first year poster

Evaluating a Trait Profile Approach to Personality PathologyErika N. Carlson and R. Michael FurrWake Forest University: 

Evaluating a Trait Profile Approach to Personality Pathology Erika N. Carlson and R. Michael Furr Wake Forest University RESULTS Profile Similarity (Table 1) Multiple regression analyses were conducted for each of the ten personality disorders. The three indices of profile similarity entered simultaneously as predictors of MCMI scale scores. Profile shape contributed the most predictive information across the ten disorders. Elevation was overall, weakly predictive and scatter was almost completely uninformative. Biased Responding (Table 2) Self-deceptive enhancement (SDE) is associated more strongly, in general, with the direct approach than with the indirect, profile-based approach.  This difference is not as evident for impression management (IM). Contact: carlen6@wfu.edu OR furrrm@wfu.edu INTRODUCTION A contemporary approach to personality pathology views personality disorders as extreme variants of normal personality Conceptualization and assessment of personality pathology can occur through profile matching, reflecting the similarity between an individual’s trait profile and a prototypical trait profile describing a personality disorder. 'Omnibus' measures of profile similarity combine the three indices of profile similarity: elevation, scatter, and shape (Cronbach andamp; Glesser, 1953). See Figure 1 (below) and Figure 2 (to the right) for an illustration of the three indices. Each element provides unique information about similarity and isolating each element may yield even more information about the similarity between profiles (as compared to omnibus indices). METHOD Participants (n = 219) completed: 1)The NEO-PI-R, a measure of the five-factor traits. It has been used in a profile approach to personality pathology. 2) The MCMI, a widely used measure of personality disorders. 3) The BIDR, a measure of socially desirable responding. Obtaining similarity indices from NEO-PI-R scores 1. Elevation – mean across all NEO-PI-R facets 2. Scatter – standard deviation across all NEO-PI-R facets. 3. Ten Shape indices of profile similarity (one for each disorder) were computed for each participant Participants’ of NEO-PI-R trait profiles were correlated with expert-generated personality disorder profiles based on the NEO-PI-R traits (Lynam andamp; Widiger, 2001). DISCUSSION This study suggests that the specific pattern of an individual’s trait profile (shape) provides more information than the overall trait level or variability among an individual’s trait levels when assessing personality pathology from a profile prototype approach. Socially desirable responding, specifically self-deceptive enhancement appears to be more strongly associated with the direct measure of personality pathology. As the profile-based approach to pathology assessment expands to new areas of personality assessment, future research is needed to address the influence of SDR on this indirect measurement approach. Table 2 Personality SDE scale IM scale Disorder MCMI NEO MCMI NEO Schizoid -.23*** -.12† -.14* .19** Avoidant -.36*** -.33*** -.12† .11 Dependent -.49*** -.30*** -.12† .20** Histrionic .20** -.09 -.02 -.40*** Narcissistic .24*** .07 -.21** -.40*** Antisocial -.24*** -.01 -.57*** -.48*** Compulsive .21** .12† .50*** .33*** Schizotypal -.26*** -.40*** -.19** -.17* Borderline -.42*** -.37*** -.38*** -.53*** Paranoid -.30*** -.17* -.32*** -.22** Elevation -- .06 -- .37*** Scatter -- .36*** -- .32*** Mean -.17 -.16 -.16 -.14 * = p andlt; .05 ** = p andlt; .01 ***= pandlt;.001 †= pandlt;.10 PRESENT STUDY 1) Which element of profile similarity provides the most unique contribution? We isolated the three indices of profile similarity and evaluated the information that each index provided when assessing profile-based correspondence between abnormal personality and normal personality traits. 2) Is biased responding more closely associated with the direct or indirect (profile-based) measure of pathology? Socially desirable responding (SDR) was measured to assess its association with a direct personality pathology measure (the MCMI) and an indirect profile-based approach (the NEO-based profile). Table 1 Personality Disorder Standard Regression Weights R2 βelev βscat βshap Schizoid .28*** -.19** .04 .50*** Avoidant .41*** -.12* .11† .64*** Dependent .30*** .06 .02 .54*** Histrionic .28*** .28*** -.03 .50*** Narcissistic .36*** .00 .09 .60*** Antisocial .37*** -.12† -.03 .56*** Compulsive .50*** .30*** -.06 .63*** Schizotypal .30*** -.01 .17** .55*** Borderline .42*** .14* -.02 .67*** Paranoid .23*** -.09 .01 .46*** Mean .35 .03 .03 .57 * = p andlt; .05 ** = p andlt; .01 ***= pandlt;.001 †= pandlt;.10 Figure 1