TY - JOUR
T1 - Revisiting the structure of DSM-5 section II personality disorder criteria using individual participant data meta-analysis
AU - Müller, Steffen
AU - Schroeders, Ulrich
AU - Bachrach, Nathan
AU - Benecke, Cord
AU - Cuevas, Lara
AU - Doering, Stephan
AU - Elklit, Ask
AU - Gutiérrez, Fernando
AU - Hengartner, Michael P.
AU - Hogue, Todd
AU - Hopwood, Christopher James
AU - Mihura, Joni L
AU - Oltmanns, Thomas
AU - Paap, Muirne
AU - Pedersen, Geir
AU - Renn, Daniela
AU - Ringwald, Whitney R.
AU - Rossi, Gina
AU - Samuels, Jack
AU - Sharp, Carla
AU - Simonsen, Erik
AU - Skodol, Andrew E.
AU - Wright, Aidan G.C.
AU - Zimmerman, Mark
AU - Zimmermann, Johannes
PY - 2023
Y1 - 2023
N2 - The factor structure of Personality Disorder (PD) criteria has long been debated, but due to previous heterogenous findings, a common structure to represent covariation among DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II PD criteria remains an open question. This study integrated a total of N= 30,545PD assessments from 25 samples to conduct an individual participant meta-analytic factor analysis on the structure of PD criteria. Measurement invariance testing across gender, clinical status, and assessment methods indicated substantial structural differences between interview-basedand self-reported measures. In interviews, a confirmatory ten-factor model with factors representing specific DSM-5 PDsshowed misfit, which could be addressedby allowing for secondary loadings (using exploratory factor analysiswith target rotation). Inself-reports, a confirmatory ten-factor model showedstronger misfit than in interviews andexploratorysolutionswere less clearand suggested that a simpler model may be preferable. Factors showed some resemblance to maladaptive trait domains such as Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition when extracting five factors, but there were substantial differences in factor content between interviews and self-reports. In bifactor rotated models, ageneral factor showed higher explained variance in self-reports,whilethe content of general factors was similar across both assessment methods. Our results suggest that interview and self-reported measures of PD criteria are not structurally equivalent. To advance research on thestructure of PD,it might be useful to consequently focus on the shared variance of multiple methods. For this purpose,future multimethod studies should combine interviews and self-reports withfurther assessment methods such as informant-reports
AB - The factor structure of Personality Disorder (PD) criteria has long been debated, but due to previous heterogenous findings, a common structure to represent covariation among DSM-IV/DSM-5 Section II PD criteria remains an open question. This study integrated a total of N= 30,545PD assessments from 25 samples to conduct an individual participant meta-analytic factor analysis on the structure of PD criteria. Measurement invariance testing across gender, clinical status, and assessment methods indicated substantial structural differences between interview-basedand self-reported measures. In interviews, a confirmatory ten-factor model with factors representing specific DSM-5 PDsshowed misfit, which could be addressedby allowing for secondary loadings (using exploratory factor analysiswith target rotation). Inself-reports, a confirmatory ten-factor model showedstronger misfit than in interviews andexploratorysolutionswere less clearand suggested that a simpler model may be preferable. Factors showed some resemblance to maladaptive trait domains such as Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition when extracting five factors, but there were substantial differences in factor content between interviews and self-reports. In bifactor rotated models, ageneral factor showed higher explained variance in self-reports,whilethe content of general factors was similar across both assessment methods. Our results suggest that interview and self-reported measures of PD criteria are not structurally equivalent. To advance research on thestructure of PD,it might be useful to consequently focus on the shared variance of multiple methods. For this purpose,future multimethod studies should combine interviews and self-reports withfurther assessment methods such as informant-reports
UR - https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/f2yvj
U2 - 10.31234/osf.io/f2yvj
DO - 10.31234/osf.io/f2yvj
M3 - Article
JO - PsyArxiv Preprints
JF - PsyArxiv Preprints
ER -