Journal of Abnormal Psychology © 2013 American Psychological Association

2013, Vol. 122, No. 3, 816 – 821 0021-843X/13/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0032822

BRIEF REPORT

The DSM-5 Dimensional Trait Model and Five-Factor Models of

General Personality
Whitney L. Gore and Thomas A. Widiger
University of Kentucky

The current study tests empirically the relationship of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) with five-factor models
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

of general personality. The DSM-5 maladaptive trait dimensional model proposal included 25 traits
organized within five broad domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition,
and psychoticism). Consistent with the authors of the proposal, it was predicted that negative affectivity
would align with five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism, detachment with FFM introversion, antagonism
with FFM antagonism, disinhibition with low FFM conscientiousness and, contrary to the proposal;
psychoticism would align with FFM openness. Three measures of alternative five-factor models of
general personality were administered to 445 undergraduates along with the Personality Inventory for
DSM-5. The results provided support for the hypothesis that all five domains of the DSM-5 dimensional
trait model are maladaptive variants of general personality structure, including the domain of
psychoticism.

Keywords: five-factor model, personality disorders, DSM-5, dimensional trait models

The purpose of this study was to test empirically the relationship affectivity aligns with FFM neuroticism, detachment with intro-
of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth edition of the version, antagonism with antagonism, and disinhibition with low
American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statis- conscientiousness, but there is disagreement as to whether psy-
tical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; APA, 2011) with choticism aligns with FFM openness (Krueger et al., 2011). As
five-factor models of general personality. Proposed for DSM-5 was expressed at one point on the APA DSM-5 Web site, ‘“openness to
a five-domain model of maladaptive personality traits, consisting experience’ is a major domain of normal-range personality varia-
of negative affectivity, detachment, psychoticism, antagonism, and tion, but an extensive literature shows essentially no relationship
disinhibition (Krueger et al., 2011) that, in the end, was placed in between this domain and DSM–IV PDs” (APA, 2011).
Section 3 of DSM-5 for proposals needing further study. In the The relationship between FFM openness and the cognitive-
final posting on the DSM-5 Web site, it was stated that “the perceptual aberrations of schizotypal PD has been weakly to
proposed model represents an extension of the Five Factor Model inconsistently confirmed (e.g., Watson, Clark, & Chmielewski,
(FFM; Costa & Widiger, 2002) of personality that specifically 2008). However, a relationship of FFM openness with schizotypal
delineates and encompasses the more extreme and maladaptive traits has been reported in a number of studies (e.g., DeYoung,
personality variants” (APA, 2012, p. 7). Some researchers have
Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012; Kwapil, Barrantes-Vidal & Silvia,
long argued for an integration of the classification of personality
2008; Ross, Lutz, & Bailey, 2002) and it may also be more evident
disorder (PD) with dimensional trait models of general person-
when alternative measures of this domain are used (Haigler &
ality, as a fully integrative model of normal and abnormal
Widiger, 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2008).
personality could have a number of conceptual and empirical
There are other instruments, such as the HEXACO Personality
advantages (Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009).
Inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2004), the 5-Dimensional Personality
Nevertheless, there has been some disagreement as to the extent
of the alignment of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model proposal Test (5DPT; van Kampen, 2012), and the Inventory of Personal
with general personality. There is general agreement that negative Characteristics (IPC; Tellegen & Waller, 1987), that include do-
mains that correspond empirically and conceptually with FFM
openness. For example, the IPC includes a scale titled Conven-
tionality which Tellegen and colleagues indicate “corresponds to
the Big Five dimension of . . . (reversed) Openness” (Almagor,
This article was published Online First July 1, 2013.
Tellegen, & Waller, 1995, p. 301). Empirical support for this
Whitney L. Gore and Thomas A. Widiger, Department of Psychology,
University of Kentucky.
alignment is provided by McCrae and Costa (1995), Tellegen and
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Whitney Waller (1987), and Durrett and Trull (2005); however, only weak
L. Gore, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, 111E Kastle support is provided by Simms (2007). The 5DPT scale, Absorp-
Hall, Lexington, KY 40506. E-mail: [email protected] tion, similarly aligns with FFM openness. van Kampen (2012)

