID-II Personality Questionnaire (SCID-II/PQ; First et al., 1997) and the
Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R).
The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae,
1992) is a 240-item questionnaire designed to measure the five major fac-
tors or domains of personality: Neuroticism (N); Extraversion (E); Open-


ness to Experience (O); Agreeableness (A); and Conscientiousness (C).
Each factor is defined further by six specific traits, or facets. Studies using
the NEO PI-R and other measures have established that all five traits (a)
show high rank-order stability over periods of many years; (b) can be as-
sessed by self-reports or the ratings of knowledgeable informants, with
modest to moderate agreement across these different sources; (c) are
strongly heritable; and (d) are useful in the prediction of a variety of behav-
iors and outcomes, from vocational interests to longevity. Because of these
properties, traits of the FFM have assumed an increasingly prominent role
in clinical, developmental, health, and industrial/organizational psychology.
Interviewers were trained extensively in the SCID-I and SCID-II inter-
views. Administration of the SCID-II follows a two-tiered procedure. First,
respondents complete the 119-item SCID-II/PQ, which uses a Yes/No re-
sponse format. Each of the questions corresponds to a diagnostic criterion
for either one of the main text PDs or the two additional PDs listed in
Appendix B of DSM–IV (i.e., Passive-Aggressive and Depressive PD). Only
scores for the main text PDs were used in this study. After respondents
have completed the questionnaire, the interviewer identifies those person-
ality disorders for which respondents endorsed sufficient criteria for a par-
ticular PD diagnosis. Persons meeting self-report criteria for any given PD
are then administered the corresponding portions of the SCID-II interview
in order to assign a formal diagnosis.
Interviewers also rated each of the patients using the Global Assessment
of Functioning Scale (GAF). The GAF ratings were done after the SCID as-
sessments and based on the information obtained during the interview
and patients’ medical record file. Inter-rater reliability for the GAF was
assessed using a sub-sample (n = 50) of the patient record files that were
randomly extracted and then examined by an independent rater, which
did not include results from the personality assessment. The inter-rater
agreement was calculated using the intraclass reliability coefficient and
was statistically significant, intraclass r = .94, p < .001.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

Each SCID-II/PQ item/symptom was examined using four evaluation cri-
teria: (I) symptom-to-disorder coherence within a given PD; (II) the distinc-
tiveness of each PD symptom relative to other PDs; (III) the relation of each
PD symptom to one or more personality dimensions of the FFM; and (IV)
the association of each PD symptom with impairment. For Criterion I, each
SCID-II symptom was correlated with the total score for the relevant PD—
i.e., the corrected item-total r. Coefficients ≥ .20 were considered accept-
able (Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994), representing adequate symptom-to-
disorder coherence. For Criterion II, the corrected item-total r calculated
above was compared with the correlations between the symptom and other
PDs. Symptoms correlating more highly with their own PD as compared
with other PDs were considered sufficiently discriminating. For Criterion


III, symptoms were correlated with the 30 facets of the NEO-PI-R. Symp-
toms that correlated significantly (Bonferroni corrected (.05/30), p < .002)
with one or more facets were considered adequately related to the universe
of general personality traits. Finally, for Criterion IV, symptoms were cor-
related with the GAF ratings. Significant correlations were considered to
show adequate evidence of a relation with functional impairment.

