Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment
2009, Vol. S, No. 1, 27–34
© 2009 American Psychological Association
1949-2715/09/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1949-2715.S.1.27
A Dimensional Model of Personality Disorder: Incorporating DSM
Cluster A Characteristics
Jennifer L. Tackett
Amy L. Silberschmidt
University of Toronto
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Robert F. Krueger
Scott R. Sponheim
University of Minnesota—Twin Cities
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center
and University of Minnesota—Twin Cities
The authors articulate an expanded dimensional model of personality pathology to
better account for symptoms of DSM-defined Cluster A personality disorders. Two
hundred forty participants (98 first-degree relatives of probands with schizophrenia or
schizoaffective disorder, 92 community control participants, and 50 first-degree relatives of probands with bipolar disorder) completed a dimensional personality pathology
questionnaire, a measure of schizotypal characteristics, and Chapman measures of
psychosis proneness. Scales from all questionnaires were subjected to an exploratory
factor analysis with varimax rotation. A 5-factor structure of personality pathology
emerged from the analyses, with Peculiarity forming an additional factor to the
common 4-factor structure of personality pathology (consisting of Introversion, Emotional Dysregulation, Antagonism, and Compulsivity). These results support a 5-factor
dimensional model of personality pathology that better accounts for phenomena encompassed by the Cluster A personality disorders in DSM–IV–TR (4th ed., text revised;
American Psychiatric Association, 2000). This study has implications for the consideration of a dimensional model of personality disorder in DSM–V by offering a more
comprehensive structural model that builds on previous work in this area.
Keywords: personality pathology, DSM–V, dimensional models, five-factor model, schizotypal
personality disorder
As progress toward the next edition of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (DSM) continues, the importance of
research that addresses potential changes in
DSM–V becomes more salient. The question of
what will happen to personality disorders in the
transition between DSM–IV–TR (4th ed., text
revised; American Psychiatric Association,
2000) and DSM–V has gained increasing attention. Comprehensive, empirically based proposals have been put forth that argue for a move to
a dimensional system for personality pathology
in DSM–V (Widiger, Simonsen, Krueger, Livesley, & Verheul, 2005; Widiger & Trull, 2007).
Such a shift would represent a paradigmatic
change in the conceptualization of psychiatric
disorder (Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002; Widiger & Trull, 2007). A primary concern related to
making such a change is how to obtain an
empirically based, comprehensive consensus
Jennifer L. Tackett, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Amy L. Silberschmidt,
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Minneapolis,
Minnesota; Robert F. Krueger, Department of Psychology,
University of Minnesota—Twin Cities; Scott R. Sponheim,
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology, University of Minnesota—Twin Cities.
This work was supported in part by grants awarded to
Scott R. Sponheim from the Department of Veterans Affairs
Medical Research Service, the Mental Illness and Neuroscience Discovery (MIND) Institute, and the Mental Health
Patient Service Line at the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs
Medical Center. We gratefully acknowledge Althea Noukki
and Bridget Hegeman for the supervision of data collection,
and Jessica Barker and Anna Docherty for their assistance
with data management and acquisition.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Jennifer L. Tackett, Department of Psychology, University
of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, Ontario M5S 3G3,
Canada. E-mail: tackett@psych.utoronto.ca
This article is reprinted from Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 2008, Vol. 117, No. 2, 454 – 459.
27
28
TACKETT, SILBERSCHMIDT, KRUEGER, AND SPONHEIM
structure (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005; Widiger
& Trull, 2007).