816
 DSM-5 DIMENSIONAL TRAIT MODEL 817

reported “convergent correlations between 5DPT A and the NEO- consists of 220 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (very
FFI and HEXACO-PI-R Openness to Experience scales” (p. 97). false or often false) to 3 (very true or often true). Coefficient
Most importantly, the authors of these instruments suggest that alphas ranged in the current study from .71 for Suspiciousness to
their respective “openness” scales are associated with oddity, .94 for Eccentricity, consistent with Krueger, Derringer, Markon,
peculiarity, eccentricity, and/or cognitive-perceptual aberrations Watson, and Skodol (2012), which ranged from .73 for Grandios-
(Almagor et al., 1995; Lee & Ashton, 2004; van Kampen, 2012). ity to .95 for Eccentricity.
The purpose of this study was to test empirically the relationship NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa &
of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model of maladaptive personality McCrae, 1992). The NEO PI-R is a measure of the FFM of
with dimensional trait models of general personality, including the personality and contains 240 items rated on a Likert scale ranging
FFM along with the 5DPT and the IPC. It was expected that the from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Coefficient alphas
PID-5 domains would align with the five-factor model of general ranged in the current study from .86 for Agreeableness to .91 for
personality as follows: Negative affectivity would align with neu- Conscientiousness, consistent with results reported in the test
roticism, antagonism with agreeableness, disinhibition with low manual, which ranged from .86 for Agreeableness to .92 for
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

conscientiousness, detachment with low extraversion, and psy-

Neuroticism.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

choticism with openness.

5 Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT; van Kampen, 2012).
The 5DPT is a dichotomous 100-item measure of five dimensions:
Method Neuroticism, Extraversion, Absorption, Insensitivity, and Orderli-
ness. Items were either coded as Yes (2) or No (1). Coefficient
Participants and Procedure alphas ranged in the current study from .81 for Orderliness to .89
for Neuroticism, which was consistent with the results reported by
The participants in this study were 585 undergraduate introduc-
van Kampen (2012).
tory psychology students from the University of Kentucky who
Inventory of Personal Characteristics-5 (IPC-5; Tellegen &
received class credit for their participation. More than half of the
Waller, 1987). The IPC-5 is a self-report inventory designed
participants were female (67%) and their mean age was 19.23
to measure Tellegen’s seven-factor model of personality, which
years. Fifty-eight participants did not report their age. Eighty-three
includes five scales that align with the FFM (Almagor et al.,
percent of the participants identified themselves as Caucasian,
10% as African American, 2% as Asian, 1% as Hispanic, and 3% 1995; Tellegen & Waller, 1987). This measure uses a 4-point
as Other. Likert scale ranging from definitely false to definitely true. The
Participants completed all questionnaires via SurveyMonkey, a present study administered only the 120 items assessing the five
secure online survey tool. Each participant consented to participate scales that align with the FFM. Coefficient alphas ranged in
by choosing the agree option in response to an informed consent the current study from .83 for Agreeableness to .91 for Positive
form. Those who did not consent and, therefore, chose the disagree Emotionality.
option were automatically exited from the study. Participants were
allowed as much time as necessary to complete the materials
Factor Analyses
(which required approximately 2 hours) and could temporarily
suspend participation whenever they felt tired or distracted. All cross-validation studies of the PID-5 structure to date have
Due to the online administration, a conservative threshold was used exploratory factor analysis (De Fruyt, De Clerq, De Bolle,
set for inclusion of participants. One-hundred participants (17%) Markon, & Krueger, in press; Thomas et al., in press; Wright et al.,
were deleted because they did not adequately complete the admin- in press) rather than confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA is
istered measures. Forty participants (7%) were deleted because often considered inappropriate for broad personality scales be-
they received elevated scores on a validity scale (described later). cause it includes an unrealistic assumption of simple structure
Some of the remaining 445 participants failed to respond to a few wherein scales are unrelated to any other factor (Hopwood &
scattered items. These missing data were imputed using the ex- Donnellan, 2010).
pectation maximization (EM) procedure, which has been shown to An alternative to CFA is exploratory structural equation mod-
produce more accurate estimates of population parameters than eling (ESEM), a procedure which combines elements of confir-
other methods, such as deletion of missing cases or mean substi-
matory with exploratory factor analysis (Hopwood & Donnellan,
tution (Enders, 2006).
2010; Marsh et al., 2010). The maximum likelihood estimator
(MLR) for the ESEM analyses was conducted in Mplus 6.12, with
Materials an oblique geomin rotation (Brown, 2001). In line with Marsh et
Validity scale. A previously developed five-item validity al., multiple fit indices were used, including the Tucker-Lewis
scale was administered. An endorsement of items on this scale index (TLI) and the comparative fit index (CFI). With respect to
would suggest the participant was not attending sufficiently well to the TLI and CFI, values of .90 and .95, respectively, are indicative
item content. Items are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 of acceptable and excellent fit to the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999).
(strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were dispersed Also examined were the root-mean-square error of approximation
among items from other measures. (RMSEA) for which values less than .05 and .08 indicate a close
Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derrin- or reasonable fit to the data, respectively, and the standardized
ger, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). The PID-5 is the root-mean-square residual (SRMR), wherein values less than .05
measure of the proposed 25-trait dimensional model for DSM-5. It are indicative of good fit.
 818 GORE AND WIDIGER

