logging in or signing up first year presentation Sharck Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 254 Category: Product Traini.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: August 06, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Evaluating a Profile Similarity Approach to Personality Pathology: Evaluating a Profile Similarity Approach to Personality Pathology Erika Carlson Wake Forest University The 4 P’s: The 4 P’s Personality Profiles Pathology Prototypes Personality and Profiles: Personality and Profiles Domain Facets NEO-PI-R score Elements of a personality profile: Elements of a personality profile Scatter Shape Elevation Pathology & prototypes : Pathology andamp; prototypes Categorical vs. Dimensional approach Normal personality Pathology Define pathology in terms of normal personality Lynam andamp; Widiger (2001) 10 expert-generated personality disorder prototypes Assessment Profile matching Prototype profile matching: Prototype profile matching N E O A C Prototype profile matching: Prototype profile matching What are the elements of profile similarity?: What are the elements of profile similarity? Elements of profile similarity: Elements of profile similarity Similar in elevation: Similar in elevation Similar in scatter : Similar in scatter Similar in shape: Similar in shape Elements within an omnibus index: Intraclass correlation: Shape Scatter andamp; Elevation andamp; Intraclass Correlation Elements within an omnibus index: Intraclass correlation x=profile y=prototype My research questions: My research questions 1) How much information does each element of profile similarity provide in the context of personality disorders? 2) Does combining the 3 elements into one omnibus index obscure similarity information? Methods: Methods Participants 219 Wake Forest University undergraduates in Introductory Psychology classes Measures Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Normal personality (30 facets of the 5 domains) 240 items Millon Clinical Mulitaxial Inventory-III (MCMI) 10 DSM-IV personality disorder scales 175 items Methods : Methods Step 1: Generate similarity elements from NEO-based profile correlation between participant’s profile and prototypes Shape index overall mean Elevation index overall variability Scatter index Step 2: Generate omnibus index from NEO-based profile intraclass correlations (ICC) between each participant’s profile and prototypes ICC index Question 1How much information does each element of profile similarity provide?: Question 1 How much information does each element of profile similarity provide? Generated simultaneous regression equations for all 10 personality disorders (MCMI) Histrionic = Elevation + Scatter + Histrionic Shape Question 1How much information does each element of profile similarity provide?: Question 1 How much information does each element of profile similarity provide? Personality Disorder Standard Regression Weights R2 βelevation βscatter βshape Histrionic .29*** .29*** -.02 .50*** (MCMI) Histrionic = Elevation + Scatter + Histrionic Shape Question 1How much information does each element of profile similarity provide?: Question 1 How much information does each element of profile similarity provide? Personality Disorder Standard Regression Weights R2 βelevation βscatter βshape Schizoid .29*** -.20** .03 .50*** Avoidant .40*** -.12* .11† .64*** Dependent .30*** .05 -.01 .54*** Histrionic .29*** .29*** -.02 .50*** Narcissistic .37*** .01 .10 .60*** Antisocial .37*** -.11 -.03 .56*** Compulsive .51*** .28*** -.06 .63*** Schizotypal .30*** -.01 .17** .55*** Borderline .42*** .14* -.02 .68*** Paranoid .23*** -.09 .01 .46*** Mean .35 .02 .03 .57 * p andlt; .05 ** p andlt; .01 *** pandlt;.001 † pandlt;.10 Question 2Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements Generated 2 hierarchical regression models for each of the 10 personality disorders Predicting MCMI scale scores from the 3 elements and the ICC omnibus index Model 1- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: three similarity elements Step 2: intraclass correlation Model 2- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: intraclass correlation Step 2: three similarity elements Question 2Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements Model 1 Model 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Indices R2 ICC R2 ΔR2 ICC R2 Indices R2 ΔR2 Schizoid .29*** .29*** .00 .28*** .32*** .04* Avoidant .40*** .40*** .00 .39*** .40*** .01 Dependent .30*** .31*** .00 .28*** .31*** .03* Histrionic .29*** .29*** .01 .21*** .30*** .09*** Narcissistic .37*** .41*** .04*** .35*** .41*** .06*** Antisocial .37*** .37*** .00 .36*** .37*** .01 Compulsive .51*** .51*** .01 .38*** .51*** .13*** Schizotypal .30*** .30*** .00 .25*** .30*** .06*** Borderline .43*** .43*** .00 .40*** .44*** .04** Paranoid .23*** .23*** .00 .23*** .23*** .00 Mean ΔR2 .01 .05 * p andlt; .05 ** p andlt; .01 *** pandlt;.001 † pandlt;.10 Question 2Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements Generated 2 hierarchical regression models for each of the 10 personality disorders Predicting MCMI scale scores from the SHAPE element and the ICC omnibus index Model 1- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: SHAPE element Step 2: intraclass correlation Model 2- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: intraclass correlation Step 2: SHAPE element Question 2Compare an omnibus index of similarity with SHAPE: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of similarity with SHAPE Model 1 Model 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Shape R2 ICC R2 ΔR2 ICC R2 Shape R2 ΔR2 Schizoid .25*** .28*** .03** .28*** .31*** .03** Avoidant .38*** .39*** .01† .39*** .39*** .00 Dependent .30*** .31*** .01 .28*** .30*** .03** Histrionic .21*** .22*** .00 .21*** .22*** .00 Narcissistic .36*** .36*** .00 .35*** .36*** .01† Antisocial .35*** .36*** .01† .36*** .37*** .00 Compulsive .44*** .47*** .03*** .38*** .47*** .09*** Schizotypal .28*** .28*** .00 .25*** .28*** .03** Borderline .41*** .41*** .00 .40*** .41*** .01* Paranoid .22*** .23*** .01 .23*** .23*** .00 * p andlt; .05 ** p andlt; .01 *** pandlt;.001 † pandlt;.10 Implications: Implications Profile similarity measures current methods Omnibus index vs. elements categorical vs. dimensional approach to pathology Assessment Limitations and Future Directions: Limitations and Future Directions Limitation Non-clinical sample Future Directions Explore each element Replication Cohen’s D2 and other omnibus indices Slide26: Thank you! Special thanks to: Dr. R. Michael Furr Kris Gauthier Richard King Paul Hussman Cluster A Prototypes : Cluster A Prototypes Cluster B Prototypes: Cluster B Prototypes Cluster C prototypes: Cluster C prototypes Elements of profile similarity within omnibus measures: Shape Scatter Elevation Cohen’s D2 Elements of profile similarity within omnibus measures You do not have the permission to view this presentation. In order to view it, please contact the author of the presentation.
first year presentation Sharck Download Post to : URL : Related Presentations : Share Add to Flag Embed Email Send to Blogs and Networks Add to Channel Uploaded from authorPOINT Insert YouTube videos in PowerPont slides with aS Desktop Copy embed code: (To copy code, click on the text box) Embed: URL: Thumbnail: WordPress Embed Customize Embed The presentation is successfully added In Your Favorites. Views: 254 Category: Product Traini.. License: All Rights Reserved Like it (0) Dislike it (0) Added: August 06, 2007 This Presentation is Public Favorites: 0 Presentation Description No description available. Comments Posting comment... Premium member Presentation Transcript Evaluating a Profile Similarity Approach to Personality Pathology: Evaluating a Profile Similarity Approach to Personality Pathology Erika Carlson Wake Forest University The 4 P’s: The 4 P’s Personality Profiles Pathology Prototypes Personality and Profiles: Personality and Profiles Domain Facets NEO-PI-R score Elements of a personality profile: Elements of a personality profile Scatter Shape Elevation Pathology & prototypes : Pathology andamp; prototypes Categorical vs. Dimensional approach Normal personality Pathology Define pathology in terms of normal personality Lynam andamp; Widiger (2001) 10 expert-generated personality disorder prototypes Assessment Profile matching Prototype profile matching: Prototype profile matching N E O A C Prototype profile matching: Prototype profile matching What are the elements of profile similarity?: What are the elements of profile similarity? Elements of profile similarity: Elements of profile similarity Similar in elevation: Similar in elevation Similar in scatter : Similar in scatter Similar in shape: Similar in shape Elements within an omnibus index: Intraclass correlation: Shape Scatter andamp; Elevation andamp; Intraclass Correlation Elements within an omnibus index: Intraclass correlation x=profile y=prototype My research questions: My research questions 1) How much information does each element of profile similarity provide in the context of personality disorders? 