RESULTS & DISCUSSION
Table 1 displays the summary statistics for the four evaluation criteria as
applied to each of the ten PDs. For the first criterion, convergent validity,
70.6% of the SCID-II symptoms met the standard (Median = 64.2%; range =
42.9% to 100.0%), including every criterion of Obsessive-Compulsive PD
and Schizoid PD. On the other hand, fewer than 60.0% of the Histrionic
PD and Avoidant PD items did so. For the second criterion, divergent valid-
ity, 53.2% of the SCID-II symptoms met the standard (Median = 48.4%;
range = 28.6% to 100.0%), including every symptom of Obsessive-Compul-
sive PD. Only one further diagnosis, Schizoid PD, showed divergent valid-
ity for more than 60.0% of the constituent items. For the third criterion,
relation with personality traits, 57.2% of the SCID-II symptoms met the
standard (Median = 56.3%; range = 18.2% to 87.7%), with no PD criterion
set showing an association with FFM traits for every symptom. Fewer than
60.0% of the items for Antisocial, Obsessive-Compulsive, Paranoid, Schiz-
oid, and Schizotypal PDs were associated with FFM traits. Finally, for the
fourth criterion, relation to functional impairment, 21.8% of the SCID-II
symptoms met the standard (Median = 12.9%; range = 0.0% to 60.0%),
with no PD criterion set showing an association with impairment for every
symptom. Every diagnosis other than Borderline PD showed a lack of asso-
ciation with impairment for the majority of its constituent items, and no
association was found for any symptom of Histrionic or Obsessive-Compul-
sive PD. Results for individual PD symptoms, grouped within each of the
10 PDs, can be reviewed in the appendices.

TABLE 1. Summary of Criteria Evaluation Set for 10 DSM-IV Personality Disorders
Personality Disorders # Criterion Criterion Criterion Criterion
SCID-II PD Scale Items I II III IV
Antisocial (ATS) 15 73.0 60.0 46.7 13.3
Avoidant (AVD) 7 57.1 57.1 85.7 28.6
Borderline (BDL) 15 80.0 46.7 80.0 60.0
Dependent (DEP) 8 62.5 50.0 62.5 12.5
Histrionic (HST) 7 42.9 28.6 85.7 0.0
Narcissistic (NAR) 17 64.9 35.5 70.6 11.8
Obsessive-Compulsive (OBC) 9 100.0 100.0 44.4 0.0
Paranoid (PAR) 8 62.5 37.5 50.0 12.5
Schizoid (SCZ) 7 100.0 71.4 28.6 42.9
Schizotypal (SZT) 17 63.6 45.4 18.2 36.4
Note. Criterion I = convergent validity; Criterion II = divergent validity; Criterion III = relation
to personality dimension(s); Criterion IV = relation to impairment.


In general, most of the PD traits were found to be related to their parent
disorder (i.e., Criterion I). More problematic was divergent validity (i.e., Cri-
terion II). Many of the traits showing acceptable associations with their
parent disorder had higher associations with other disorders. Such over-
lap surely contributes to the high rates of co-occurrence among PDs that
are commonly reported. Specific traits that were unrelated to their parent
disorder and/or were more closely related to a different disorder should be
modified or even eliminated from the PD system. Many of the PD traits
were related to FFM personality traits, suggesting that most PDs are com-
posed of symptoms that reflect personality (i.e., Criterion III). A few disor-
ders do show a more tenuous link with personality, suggesting at least
that a qualitative difference exists between these constructs and extremes
of normal personality and raising the possibility that perhaps these con-
structs are not, should be moved to Axis I. Far fewer PD symptoms were
related to impairment, compromising their clinical utility (i.e., Criterion IV).
This study provides a strategy, anchored to fundamental principles re-
lated to diagnostic validity, for evaluating PD traits. We believe that the
strategy could be used to modify and improve the PD system where
needed. To do so, we would recommend focusing first on Criteria I and II.
Doing so would ensure that each PD is composed of a coherent and rela-
tively nonoverlapping set of symptoms, and might require the addition,
rewriting, or elimination of items. The next step would be to examine Crite-
ria III and IV, to ensure that each PD criterion relates both to personality
and to disorder—i.e., to traits associated with impairment. Changes in the
item pool might also be required. The result of this process might be a
revised set of symptoms that preserve the current PDs while simultane-
ously responding to many of the criticisms that have been leveled at this
system.
An alternative strategy might be to abandon the effort to relate PD traits
to the existing 10 disorders, and focus exclusively on Criteria III and IV.
The goal here would not be to generate a set of more coherent PDs to facili-
tate categorical diagnosis. Indeed, we have doubts about whether this goal
could be achieved, given that more than half of the symptoms currently
fail to meet both Criteria I and II—suggesting that a significant overhaul
would be required to ‘rebuild’ the ten PDs needed to retain the current
structure. We would instead hope to identify PD traits that could be inte-
grated into a comprehensive dimensional system incorporating both nor-
mal and abnormal personality. Such traits should be related to FFM traits
(Criterion III) and to impairment (Criterion IV), but it would no longer be
necessary for them to defer to the current problematic PD categories. Such
an undertaking would expand our understanding of personality psycho-
pathology beyond the PDs while grounding this understanding in a well-
established and thoroughly research model of personality traits. At the
same time, our knowledge of basic personality and the FFM would be en-
riched by explicit inclusion of psychopathology.