Results Table 1 presents the parameter estimates, indicating that the

ESEM five-factor model provides both an adequate to excellent fit
The mean scores obtained on the PID-5 in the current study and that the expected domains do align, consistent with the a priori
ranged from .85 (Psychoticism) to 1.14 (Negative Affectivity). hypotheses. The first factor is comprised mainly by the domains
These scores are commensurate with those obtained by Krueger et convergent with antagonism (i.e., NEO PI-R Agreeableness, IPC-5
al. (2012) and Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, and Born Agreeability, 5DPT Insensitivity, PID-5 Antagonism) but also
(2012). The mean scores obtained for the NEO PI-R ranged from included a moderate loading from NEO PI-R Openness. The
92.9 (Neuroticism) to 120.2 (Extraversion). These scores are lower second factor is comprised of domains convergent with neuroti-
than reported by Bagby, Sellbom, Costa, and Widiger (2008) cism (i.e., NEO PI-R Neuroticism, IPC-5 Negative Emotionality,
within a clinical sample, but the range of scores (e.g., 41 to 171 for 5DPT Neuroticism, and PID-5 Negative Affectivity) but also in-
Neuroticism) well-encapsulated the Bagby et al. mean scores. cludes a loading (.30) for PID-5 Detachment. Factor 3 was com-
The factor structure of the four five-factor measures was first prised of domains convergent with extraversion (i.e., NEO PI-R
examined using CFA (Muthén & Muthén, 2011), specifying five Extraversion, IPC-5 Positive Emotionality, 5DPT Extraversion,
factors. Consistent with expectations, the model did not result in an
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

and PID-5 Detachment). Factor 4 is comprised of domains con-

adequate fit (CFI ⫽ .607, TLI ⫽ .534, RMSEA ⫽ .182, SRMR ⫽
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

vergent with conscientiousness (NEO PI-R Conscientiousness,

.129). An ESEM analysis was then conducted, resulting in a much IPC-5 Dependability, 5DPT Order, and PID-5 Disinhibition). Fac-
closer, but still not an adequate fit (CFI ⫽ .843, TLI ⫽ .701, tor 5 is comprised of the domains convergent with openness (i.e.,
RMSEA ⫽ .154, SRMR ⫽ .050). However, when evaluating these NEO PI-R Openness, IPC-5 Conventionality, 5DPT Absorption,
initial ESEM analyses it is noteworthy that there were very high and PID-5 Psychoticism).
correlations across domain scales within the same measures, par-
ticularly for the PID-5 (i.e., ranging from .33 to .76 for the PID-5
Discussion
with a mean of .57; from .04 to ⫺.44 with a mean of .22 for the
NEO PI-R; .01 to .55 with a mean of .33 for the IPC-5; and from The purpose of the present study was to investigate the relation-
.00 to .48 with a mean of .19 for the 5DPT). These high correla- ship between the proposed DSM-5 dimensional trait model of
tions likely reflect in part measure variance. To control for this maladaptive personality with three five-factor dimensional trait
measurement variance and provide a clearer test, an ESEM anal- models of general personality structure. Consistent with expecta-
ysis specifying the high intercorrelations across domain scales of tions, the ESEM analysis did support the presence of a common
the same measure was implemented. This subsequent ESEM anal- five-factor structure, including psychoticism within the same do-
ysis yielded a model of adequate to excellent fit depending upon main as FFM openness.
the index (CFI ⫽ .980, TLI ⫽ .939, RMSEA ⫽ .070, SRMR ⫽ One potential explanation for the relatively weak relationship of
.017). FFM openness with oddity, eccentricity, and/or psychoticism ob-