One of the predominant nominees for such a
dimensional system is a four-factor structure of
maladaptive personality (De Clercq, De Fruyt,
Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006; Livesley,
2005; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005) that largely
corresponds to maladaptive variants of four of
the five factors in the five-factor model (FFM),
a common approach to conceptualizing and
measuring normal-range personality in adult
populations. Specifically, the FFM consists of
the following higher order traits: Neuroticism,
Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness to Experience (Goldberg,
1993; McCrae & Costa, 2001). Proposed fourfactor models of personality pathology often
define the following higher order dimensions:
Emotional Dysregulation (roughly corresponding to extreme Neuroticism), Introversion (corresponding to the maladaptive opposite of Extraversion), Antagonism (corresponding to the
maladaptive opposite of Agreeableness), and
Compulsivity (corresponding to extreme Conscientiousness). The proposed four-factor
model is based on points of convergence among
numerous dimensional models and is, in part, a
response to the concern that there are presently
too many dimensional systems from which to
choose (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Most of
this work on understanding personality pathology in terms of dimensional models of personality has failed to find a direct pathological
analog to the fifth factor, Openness to Experience (Livesley, 2005; Widiger, 1998). Researchers have also noted questions concerning
how cognitive and perceptual aberrations (e.g.,
symptoms characterizing Cluster A personality
disorders in the DSM–IV–TR) might fit into
such a four-factor model (Widiger & Costa,
1994; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005).
Amidst this convergence on a potential fourfactor dimensional model of personality pathology that might be considered for DSM–V, important issues remain to be resolved before such
a significant change could be put in motion.
Specifically, a primary issue that has been discussed is whether the four-factor model of personality pathology provides comprehensive
coverage of those characteristics currently codified in Axis II. In A Research Agenda for
DSM–V, First et al. (2002) wrote
Future research should address such questions as . . .
whether there are particular components or aspects of
the DSM–IV personality disorders that are not adequately represented within or covered by existing dimensional models (e.g., identity disturbances, attachment conflicts, cognitive aberrations, or perceptual abnormalities). (p. 144)
It has been suggested that characteristics that
index cognitive aberrations and perceptual abnormalities (e.g., those associated with Cluster
A personality disorders such as schizotypal personality disorder) represent too small a factor to
be meaningful or that they do not have a place
in a dimensional system of personality pathology (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Similarly,
researchers have called for empirical investigations (First et al., 2002) to determine whether
these Cluster A characteristics would fit into a
dimensional model for Axis II.
In this brief report, we respond to this call
by investigating a comprehensive higher order factor structure that may better account
for the Cluster A disorders. Specifically, we
question whether the predominant four-factor
structure of personality pathology fully accounts for additional variation in personality
pathology, such as the tendency to have unusual perceptual experiences. The Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology
(DAPP; Livesley & Jackson, in press) is a
self-report measure that assesses 18 factorially derived lower order scales that together
index the consensus four-factor structure at a
higher order level. In addition to the DAPP,
we employ existing measures that typically
are used to assess characteristics associated
with the Cluster A personality disorders from
DSM–IV–TR and the schizophrenia spectrum
more broadly, and we investigate whether
such measures capture additional meaningful
variance beyond the four-factor structure as
assessed by the DAPP. Through the use of a
sample of first-degree relatives of individuals
with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder or bipolar disorder, we expect to increase
the variance in such measures compared to a
typical, or “normal,” population while avoiding some of the potential limitations in assessing a group that is actively disordered
(e.g., the ability of such a group to provide
extensive personality data).
DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF PERSONALITY DISORDER
Method
Participants
We studied 98 first-degree relatives of probands with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder, 50 first-degree relatives of probands with
bipolar disorder, and 92 nondiagnosed participants from the community who acted as controls, for a combined sample of 240 participants.
Demographics of the groups are presented in
Table 1. Probands were recruited through the
Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center,
community support programs for persons with
mental illness, and a county mental health
clinic. Probands provided personal contact information and permission to contact relatives to
study staff. A trained doctoral level clinical
psychologist confirmed probands’ diagnoses by
administering the Diagnostic Interview for Genetic Studies (Nurnberger et al., 1994). A
trained graduate student or doctoral level psychologist then completed a consensus diagnosis
process through the use of medical records and
information from a family informant as well as
the original interview. In order to maximize the
number of participating relatives, first-degree
relatives were excluded from participating only
if they had a physical problem that would render
study measures impossible to administer (e.g.,
blindness) or if they were younger than age 18.
Control participants were recruited through
posted announcements in the Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical Center and in the greater
community (e.g., libraries, fitness centers).
Trained study staff screened control participants
for an absence of affective disorders and psychotic disorders. Recruitment and study procedures are described further elsewhere (Sponheim, McGuire, & Stanwyck, 2006). All participants completed an informed consent process.