APPENDIX
SCID-II-Q Self-Report Question (PD trait) I II III IV
Paranoid Personality
41. Do you often have to keep an eye out to stop people
from using you or hurting you? 1 0 0 0
42. Do you spend a lot of time wondering if you can trust
your friends or the people that you work with? 1 1 0 0
43. Do you find that it is best not to let other people know
much about you because they will use it against you? 1 1 1 0
44. Do you often detect hidden threats or insults in
things people say or do? 1 0 1 0
45. Are you the kind of person who holds grudges or
takes a long time to forgive people who have insulted
or slighted you? 0 0 0 0
46. Are there many people you can’t forgive because they
did or said something to you a long time ago? 1 0 1 1
47. Do you often get angry or lash out when someone crit-
icizes or insults you in some way? 0 0 1 0
48. Have you often suspected that your spouse or partner
has been unfaithful? 0 1 0 0
Ratio: Number of traits meeting criterion to
overall number of traits 5/8 3/8 4/8 1/8
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 62.5% 37.5% 50.0% 12.5%
Schizoid Personality
58. Are there very few people that you’re really close to
outside of your immediate family? 1 0 0 1
60. Is it NOT important to you whether you have any
close relationships?
61. Would you almost always rather do things alone than
with other people? 1 1 1 0
62. Could you be content without ever being sexually in-
volved with anyone? 1 1 0 0
63. Are there really very few things that give you plea-
sure? 1 1 1 1
64. Does it NOT matter to you what people think of you? 1 1 0 0
65. Do you find that nothing makes you very happy or
very sad? 1 0 0 1
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 100% 71.4% 28.6% 42.9%
Schizotypal Personality
49. When you are out in public and see people talking, do
you often feel that they are talking about you? 1 1 0 1
50. Do you often get the feeling that things that have no
special meaning to most people are really meant to
give you a message? 1 0 0 0
51. When you are around people, do you often get the
feeling that you are being watched or stared at? 1 1 0 1
52. Have you ever felt that you could make things happen
just by making a wish or thinking about them? 0 0 0 0
53. Have you had personal experiences with the super-
natural? 1 1 0 0
54. Do you believe that you have a “sixth sense” that
allows you to know and predict things that others
can’t? 0 1 0 0
55. Does it seem that objects or shadows are really people
or animals or that noises are actually people’s voices? 1 1 0 0
56. Have you had the sense that some person of force is
around you, even though you cannot see anyone? 1 0 1 0
57. Do you often see auras or energy fields around
people? 0 0 0 0
58. Are there very few people that you’re really close to
outside of your immediate family? 0 0 0 1