Table 1
Exploratory Structural Equation Model of the Domain Scales of the NEO PI-R, the PID-5, the IPC, and the 5DPT

Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Factor 5

Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE Estimate SE

NEO Agreeableness ⴚ.93 .03 .06 .03 .00 .02 ⫺.01 .03 .20 .05
IPC Agreeability ⴚ.74 .03 .00 .03 .14 .04 .01 .03 .03 .04
DPT Insensitivity .63 .04 .20 .05 .05 .03 .07 .05 .05 .04
PID Antagonism .67 .04 .01 .03 .06 .04 ⫺.14 .05 .04 .04
NEO Neuroticism ⫺.05 .03 .83 .02 ⫺.02 .02 ⫺.09 .04 ⫺.06 .04
IPC Negative Emo. ⫺.02 .03 .86 .02 .01 .03 .05 .03 ⫺.01 .03
DPT Neuroticism .01 .02 .86 .02 ⫺.06 .03 .09 .03 .01 .03
PID Negative Aff. .07 .04 .72 .03 .08 .04 ⫺.09 .05 .00 .04
NEO Extraversion .03 .03 .01 .03 .86 .02 ⫺.03 .03 .03 .03
IPC Positive Emo. ⫺.23 .05 ⫺.02 .02 .80 .03 .01 .02 ⫺.02 .02
DPT Extraversion .04 .03 .03 .03 .85 .02 ⫺.03 .03 .03 .03
PID Detachment .28 .05 .30 .04 ⴚ.45 .04 ⫺.10 .05 .12 .04
NEO Conscient. .04 .02 ⫺.16 .05 .01 .02 .89 .03 .11 .04
IPC Dependability ⫺.09 .04 ⫺.10 .04 .10 .04 .71 .03 ⫺.05 .03
DPT Order .10 .05 .14 .05 .01 .02 .82 .03 .00 .02
PID Disinhibition .20 .05 ⫺.01 .01 .20 .04 ⴚ.74 .04 .08 .04
NEO Openness ⴚ.36 .06 ⫺.04 .02 .11 .05 .00 .01 .76 .04
IPC Conventional. ⫺.08 .05 .05 .03 .07 .04 .22 .06 ⴚ.62 .05
DPT Absorption ⫺.03 .02 .26 .05 .00 .02 .16 .06 .67 .05
PID Psychoticism .20 .06 .21 .04 ⫺.15 .05 ⫺.11 .06 .45 .05
Note. Factor loadings ⱖ |.30| are in boldface. NEO ⫽ NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992); NEO Conscient. ⫽ NEO
Conscientiousness; IPC ⫽ Inventory of Personal Characteristics-5 (Tellegen & Waller, 1987); IPC Negative Emo. ⫽ IPC Negative Emotionality;
IPC Positive Emo. ⫽ IPC Positive Emotionality; IPC Conventional. ⫽ IPC Conventionality; DPT ⫽ 5 Dimensional Personality Test (van Kampen, 2012);
PID ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (Krueger et al., 2011); PID Negative Aff. ⫽ PID Negative Affectivity.
 DSM-5 DIMENSIONAL TRAIT MODEL 819