2) Does combining the 3 elements into one omnibus index obscure similarity information? Methods: Methods Participants 219 Wake Forest University undergraduates in Introductory Psychology classes Measures Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Normal personality (30 facets of the 5 domains) 240 items Millon Clinical Mulitaxial Inventory-III (MCMI) 10 DSM-IV personality disorder scales 175 items Methods : Methods Step 1: Generate similarity elements from NEO-based profile correlation between participant’s profile and prototypes Shape index overall mean Elevation index overall variability Scatter index Step 2: Generate omnibus index from NEO-based profile intraclass correlations (ICC) between each participant’s profile and prototypes ICC index Question 1How much information does each element of profile similarity provide?: Question 1 How much information does each element of profile similarity provide? Generated simultaneous regression equations for all 10 personality disorders (MCMI) Histrionic = Elevation + Scatter + Histrionic Shape Question 1How much information does each element of profile similarity provide?: Question 1 How much information does each element of profile similarity provide? Personality Disorder Standard Regression Weights R2 βelevation βscatter βshape Histrionic .29*** .29*** -.02 .50*** (MCMI) Histrionic = Elevation + Scatter + Histrionic Shape Question 1How much information does each element of profile similarity provide?: Question 1 How much information does each element of profile similarity provide? Personality Disorder Standard Regression Weights R2 βelevation βscatter βshape Schizoid .29*** -.20** .03 .50*** Avoidant .40*** -.12* .11† .64*** Dependent .30*** .05 -.01 .54*** Histrionic .29*** .29*** -.02 .50*** Narcissistic .37*** .01 .10 .60*** Antisocial .37*** -.11 -.03 .56*** Compulsive .51*** .28*** -.06 .63*** Schizotypal .30*** -.01 .17** .55*** Borderline .42*** .14* -.02 .68*** Paranoid .23*** -.09 .01 .46*** Mean .35 .02 .03 .57 * p andlt; .05 ** p andlt; .01 *** pandlt;.001 † pandlt;.10 Question 2Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements Generated 2 hierarchical regression models for each of the 10 personality disorders Predicting MCMI scale scores from the 3 elements and the ICC omnibus index Model 1- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: three similarity elements Step 2: intraclass correlation Model 2- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: intraclass correlation Step 2: three similarity elements Question 2Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements Model 1 Model 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Indices R2 ICC R2 ΔR2 ICC R2 Indices R2 ΔR2 Schizoid .29*** .29*** .00 .28*** .32*** .04* Avoidant .40*** .40*** .00 .39*** .40*** .01 Dependent .30*** .31*** .00 .28*** .31*** .03* Histrionic .29*** .29*** .01 .21*** .30*** .09*** Narcissistic .37*** .41*** .04*** .35*** .41*** .06*** Antisocial .37*** .37*** .00 .36*** .37*** .01 Compulsive .51*** .51*** .01 .38*** .51*** .13*** Schizotypal .30*** .30*** .00 .25*** .30*** .06*** Borderline .43*** .43*** .00 .40*** .44*** .04** Paranoid .23*** .23*** .00 .23*** .23*** .00 Mean ΔR2 .01 .05 * p andlt; .05 ** p andlt; .01 *** pandlt;.001 † pandlt;.10 Question 2Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of profile similarity with elements Generated 2 hierarchical regression models for each of the 10 personality disorders Predicting MCMI scale scores from the SHAPE element and the ICC omnibus index Model 1- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: SHAPE element Step 2: intraclass correlation Model 2- Predicting MCMI-III scale score: Step 1: intraclass correlation Step 2: SHAPE element Question 2Compare an omnibus index of similarity with SHAPE: Question 2 Compare an omnibus index of similarity with SHAPE Model 1 Model 2 Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2 Shape R2 ICC R2 ΔR2 ICC R2 Shape R2 ΔR2 Schizoid .25*** .28*** .03** .28*** .31*** .03** Avoidant .38*** .39*** .01† .39*** .39*** .00 Dependent .30*** .31*** .01 .28*** .30*** .03** Histrionic .21*** .22*** .00 .21*** .22*** .00 Narcissistic .36*** .36*** .00 .35*** .36*** .01† Antisocial .35*** .36*** .01† .36*** .37*** .00 Compulsive .44*** .47*** .03*** .38*** .47*** .09*** Schizotypal .28*** .28*** .00 .25*** .28*** .03** Borderline .41*** .41*** .00 .40*** .41*** .01* Paranoid .22*** .23*** .01 .23*** .23*** .00 * p andlt; .05 ** p andlt; .01 *** pandlt;.001 † pandlt;.10 Implications: Implications Profile similarity measures current methods Omnibus index vs. elements categorical vs. dimensional approach to pathology Assessment Limitations and Future Directions: Limitations and Future Directions Limitation Non-clinical sample Future Directions Explore each element Replication Cohen’s D2 and other omnibus indices Slide26: Thank you! Special thanks to: Dr. R. Michael Furr Kris Gauthier Richard King Paul Hussman Cluster A Prototypes : Cluster A Prototypes Cluster B Prototypes: Cluster B Prototypes Cluster C prototypes: Cluster C prototypes Elements of profile similarity within omnibus measures: Shape Scatter Elevation Cohen’s D2 Elements of profile similarity within omnibus measures