TAXOMIETRIC EVIDENCE FOR THE DIMENSIONAL STRUCTURE OF CLUSTER-C, PARANOID, AND BORDERLINE PERSONALITY DISORDERS

被引:53
作者
Arntz, Arnoud [1 ]
Bernstein, David [1 ]
Gielen, Dominique [1 ]
van Nieuwenhuyzen, Myrthe [1 ]
Penders, Krystle [1 ]
Haslam, Nick [2 ]
Ruscio, John [3 ]
机构
[1] Univ Maastricht, Dept Clin Psychol Sci, NL-6200 MD Maastricht, Netherlands
[2] Univ Melbourne, Dept Psychol, Melbourne, Vic 3010, Australia
[3] Coll New Jersey, Dept Psychol, Ewing, NJ 08628 USA
关键词
TAXOMETRIC ANALYSIS; LATENT STRUCTURE; 5-FACTOR MODEL; SCHIZOTYPY; CLASSIFICATION; INDICATORS; TAXON; PSYCHOTHERAPY; PSYCHOPATHY; CATEGORIES;
D O I
10.1521/pedi.2009.23.6.606
中图分类号
R749 [精神病学];
学科分类号
100205 ;
摘要
Despite a lively debate about the dimensional vs. categorical nature of Personality Disorders (PDs), direct empirical tests of the underlying structure are missing for most PDs. Taxometrics can be used to investigate whether latent structures are categorical or dimensional. We investigated the latent structure underlying Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive, Depressive, Paranoid, and Borderline PD by means of three types of taxometric analyses. SCID-II based DSM-IV PD criterion scores from 1,816 patients from Mental Health and Forensic Institutes, and 63 nonpatients, were analyzed with three types of taxometric analyses. MAMBAC, MAXEIG, and L-MODE taxometric analyses were applied on multiple criteria sets, constituted both on theoretical grounds and randomly. Assumptions for taxometric analyses were generally met. All but two of the 78 taxometric analyses indicated greater evidence for a latent dimensional structure, with better fit of empirical data to dimensional than to taxonic simulations; mean Comparative Curve Fit Index (CCFI) =.23, SD = .09. Only two analyses yielded ambiguous evidence (CCFI in the .40-.60 range) and none indicated taxonic structure.
引用
收藏
页码:606 / 628
页数:23
相关论文
共 65 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2000, SCID 2 GESTRUCTUREER, DOI DOI 10.1037/T07828-000
[2]  
[Anonymous], LISREL 8 54
[3]   Do personality disorders exist? On the validity of the concept and its cognitive-behavioral formulation and treatment [J].
Arntz, A .
BEHAVIOUR RESEARCH AND THERAPY, 1999, 37 :S97-S134
[4]  
Association AP, 1980, Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, V3rd, DOI [DOI 10.1176/APPI.BOOKS.9780890425596.DSM04, DOI 10.1176/APPI.BOOKS.9780890425596]
[5]  
AYERS WA, 2000, DISS ABSTR INT B, V61, P1684
[6]  
BERNSTEIN DP, 2007, PERSONALITY DISORDER, P41
[7]   Higher-order dimensions of personality disorder: Hierarchical structure and relationships with the five-factor model, the interpersonal circle, and psychopathy [J].
Blackburn, R ;
Logan, C ;
Renwick, SJD ;
Donnelly, JP .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS, 2005, 19 (06) :597-623
[8]   Hedonic capacity and schizotypy revisited: A taxometric analysis of social anhedonia [J].
Blanchard, JJ ;
Gangestad, SW ;
Brown, SA ;
Horan, WP .
JOURNAL OF ABNORMAL PSYCHOLOGY, 2000, 109 (01) :87-95
[9]   FACTOR STRUCTURE OF BORDERLINE PERSONALITY-DISORDER CRITERIA [J].
CLARKIN, JF ;
HULL, JW ;
HURT, SW .
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY DISORDERS, 1993, 7 (02) :137-143
[10]  
Costa P.T., 2001, PERSONALITY DISORDER, V2nd