Table 1
Participant Demographics
Proband
N
Female, %
M Age (SD)
SCZ-Rel
BPD-Rel
Control
98
50
92
65.3
50.0
47.8
51.88 (12.88)
49.74 (16.34)
42.29 (15.23)
Note. Age is reported in years. SCZ-Rel ⫽ first-degree
relative of individual with schizophrenia or schizoaffective
disorder; BPD-Rel ⫽ first degree relative of individual with
bipolar disorder.
29
The Minneapolis Veterans Affairs Medical
Center and University of Minnesota Institutional Review Board approved the study protocol. Participants were paid for their time.
Instruments
Participants completed the Dimensional Assessment for Personality Pathology—Basic
Questionnaire (DAPP–BQ; Livesley & Jackson,
in press). The DAPP–BQ is a 290-item, 1–5
Likert scale questionnaire that consists of 18
subscales: Affective Lability, Anxiousness,
Callousness, Cognitive Distortions, Compulsivity, Conduct Problems, Identity Problems, Insecure Attachment, Intimacy Problems, Narcissism, Oppositionality, Rejection, Restricted Expression, Self-Harm, Social Avoidance,
Stimulus Seeking, Submissiveness, and Suspiciousness. Scale reliability as assessed by Cronbach’s alpha for the DAPP–BQ scales ranged
from .81 (Conduct Problems) to .92 (SelfHarm), with an average Cronbach’s alpha
across all scales of .87.
Participants also completed a 298-item, true–
false questionnaire designed to measure psychosis proneness entitled “Survey of Attitudes
and Experiences” that consisted of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ; Raine,
1991), Chapman Psychosis Proneness Scales—
namely, Perceptual Aberration, Magical Ideation, revised Physical Anhedonia (Chapman,
Chapman, & Raulin, 1976, 1978; Eckblad &
Chapman, 1983), and revised Social Anhedonia
(Eckblad, Chapman, Chapman, & Mishlove,
1982)—the Chapman Infrequency Scale (Chapman & Chapman, 1983), and the L and K scales
from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2; Pope, Butcher, & Seelen,
2000). The SPQ consists of nine subscales:
Constricted Affect, Excessive Social Anxiety,
Ideas of Reference, No Friends, Odd Beliefs,
Odd Behaviors, Odd Speech, Suspiciousness,
and Unusual Perceptions. Scale reliability as
assessed by Cronbach’s alpha for the SPQ
scales ranged from .63 (Unusual Perceptions) to
.85 (No Friends), with an average Cronbach’s
alpha across all scales of .74. Scale reliability as
assessed by Cronbach’s alpha for the Chapman
scales ranged from .74 (Magical Ideation) to .86
(Social Anhedonia), with an average Cronbach’s alpha across all scales of .80.
30
TACKETT, SILBERSCHMIDT, KRUEGER, AND SPONHEIM
The SPQ was designed with subscales that
tap directly into various DSM criteria for
schizotypal personality disorder in order to
measure traits of the disorder. In the validation
study (Raine, 1991) and subsequent research
(Kremen, Faraone, Toomey, Seidman, & Tsuang, 1998), it has been shown that individuals
who score in the top 10% on the SPQ have high
rates of schizotypal personality disorder. Although initially designed to measure psychosis
proneness, the Chapman Psychosis Proneness
Scales yield elevated scores in individuals with
schizophrenia spectrum personality disorders
(Thaker, Moran, Adami, & Cassady, 1993), and
Magical Ideation and Perceptual Aberration are
most strongly associated with symptom counts
of schizotypal personality disorder among DSM
personality disorders (Meyer & Hautzinger,
1999).
Procedures
Full participants, which included all control
participants and most (n ⫽ 109) relatives, were
mailed the questionnaires. Participants completed the questionnaires at home and brought
them to the study site on the day of their participation. In order to maximize the number of
participating relatives, relatives who were over
the age of 60 or unable or unwilling to come to
the study site were given the option of limited
participation. Limited participants were mailed
a copy of the questionnaires. These participants
mailed the questionnaires to study offices upon
completion (n ⫽ 39).