tained in prior research is the absence of much representation of separation of PID-5 from openness in a seven-factor solution.
maladaptive openness within the NEO PI-R. It is noteworthy that However, the findings of the current study are consistent with
the NEO PI-R Openness scale was originally constructed prior to other recent PID-5 studies. For example, Thomas et al. (in press)
any knowledge of Costa or McCrae of the lexical Big Five. Costa reported an exploratory factor analysis involving the PID-5 and the
and McCrae (1980) began with just a three-factor model, assessed Five Factor Model Rating Form (Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Sam-
by the NEO Inventory (e.g., McCrae & Costa, 1983). They did not uel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006). They concluded that “the structure
conceptualize openness as having any maladaptive variant, con- of the DSM-5 personality traits corresponds to the structure of the
sidering it instead to concern such ideal personality traits as FFM” (Thomas et al., in press, p. 6), including an alignment of
self-actualization, an open mind, and self-realization (Coan, 1974; psychoticism with openness. The same finding and conclusion was
Rogers, 1961; Rokeach, 1960). Shortly after the development of reached by De Fruyt, De Clerq, De Bolle, Markon, and Krueger (in
the NEO Inventory, Costa and McCrae became aware of the Big press) in a joint factor analysis of the PID-5 with the NEO PI-R.
Five and they extended their instrument to include agreeableness Wright et al. (in press) likewise reported the results of an explor-
and conscientiousness. However, they did not revise their scales atory factor analysis confined to the PID-5 and concluded that “the
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

assessing neuroticism, extraversion, or openness, and they subse- five-factor structure is easily recognizable and best interpreted as
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

quently acknowledged that FFM openness does not align as well maladaptive variants or pathological forms of the Big Five factors”
with the Big Five (McCrae, 1990). (p. 4). In sum, although the original and some recent presentations
It was partly for this reason that the current study included of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model proposal have emphasized a
alternative measures of this domain of personality, notably the lack of congruence of psychoticism with FFM openness (e.g.,
5DPT (van Kampen, 2012) and the IPC-5 (Tellegen & Waller, Clark & Krueger, 2010; Krueger et al., 2012, 2011), a shift might
1987), which include subscales and/or items that are more sugges- be occurring with respect to an understanding of PID-5 psychoti-
tive of unconventionality, eccentricity, and peculiarity hypothe- cism (De Fruyt et al., in press; Thomas et al., in press; Wright et
sized to be maladaptive variants of FFM openness (Widiger, al., in press).
2011). Nevertheless, although PID-5 Psychoticism loaded clearly
on the fifth factor, the magnitude was relatively lower than was
Limitations
obtained for the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC-5. This may reflect
that the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC-5 are all measures of general A strength of the current study was the inclusion of three
personality whereas the PID-5 is confined to abnormal personality. alternative measures of general personality functioning. Prior stud-
The PID-5 loaded as strongly as the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC-5 ies testing empirically the convergence of the PID-5 with general
on three of the other factors and in all three of these cases the items personality functioning have included only one such measure (e.g.,
within the general measures of personality are keyed largely in the De Fruyt et al., in press; Thomas et al., in press). Nevertheless,
same maladaptive direction as the PID-5. For example, over 80% concerns could be raised with respect to the choice of measures;
of the NEO PI-R items assessing neuroticism, antagonism, and low more specifically, that the 5DPT and IPC-5 are not actually direct
conscientiousness also concern maladaptive traits (Haigler & Wi- measures of the FFM as described by Costa and McCrae (1992).
diger, 2001), consistent with the focus of the PID-5. However, the authors of each instrument state explicitly that their
PID-5 Psychoticism though may indeed involve some psychotic respective domains do align with the FFM and some of the scales
symptomatology that lies outside of general personality structure. even share the same name with a respective NEO PI-R scale
Some of the PID-5 items do appear to be referring to overt (Almagor et al., 1995; van Kampen, 2012). Nevertheless, it would
psychotic symptoms (e.g., “Sometimes I feel ‘controlled’ by be useful for future studies to consider additional measures of the
thoughts that belong to someone else,” and “Sometimes I think FFM.
someone else is removing thoughts from my head”). Items that An additional potential limitation of the current study was the
suggest Schneiderian delusions (Schneider, 1959), such as thought sampling of an undergraduate student population. Prior research
control and thought broadcasting, are perhaps best understood as has indicated that the structure of the PID-5 is congruent across
part of a psychotic disorder rather than reflecting the magical clinically relevant (Krueger et al., 2012) and student samples
thinking and perceptual confusions that would be evident in per- (Wright et al., in press). Nevertheless, the bulk of the existing
sons who are just odd, peculiar, and/or eccentric in a schizotypic PID-5 research has been confined largely to college samples (e.g.,
manner (Kwapil & Barrantes-Vidal, 2012). Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, in press; Thomas
PID-5 Detachment also loaded relatively lower on the third et al., in press: Wright et al., in press) and it would be useful to
factor than the NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC. This finding was extend this research into a clinical population wherein there would
unexpected, as there is no dispute that PID-5 Detachment aligns be an improved range of maladaptive personality functioning.
with FFM introversion (Krueger et al., 2011). It may reflect in part
that PID-5 Detachment includes the traits of depressivity and
Conclusions
suspiciousness that are placed within the domains of neuroticism
and antagonism (respectively) within the FFM. PID-5 Detachment In conclusion, the present findings support the hypothesis that
did obtain a secondary loading within the second factor, defined by the dimensional trait model proposed for DSM-5 is aligned with
the scales assessing neuroticism and negative affectivity, and a five-factor models of general personality. More generally, the
marginal secondary loading of .28 within the first factor, defined findings also support the hypothesis that PD traits are maladaptive
by the scales assessing antagonism. variants of FFM traits. The present study also connects the PID-5
In a joint factor analysis of the PID-5 with measures of disso- model with the broader nomological network of general personal-
ciation and the HEXACO-PI, Ashton et al. (2012) reported a ity research by examining how it relates to preexisting measures.
 820 GORE AND WIDIGER