59. Do you often feel nervous when you are with other
people? 1 0 1 1
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 63.6% 45.45 18.2% 36.4%
Antisocial Personality
105. Before you were 15, would you bully or threaten
other kids? 1 1 0 0
106. Before you were 15, would you start fights? 1 1 0 0
107. Before you were 15, did you hurt or threaten some-
one with a weapon, like a bat, brick, broken bottle,
knife or gun? 1 1 0 0
108. Before you were 15, did you deliberately torture
someone or cause someone physical pain and suf-
fering? 1 1 1 1
109. Before you were 15, did you torture or hurt animals
on purpose? 0 0 1 0
110. Before you were 15, did you rob, mug, or forcibly
take something from someone by threatening him or
her? 1 0 1 0
111. Before you were 15, did you force someone to have
sex with you, to get undressed in front of you, or
touch you sexually? 0 0 0 0
112. Before you were 15, did you set fires? 1 1 0 0
113. Before you were 15, did you deliberately destroy
things that weren’t yours? 0 1 0 0
114. Before you were 15, did you break into houses, other
buildings, or cars? 1 0 0 0
115. Before you were 15, did you lie a lot or “con” other
people? 1 1 1 0
116. Before you were 15, did you sometimes steal or
shoplift things, or forge someone’s signature? 0 1 1 0
117. Before you were 15, did you run away from home
and stay away overnight? 1 1 0 0
118. Before you were 13, did you often stay out very late,
long after the time you were supposed to be home? 1 0 1 0
119. Before you were 13, did you often skip school? 1 0 1 1
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 73% 60% 46.7% 13.3%
Borderline Personality
90. Have you often become frantic when you thought
that someone you really cared about was going to
leave you? 1 1 0 0
91. Do your relationships with people you really care
about have lots of extreme ups and downs? 1 1 1 0
92. Have you all of a sudden changed your sense of who
you are and where you are headed? 1 1 1 0
93. Does your sense of who you are often change dra-
matically? 0 0 1 0
94. Are you different with different people or in different
situations, so that you sometimes don’t know who
you really are? 0 0 1 0
95. Have there been lots of sudden changes in you goals,
career plans, religious beliefs, and so on? 1 1 1 1
96. Have you often done things impulsively? 1 1 1 1
97. Have you tried to hurt or kill yourself or threatened
to do so? 0 0 1 1
98. Have you ever cut, burned or scratched yourself on
purpose? 1 0 1 1
99. Do you have a lot of sudden mood changes? 1 1 0 1
100. Do you often feel empty inside? 1 1 0 1


101. Do you often have temper outbursts or get so angry
that you lose control? 1 0 1 1
102. Do you hit people or throw things when you get
angry? 1 0 1 1
103. Do even little things get you very angry? 1 0 1 0
104. When you are under a lot of stress, do you get suspi-
cious of other people or feel especially spaced out? 1 0 1 1
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 80% 46.7% 80% 60%
Histrionic Personality
66. Do you like to be the center of attention? 0 0 1 0
67. Do you flirt a lot? 0 0 1 0
68. Do you often find yourself “coming on” to people? 1 1 1 0
69. Do you try to draw attention to yourself by the way
you dress or look? 1 0 1 0
70. Do you often make a point of being dramatic and col-
orful? 1 1 0 0
71. Do you often change your mind about things depend-
ing on the people you’re with or what you have just
read or seen on TV? 0 0 1 0
72. Do you have a lot of friends that are you very close to? 0 0 1 0
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 42.9% 28.6% 85.7% 0%
Narcissistic Personality
73. Do people often fail to appreciate your very special tal-
ents or accomplishments? 0 1 0 0
74. Have people told you that you have too high an opin-
ion of yourself? 1 1 1 0
75. Do you think a lot about the power, fame or recogni-
tion that will be yours someday? 1 0 1 0
76. Do you think about the perfect romance that will be
yours someday? 0 0 0 0
77. When you have a problem, do you almost always in-
sist on seeing the top person? 1 1 0 0
78. Do you feel it is important to spend time with people
who are special or influential? 1 1 1 0
79. Is it important to you that people pay attention to you
or admire you in some way? 0 0 1 0
80. Do you think that it’s not necessary to follow certain
rules or social conventions when they get in your way? 1 0 1 0
81. Do you feel that you are the kind of person who de-
serves special treatment? 0 0 0 0
82. Do you often find it necessary to step on a few toes to
get what you want? 1 1 1 0
83. Do you often have to put your needs above other peo-
ple’s? 1 0 1 1
84. Do you often expect other people to do what you ask
without question because of who you are? 1 0 1 0
85. Are you NOT really interested in other people’s prob-
lems or feelings? 0 0 1 0
86. Have people complained to you that you don’t listen
to them or care about their feelings? 1 0 1 1
87. Are you often envious of others? 1 0 0 0
88. Do you feel that others are often envious of you? 1 1 1 0
89. Do you find that there are very few people that are
worth your time and attention? 0 0 1 0