Statistical Analyses
The distributions of all variables were examined for extreme skewness and kurtosis. A variety of transformations (logarithmic, natural
logarithmic, and square root) were performed
on skewed and kurtotic variables, and distributional properties were re-examined. When distributional properties improved, the transformation was applied. This resulted in a natural
logarithmic transformation of five variables:
DAPP Conduct Problems, Chapman Magical
Ideation, Chapman Social Anhedonia, Chapman Perceptual Aberrations, and Chapman
Physical Anhedonia. Additionally, a number of
variables with restricted range of endorsement
rates were not amenable to transformations and
were treated as categorical in these analyses
(i.e., all of the scales from the SPQ as well as
the DAPP Self-Harm scale). Missing values
were estimated using the expectation-maximization (EM) algorithm, a maximum likelihood
estimation procedure, which resulted in the data
used for the factor analysis. We conducted an
exploratory factor analysis with the statistical
analysis program Mplus (Muthén & Muthén,
1998 –2006) using a weighted least squares
mean and variance adjusted estimator.
Results
Five factors with eigenvalues greater than 1
were extracted (11.12, 3.50, 2.28, 1.84, and
1.41), which converged with examination of the
scree plot, indicating a break after extraction of
five factors. See Table 2 for factor loadings
from the five-factor structure with varimax rotation and a root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA) of .075. This solution accounted for 65% of the overall variance. Further, extraction of a four-factor solution showed
a poorer fit (RMSEA ⫽ .093). Four of the
factors in the five-factor solution correspond to
the four-factor structure established for the
DAPP–BQ scales (Schroeder, Wormworth, &
Livesley, 2002): Introversion/Inhibition, Antagonism/Dissocial, Emotional Dysregulation, and
Compulsivity. The fifth factor (emerging third
in the analysis), which we labeled Peculiarity, is
indexed by scales from the SPQ and Chapman
measures that reflect unusual perceptual experiences.
Discussion
These results support a five-factor structure
of personality pathology that encompasses the
perceptual aberrations and cognitive distortions
characterizing Cluster A personality disorders
in DSM–IV–TR. Specifically, the common fourfactor structure of personality pathology established in the literature (De Clercq et al., 2006;
Livesley, 2005; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005) is
replicated in these data. However, a substantial
fifth factor also emerges that seems to dispel
previous suggestions that such a factor does not
fit into a dimensional structure of personality
pathology or that it might be too small to be
meaningful. Through the use of data from a
unique sample of first-degree relatives of pa-
DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF PERSONALITY DISORDER
31
Table 2
Factor Loadings for Exploratory Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation of Personality Pathology Scales
Scale
Introversion
Emotional
Dysregulation
Peculiarity
Antagonism
Compulsivity
SPQ Constricted Affect
Excessive Social Anxiety
Ideas of Reference
No Friends
Odd Beliefs
Odd Behavior
Odd Speech
Suspiciousness
Unusual Perceptions
DAPP Submissiveness
Cognitive Distortion
Identity Problems
Affective Lability
Stimulus Seeking
Compulsivity
Restricted Expression
Callousness
Passive Oppositionality
Intimacy Problems
Rejection
Anxiousness
Conduct Problems
Suspiciousness
Social Avoidance
Narcissism
Insecure Attachment
Self-Harm
Chapman Magical Ideation
Social Anhedonia
Perceptual Aberrations
Physical Anhedonia
.77
.43
⫺.08
.84
⫺.03
.23
.15
.44
.09
.24
.26
.52
.11
⫺.19
⫺.02
.69
.37
.25
.63
.05
.24
.27
.39
.59
⫺.15
.04
.30
.12
.78
.12
.61
.33
.52
.17
.19
.13
.19
.34
.25
.14
.70
.70
.58
.73
.11
.04
.31
.04
.70
.18
.07
.83
.10
.36
.67
.53
.58
.38
.17
.04
.25
.05
.21
.29
.67
.13
.50
.56
.56
.46
.76
.11
.36
.16
.34
.13
.22
.02
.12
.12
.03
.18
.18
.24
.23
.10
.25
.26
.28
.72
.26
.49
⫺.15
.09
.01
.32
.08
.17
.26
.16
.29
.02
⫺.08
.19
.18
.22
.61
.07
.08
.74
.23
⫺.04
.68
.06
.58
.56
.03
.54
.17
.14
.12
.09
.09
.08
.07
.13
⫺.07
.05
⫺.11
.21
.39
⫺.22
⫺.10
.07
.01
⫺.09
⫺.13
.19
⫺.57
⫺.06
⫺.06
.23
.06
⫺.21
⫺.06
.06
⫺.30
.09
⫺.04
⫺.21
⫺.20
⫺.14
⫺.02
⫺.09
⫺.05
Note. Factor loadings ⬎ .40 are in bold text. SPQ ⫽ Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire; DAPP ⫽ Dimensional
Assessment of Personality Pathology—Basic Questionnaire.