There are a number of evident advantages in having an inte- De Fruyt, F., De Clerq, B., De Bolle, M., Willie, B., Markon, K. E., &
grated model of normal and abnormal personality (Krueger & Krueger, R. F. (in press). General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor
Eaton, 2010; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009). Such a model can framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment.
provide a comprehensive description of a person, including both DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peterson, J. B. (2012). From
madness to genius: The openness/intellect trait domain as a paradoxical
normal and abnormal traits. In addition, the considerable breadth
simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 63–78. doi:10.1016/j
of general personality research may help inform the understanding .jrp.2011.12.003
of personality disorder. Researchers are now focusing attention on Durrett, C., & Trull, T. (2005). An evaluation of evaluative personality
the development of new instruments that span the full range of terms: A comparison of the Big Seven and five-factor models in pre-
normal and abnormal personality functioning (e.g., De Clercq, De dicting psychpathology. Psychological Assessment, 17, 359 –368. doi:
Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, & Mervielde, 2006; Edmundson, Lynam, 10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.359
Miller, Gore, & Widiger, 2011; Gore, Presnall, Lynam, Miller, & Edmundson, M., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., Gore, W. L., & Widiger,
Widiger, 2012; Simms et al., 2011). T. A. (2011). A five-factor measure of schizotypal personality traits.
Assessment, 18, 321–334. doi:10.1177/1073191111408228
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Enders, C. K. (2006). A primer on the use of modern missing-data methods

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

References in psychosomatic medicine research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 427–