Avoidant Personality
1. Have you avoided jobs or tasks that involved having to
deal with a lot of people? 1 0 1 0
2. Do you avoid getting involved with people unless you
are certain they like you? 1 1 1 0
3. Do you find it hard to be “open” even with people you
are close to? 0 0 1 0
4. Do you often worry about being criticized or rejected in
social situations? 1 1 1 0
5. Are you usually quiet when you meet new people? 0 1 0 0
6. Do you believe that you’re not as good, as smart, or as
attractive as most other people? 1 1 1 1
7. Are you afraid to try new things? 0 0 1 1
Dependent Personality
8. Do you need a lot of advice or reassurance from oth-
ers before you can make everyday decisions—like
what to wear or what to order in a restaurant? 1 1 1 0
9. Do you depend on other people to handle important
areas in your life such as finances, childcare, or living
arrangements? 1 1 0 0
10. Do you find it hard to disagree with people even when
you think they are wrong? 0 0 1 0
11. Do you find it hard to start or work on tasks when
there is no one to help you? 1 1 1 0
12. Have you often volunteered to do things that are un-
pleasant? 0 0 0 0
13. Do you usually feel uncomfortable when you are by
yourself? 1 1 0 0
14. When a close relationship ends, do you feel you imme-
diately have to find someone else to take care of you? 0 0 1 0
15. Do you worry a lot about being left alone to take care
of yourself? 1 0 1 1
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 62.5% 50% 62.5% 12.5%
Obsessive—Compulsive Personality
16. Are you the kind of person who focuses on details, order,
and organization or likes to make lists and schedules? 1 1 1 0
17. Do you have trouble finishing jobs because you spend
so much time trying to get things exactly right? 1 1 0 0
18. Do you or other people feel that you are so devoted to
work (or school) that you have no time left for anyone
else or for just having fun? 1 1 1 0
19. Do you have very high standards about what is right
and what is wrong? 1 1 1 0
20. Do you have trouble throwing things out because they
might come in handy some day? 1 1 1 0
21. Is it hard for you to let other people help you unless
they agree to do things exactly the way you want? 1 1 0 0
22. Is it hard for you to spend money on yourself and
other people even when you have enough? 1 1 0 0
23. Are you often so sure you are right that it doesn’t mat-
ter what other people say? 1 1 0 0
24. Have other people told you that you are stubborn or
rigid? 1 1 0 0
Percentage of traits meeting criterion 100% 100% 44.4% 0%
Note. I = convergent validity; II = divergent validity; III = relation to personality dimension(s);
IV = relation to impairment.