tients who are severely disordered, a substantial
five-factor model of personality pathology
emerged that provides more comprehensive
coverage of existing Axis II disorders. We believe these results provide support for a dimensional model of personality pathology in
DSM–V that might address the numerous limitations of the current system (Widiger & Trull,
2007) without neglecting characteristics currently codified in the DSM–IV–TR personality
disorders.
This work is consistent with structural studies
of the schizotypy construct that have differentiated
negative schizotypal characteristics (e.g., constricted affect, having few friends, anhedonia)
from positive schizotypal characteristics (e.g., unusual perceptual experiences; e.g., Kerns, 2006;
Reynolds, Raine, Mellingen, Venables, & Mednick, 2000). This distinction is evidenced in the
present study by the differential loadings of the
Chapman and SPQ scales on the Introversion factor and the Peculiarity factor. An exception is the
SPQ Suspiciousness scale which loads on both
factors, consistent with other factorial work on
schizotypal characteristics (e.g., Reynolds et al.,
2000). To further distinguish disorganized schizotypal characteristics (which load with the positive
schizotypal characteristics in the present study)
may require a more actively disordered sample, or
one larger than the sample used in this study, and
represents an important area for further research.
One notable result was that the DAPP Cognitive Distortions scale loaded on Emotional
Dysregulation rather than on Peculiarity. This is
32
TACKETT, SILBERSCHMIDT, KRUEGER, AND SPONHEIM
consistent with structural analyses of the DAPP–BQ when the Cognitive Distortions scale is
included (Livesley, Jang, & Vernon, 1998), perhaps suggesting that the Cognitive Distortions
scale taps into aspects of cognitive dysregulation that are related more strongly to emotional
experiences and that are distinct from aberrant
perceptual experiences. For example, some
items on this scale inquire about behaviors such
as difficulty thinking clearly under pressure and
may be heavily influenced by characteristics
such as anxiety proneness or stress reactivity. In
addition, other structural studies with the DAPP
have been unable to include the Cognitive Distortions scale due to low endorsement (e.g.,
Schroeder et al., 2002), which leaves some
questions as to the best way to conceptualize the
scale content in a comprehensive framework.
Future work will be needed to clarify the relation of this scale in a broader dimensional
model of personality pathology that also includes the Cluster A personality disorders.
An important avenue for future research is
explicit integration of the five-factor personality
pathology structure presented here and the
widely used measure of normative personality
traits, the FFM. Although FFM data were not
available in this sample to make such direct
comparisons, future studies should make greater
efforts to include measures of normative personality, such as the FFM, in studies that investigate personality pathology. In particular, the
FFM has been proposed as one potential framework for revising Axis II in DSM–V. Widiger
and Simonsen (2005) offered an integrated review of existing evidence that provides strong
support for links between the existing fourfactor pathology structure as captured by the
DAPP–BQ and the first four factors of the FFM
(e.g., Neuroticism–Emotional Dysregulation,
Extraversion–Introversion, Agreeableness–
Antagonism, and Conscientiousness–Compulsivity). Explicit empirical comparisons have
shown strong converging evidence for connections between the DAPP–BQ scales and the first
four factors of the FFM, with little systematic
evidence for connections with Openness to Experience (e.g., Clark & Livesley, 2002; Schroeder et al., 2002).