436.
Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The Big Seven model: Gore, W. L., Presnall, J., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A.
A cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimen- (2012). A five-factor measure of dependent personality traits. Journal of
sions of natural language trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Personality Assessment, 94, 488 – 499. doi:10.1080/00223891.2012
Social Psychology, 69, 300 –307. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.69.2.300 .670681
American Psychiatric Association. (2011, June 21). Personality disorders. Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of
Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/PROPOSEDREVISIONS/Pages/ NEO PI-R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339 –358.
PersonalityandPersonalityDisorders.aspx doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7702_14
American Psychiatric Association. (2012, May 1). Rationale for the pro- Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal
posed changes to the personality disorders classification in DSM-5. structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social
Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/Documents/Personality% Psychology Review, 14, 332–346. doi:10.1177/1088868310361240
20Disorders/Rationale%20for%20the%20Proposed%20changes% Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G. C., &
20to%20the%20Personality%20Disorders%20in%20DSM-5%205–1- Krueger, R. F. (in press). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM–IV person-
12.pdf ality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Hendrickse, J., & Born, M. (2012). Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariate
The maladaptive personality traits of the Personality Inventory for structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-
DSM-5 (PID-5) in relation to the HEXACO personality factors and tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
schizotypy/dissociation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 641– 659. Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E.
doi:10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.641 (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and
Bagby, R. M., Sellbom, M., Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879 –1890. doi:
Predicting Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-IV 10.1017/S0033291711002674
personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality and Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. R. (2010). Personality traits and the classifi-
personality psychopathology five. Personality and Mental Health, 2, cation of mental disorders: Toward a complete integration in DSM-V and
55– 69. doi:10.1002/pmh.33 an empirical model of psychopathology. Personality Disorders: Theory,
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory Research, and Treatment, 1, 97–118. doi:10.1037/a0018990
factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150. doi: Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark. L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K. E.,
10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05 Derringer, J. . . . Livesley, W. J. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure
Clark, L. A., & Krueger, R. F. (2010). Rationale for a six-domain trait of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders,
dimensional diagnostic system for personality disorder. Retrieved from 25, 170 –191. doi:10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.170
http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/RationaleforaSixDo- Kwapil, T. R., & Barrantes-Vidal, N. (2012). Schizotypal personality
mainTraitDimensionalDiagnosticSystemforPersonalityDisorder.aspx disorder—An integrative review. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford
Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. New York, NY: Columbia handbook of personality disorders (pp. 437– 477). New York, NY:
University Press. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1980). Still stable after all these years: .0021
Personality as a key to some issues in adulthood and old age. In P. B. Kwapil, T. R., Barrantes-Vidal, N., & Silvia, P. J. (2008). The dimensional
Baltes & O. G. Brim (Eds.), Life span development and behavior (pp. structure of the Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales: Factor identification and
65–102). New York, NY: Academic Press. construct validity. Schizophrenia Bulletin, 34, 444 – 457. doi:10.1093/
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory schbul/sbm098
(NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329 –358.
Costa, P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (Eds.). (2002). Personality disorders and the doi:10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8
five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psycho- Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S.,
logical Association. doi:10.1037/10423-000 Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor
De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., & Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psycholog-
structure of maladaptive personality traits in childhood: A first step ical Assessment, 22, 471– 491. doi:10.1037/a0019227
toward an integrative developmental perspective for DSM-V. Journal of McCrae, R. R. (1990). Traits and trait names: How well is openness
Abnormal Psychology, 115, 639 – 657. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.115.4 represented in natural languages? European Journal of Personality, 4,
.639 119 –129. doi:10.1002/per.2410040205
 DSM-5 DIMENSIONAL TRAIT MODEL 821

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1983). Joint factors in self-reports and ality disorder: Introducing the CAT-PD project. Journal of Personality
ratings: Neuroticism, extraversion, and openness to experience. Person- Assessment, 93, 380 –389. doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.577475
ality and Individual Differences, 4, 245–255. doi:10.1016/0191- Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1987). Exploring personality through test
8869(83)90146-0 construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Ques-
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1995). Positive and negative valence within tionnaire. Unpublished manuscript. Department of Psychology, Univer-
the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 443– sity of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
460. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1995.1026 Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., Markon,
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (in press). The convergent structure of DSM-5
Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated in- personality trait facets and Five-Factor Model trait domains. Assessment.
strument of the Five-Factor model. Assessment, 13, 119 –137. doi: van Kampen, D. (2012). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT):
10.1177/1073191106286748 Relationships with two lexically-based instruments and the validation of
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2011). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, the absorption scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 92–101.
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
doi:10.1080/00223891.2011.627966
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person: A therapist’s view of
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures of per-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

psychotherapy. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

sonality and their relevant to psychopathology: II. Further articulation of
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York, NY: Basic
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

a comprehensive unified trait structure. Journal of Personality, 76,

Books.
1545–1586. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00531.x
Ross, S. R., Lutz, C. J., & Bailey, S. E. (2002). Positive and negative
Widiger, T. A. (2011). The DSM-5 dimensional model of personality
symptoms of schizotypy and the Five-Factor model: A domain and facet
level analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79, 53–72. doi: disorder: Rationale and empirical support. Journal of Personality Dis-
10.1207/S15327752JPA7901_04 orders, 25, 222–234. doi:10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.222
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-Factor model of
relationships between the five-factor model and DSM–IV–TR personality personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical
disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326 – Psychology, 5, 197–220. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.032408.153542
1342. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002 Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus,
Schneider, K. (1959). Clinical psychopathology. New York, NY: Grune & A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (in press). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5
Stratton. pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology.
Simms, L. J. (2007). The Big Seven model of personality and its relevance
to personality pathology. Journal of Personality, 75, 65–94. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00433.x Received December 14, 2012
Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Revision received March 11, 2013
Rotterman, J. H. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of person- Accepted March 27, 2013 䡲