REFERENCES

Bagby, R. M., Costa Jr., P. T., McCrae, R. R., sonality disorders. Acta Psychiatrica
Livesley, W. J., Kennedy, S. H., Levi- Scandinavica, 104, 264–272.
tan, A. J., Joffe, R. T., & Young, L. T. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using
(1999). Replicating the five-factor the five-factor model to represent the
model of personality in a psychiatric DSM-IV personality disorders. An ex-
sample. Personality and Individual Dif- pert consensus approach. Journal of
ferences, 27, 1135–1139. Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401–412.
Blais, M. A., Hilsenroth, M. J., & Castlebury, McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Per-
F. D. (1997). Psychometric character- sonality in adulthood: A five-factor the-
istics of the cluster B personality dis- ory perspective (2nd ed.). New York:
orders under DSM-III-R and DSM-IV. Guilford.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, McGlashan, T. H., Grilo, C. M., Skodol, A. E.,
270–278. Gunderson, J. G., Shea, M. T., Morey,
Blais, M. A., & Norman, D. K. (1997). A psy- L. C., et al. (2000). The collaborative
chometric evaluation of the DSM-IV longitudinal personality disorders
personality disorder criteria. Journal study: Baseline Axis I/II and II/II diag-
of Personality Disorders, 11, 168–176. nostic co-occurrence. Acta Psychiat-
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. rica Scandinavica, 102, 256–264.
(1997). Personality disorder assess- Maffei, C., Fossati, A., Agostoni, I., Barraco,
ment: The challenge of construct valid- A., Bagnato, M., Deborah, D., et al.
ity. Journal of Personality Disorders, (1997). Interrater reliability and inter-
11, 205–231. nal consistency of the structured clini-
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Re- cal interview for DSM-IV axis II per-
vised NEO personality inventory: Pro- sonality disorders (SCID-II), version
fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho- 2.0. Journal of Personality Disorders,
logical Assessment Resources. 11, 279–284.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Per- Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994).
sonality disorders and the five-factor Psychometric Theory (3rd ed.). New
model of personality. Washington, DC: York: McGraw-Hill.
American Psychological Association. Ryder, A. G., Bagby, R. M., & Schuller, D. R.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Wil- (2002). The overlap of depressive per-
liams, J.B.W., & Benjamin, L. S. sonality disorder and dysthymia: A
(1997). SCID-II Personality Question- categorical problem with a dimen-
naire. Washington, DC: American Psy- sional solution. Harvard Review of
chiatric Press. Psychiatry, 10, 337–352.
First, M. B., Pincus, H. A., Levine, J. B., Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The
Williams, J.B.W., Ustun, B., & Peele, five-factor model and personality dis-
R. (2004). Using clinical utility as a cri- order empirical literature: A meta-ana-
terion for revising psychiatric diagno- lytic review. Clinical Psychology Re-
ses. American Journal of Psychiatry, view, 23, 1055–1085.
161, 946–954. Skodol, A. E., Stout, R. L., McGlashan, T. H.,
First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Grilo, C. M., Gunderson, J. G., Shea,
Williams, J.B.W. (1995). Structured M. T., et al. (1999). Co-occurrence of
clinical interview for DSM-IV Axis I dis- mood and personality disorders: A re-
orders—Patient edition, Version 2.0. port from the collaborative longitudi-
New York: New York Biometrics Re- nal personality disorders study (CLPS).
search Department. Depression and Anxiety, 10, 175–182.
Grilo, C. M., McGlashan, T. H., Morey, L. C., Skodol, A. E., Gunderson, J. G., Shea, M. T.,
Gunderson, J. G., Skodol, A. E., Shea, McGlashan, T. H., Morey, L. C., Sanis-
M. T., et al. (2001). Internal consis- low, C. A., et al. (2005). The collabora-
tency, intercriterion overlap, and diag- tive longitudinal personality disorders
nostic efficiency of criteria sets for study (CLPS): Overview and implica-
DSM-IV schizotypal, borderline, avoid- tions. Journal of Personality Disorders,
ant, and obsessive-compulsive per- 19, 487–504.


Warner, M. B., Morey, L. C., Finch, J. F., Widiger, T. A. (2005). Five factor model of
Gunderson, J. G., Skodol, A. E., Sani- personality disorder: Integrating sci-
slow, C. A., et al. (2004). The longitudi- ence and practice. Journal of Research
nal relationship of personality traits in Personality, 39, 67–83.
and disorders. Journal of Abnormal Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (2002). Toward
Psychology, 113, 217–227. a dimensional model for the personal-
Widiger, T. A. (1997). Mental disorders as ity disorders. In P. T. Costa, Jr., & T.
discrete clinical conditions: Dimen- A. Widiger (Eds.) Personality disorders
sional versus categorical classifica- and the five-factor model of personality
tion. In S. M. Turner, & M. Hersen (2nd ed., pp. 23–44). Washington, DC:
(Eds.), Adult Psychopathology and Di- American Psychological Association.
agnosis (3rd ed., pp. 3–23). New York:
Wiley.

Trastornos de Personalidad-Ryder, 2007

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Trastornos de Personalidad-Ryder, 2007

Similar to Trastornos de Personalidad-Ryder, 2007 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Trastornos de Personalidad-Ryder, 2007