The extent to which the Peculiarity factor
estimated here is analogous to Openness to Experience or, alternatively, is better represented
as a sixth factor within the FFM structure re-
mains to be empirically demonstrated. Ross,
Lutz, and Bailley (2002) demonstrated that the
Magical Ideation and Perceptual Aberration
subscales of the Chapman scales, both of which
load highly on the Peculiarity factor in the
present study, showed significant positive correlations with Openness to Experience. Similarly, Camisa et al.’s (2005) factor analysis of
the FFM domains and a subset of the Chapman
scales found a distinct factor represented by
Chapman Magical Ideation, Chapman Perceptual Aberration, and Openness to Experience.
Taken together, these studies suggest that the
expanded Peculiarity factor presented here may
yield similar positive connections with Openness to Experience. However, in a recent study
with a sample of undergraduate students,
Watson, Clark, and Chmielewski (in press)
found that positive schizotypy scales from the
SPQ loaded with dissociation symptoms on a
factor distinct from Openness to Experience.
Thus, more work is needed to explicate this
relationship fully.
When conducting empirical demonstrations
of the relationship between Openness to Experience and Peculiarity, researchers should be
cautious about how restrictions on variance imposed by the use of more normative samples
might present misleading results should Peculiarity and Openness to Experience emerge as
distinct factors. In future studies, efforts should
be made to engage samples with the potential
for increased variance in Cluster A characteristics, as we did with the sample used in the
present study. Similarly, previous research has
shown that manipulations of items in the Openness to Experience domain that are specifically
written to capture maladaptive variants of this
domain show stronger links to Cluster A symptoms (Haigler & Widiger, 2001). Thus, those
researching such investigations should use
broader measures of the Openness to Experience domain that may increase the potential for
links with relevant personality disorder constructs.
In summary, these results provide preliminary support for inclusion of additional scales in
a dimensional measure of personality pathology. The use of first-degree relatives of patients
with schizophrenia, schizoaffective, or bipolar
disorder strengthens our ability to identify the
five-factor structure pertinent to important elements of severe psychopathology that may have
DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF PERSONALITY DISORDER
been underrepresented in previous analyses of
dimensional psychopathology. An alternative
suggestion to the incorporation of such characteristics in a dimensional model of personality
disorder is to consider them variants of schizophrenia, similar to the approach taken by the
World Health Organization (First et al., 2002).
We feel that these results suggest an important
place for characteristics related to perceptual
aberrations in the broader domain of personality
pathology (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Future
research could extend this work to specific clinical populations (e.g., individuals with schizophrenia spectrum disorders) to determine
whether the fifth factor accounts for meaningful
variance in individuals who are actively disordered. Further, there is a need for such a dimensional model to demonstrate clinical utility and
feasibility of implementation in future work.
However, this study builds on the growing consensus that a dimensional model of personality
pathology may provide an empirically based
alternative to the current categorical system for
the next edition of the DSM.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Camisa, K. M., Bockbrader, M. A., Lysaker, P., Rae,
L. L., Brenner, C. A., & O’Donnell, B. F. (2005).
Personality traits in schizophrenia and related personality disorders. Psychiatry Research, 133, 23–
33.
Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. (1983). Infrequency Scale. Unpublished test. (Available from
T. R. Kwapil, Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Greensboro, NC 27403–
6064)
Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Raulin, M. L.
(1976). Scales for physical and social anhedonia.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85, 374 –382.
Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., & Raulin, M. L.
(1978). Body-image aberration in schizophrenia.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 87, 399 – 407.
Clark, L. A., & Livesley, W. J. (2002). Two approaches to identifying the dimensions of personality disorder: Convergence on the five-factor
model. In P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.),
Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality (2nd ed., pp. 161–176). Washington,
DC: American Psychological Association.
De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K. V., &
Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure of maladaptive
33
personality traits in childhood: A step toward an
integrative developmental perspective for DSM–V.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 639 – 657.
Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L. J. (1983). Magical
ideation as an indicator of schizotypy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51, 215–225.
Eckblad, M., Chapman, L. J., Chapman, J. P., &
Mishlove, M. (1982). The revised social anhedonia scale. Unpublished test, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
First, M. B., Bell, C. C., Cuthbert, B., Krystal, J. H.,
Malison, R., Offord, D. R., et al. (2002). Personality disorders and relational disorders. In D. J.
Kupfer, M. B. First, & D. A. Regier (Eds.), A
research agenda for DSM–V (pp. 123–200).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic
personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26 –
34.
Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of NEO–PI–R items. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 77, 339 –358.
Kerns, J. G. (2006). Schizotypy facets, cognitive
control, and emotion. (2006). Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 115, 418 – 427.
Kremen, W. S., Faraone, S. V., Toomey, R., Seidman, L. J., & Tsuang, M. T. (1998). Sex differences in self-reported schizotypal traits in relatives
of schizophrenic probands. Schizophrenia Research, 34, 27–37.
Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B., & Regier, D. A. (Eds.).
(2002). A research agenda for DSM–V. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Livesley, W. J. (2005). Behavioral and molecular
genetic contributions to a dimensional classification of personality disorder. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 19, 131–155.
Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. N. (in press). Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology—
Basic Questionnaire. Port Huron, MI: Research
Psychologists Press.
Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., & Vernon, P. A. (1998).
Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 941–948.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2001). A fivefactor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin &
O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 139 –153). New
York: Guilford Press.
Meyer, T. D., & Hautzinger, M. (1999). Two-year
stability of psychosis proneness scales and their
relations to personality disorder traits. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 73, 472– 488.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998 –2006). Version 4 Mplus user’s guide [Computer software and
manual]. Los Angeles: Author.
34
TACKETT, SILBERSCHMIDT, KRUEGER, AND SPONHEIM
Nurnberger, J. I., Jr., Blehar, M. C., Kaufmann,
C. A., York-Cooler, C., Simpson, S. G., HarkavyFriedman, J., et al. (1994). Diagnostic interview
for genetic studies. Rationale, unique features, and
training. NIMH genetics initiative. Archives of
General Psychiatry, 51, 849 – 859.
Pope, K., Butcher, J., & Seelen, J. (2000). The
MMPI, MMPI–2, & MMPI–A in court: A practical
guide for expert witnesses and attorneys (2nd ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Raine, A. (1991). The SPQ: A scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM–
III–R criteria. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 17, 555–
564.
Reynolds, C. A., Raine, A., Mellingen, K., Venables,
P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2000). Three-factor
model of schizotypal personality: Invariance
across culture, gender, religious affiliation, family
adversity, and psychopathology. Schizophrenia
Bulletin, 26, 603– 618.
Ross, S. R., Lutz, C. J., & Bailley, S. E. (2002).
Positive and negative symptoms of schizotypy and
the five-factor model: A domain and facet level
analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79,
53–72.
Schroeder, M. L., Wormworth, J. A., & Livesley,
W. J. (2002). Dimensions of personality disorder
and 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. 149 –160). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Sponheim, S. R., McGuire, K. A., & Stanwyck, J. J.
(2006). Neural anomalies during sustained atten-
tion in first-degree biological relatives of schizophrenia patients. Biological Psychiatry, 60, 242–
252.
Thaker, G., Moran, M., Adami, H., & Cassady, S.
(1993). Psychosis proneness scales in schizophrenia spectrum personality disorders: Familial vs.
nonfamilial samples. Psychiatry Research, 46, 47–
57.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (in
press). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: II. Further articulation
of a comprehensive unified trait structure. Journal
of Personality.
Widiger, T. A. (1998). Four out of five ain’t bad.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 865– 866.
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (1994). Personality
and personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 103, 78 –91.
Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative
dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 110 –130.
Widiger, T. A., Simonsen, E., Krueger, R. F., Livesley, J. W., & Verheul, R. (2005). Personality disorder research agenda for DSM–V. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 19, 315–338.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics
in the classification of personality disorder. American Psychologist, 62, 71– 83.
Received June 18, 2007
Revision received October 22, 2007
Accepted October 30, 2007 䡲