اعتباریابی زوج محور مدل پیشنهادی نسخه پنجم راهنمای تشخیصی و آماری اختلالات روانی برای اختلالات شخصیت: طرح خود- همسر گزارش دهی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسنده

گروه روان شناسی، دانشگاه کردستان، سنندج، ایران

چکیده

در صورت تائید نهایی مدل پیشنهادی نسخه پنجم راهنمای تشخیصی و آماری اختلالات روانی (DSM-5) برای تشخیص اختلالات شخــصیت، کاربرد آن در مراکز مشاوره و روان­درمانی خانواده، به‌منظور سنجش آسیب­شناسی شخصیت زوجین، لازم و مفید به نظر می­رسد. پژوهش­های قبلی از طریق همخوانی خود-همسرگزارش­دهی، اعتبار صفات مرضی این مدل را بررسی و تائید کرده­اند. در حالی که این نوع اعتباربخشی برای هیچ‌یک از دو ملاک کارکرد شخصیت (ملاک الف) و صفات مرضی (ملاک ب) در جامعه ایرانی انجام‌نشده است. در این راستا، پژوهش حاضر با هدف آشکار ساختن تراز همخوانی میان خود-گزارش­دهی و همسر-گزارش­دهی کارکرد و صفات مرضی شخصیت انجام گرفت. روش پژوهش همبستگی و طرح خود-همسرگزارش­دهی بوده است، با به‌کارگیری روش نمونه‌گیری واسطه­ای (شبکه­ای)، 90 زوج داوطلب، با حداکثر 10 سال سابقه ازدواج، شناسایی شدند. هر یک از این افراد به دو صورت خودگزارشی و همسرگزارشی به نسخه­ آنلاین مقیاس سطوح کارکرد شخصیت (Morey, 2017) و فرم کوتاه سیاهه شخصیت (Krueger, et al., 2013) پاسخ دادند. یافته‌های آماری حاکی از مقادیر همبستگی معنادار (01/0 > p) در سنجش خود-همسرگزارش­دهی کارکرد و صفات مرضی شخصیت بوده و نشانگر شاخص شباهت واقعی، شاخص شباهت مفروض و شاخص همخوانی بسیار خوب در این دو سنجه بوده­اند. به‌طور کلی یافته­های پژوهش حاضر، اعتبار این دو ملاک را در سنجش آسیب‌شناسی شخصیت زوجین نشان داده و کاربردپذیری آن‌ها را در زوج­درمانی و مشاوره پیش از ازدواج تائید نموده­­اند.

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Couple-Based Validation of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorder: Self and Spousal Report

نویسنده [English]

  • Azad Hemmati
Department of Psychology, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran
چکیده [English]

If the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorder (AMPD) is finally approved, its utility to assess the pathology of the couples' personality seems necessary and useful. Previous studies have verified the validity of the criterion B of this model through self and spousal reports. Whereas, this type of validation has not been done for either of the two criteria A and B, in an Iranian community sample. In this regard, the present study was conducted to examine the agreement between self- and spouse-reporting of personality functioning and pathological traits. The research method was correlation. Through a self-spousal reporting design, 90 volunteer couples with a maximum of 10 years of marriage history, were identified using network-sampling method. Each of the participants responded to the online version of the Persian translated of the level of personality functioning scale (LPFS; Morey, 2017) and the brief form of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-BF; Krueger, et al., 2013). The results showed significant correlations (p <0.01) for all the type of standards, which the good to excellent actual similarity, assumed similarity and self-spousal agreement indices can be concluded for both of measures. In general, the present study showed the validity of these two criteria in assessing the pathology of the couple's personality and confirmed their utility for couple therapy and premarital counseling aims.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • self and spousal report assessment
  • DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorder
  • personality functioning
  • pathological traits

Introduction

One of the necessities in considering the problems of relationship between the couples, undoubtedly is to assess the pathology of their personality. The high levels of marital satisfaction among couples with low neuroticism, high agreeableness, high conscientiousness, and high extraversionism, have been confirmed (Malouff, Thorsteinsson, Schutte, Bhullar, & Rooke, 2010). Furthermore, low levels of marital satisfaction have been linked to some maladaptive personality traits such as negative affectivity, detachment, disinhibition, and psychoticism. (Wilson et al., 2018). Additionally, knowing the spouse's personality, on the one hand, affects marital satisfaction (Kaufman, 2011) and affected by marital satisfaction, on the other hand (Vandermeer, Kotelnikova, Simms, & Hayden, 2018). If the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorder (AMPD, American Psychiatric Association, 2013) is finally approved, its utility to assess the pathology of the couple's personality will be inevitable. Previous studies have verified the validity of the criterion B of this model through self and spousal reports (Markon, Quilty, Bagby, & Krueger, 2013; Jopp & South, 2015). Whereas, this validation has not been done for either of the two criteria A and B, in an Iranian community sample. In this regard, the present study was conducted to examine the agreement between self- and spouse-reporting of personality functioning and pathological traits. Taken together, the aims of this study will help to determine whether spousal reports from the LPFS-SR and PID-5-BF are useful in assessing personality pathology in family settings.

 

Methodology

Through a self-spouse reporting design, 180 nonclinical volunteers (90 couples) participated in responding two online measures, about themselves and their spouse's personality.

     The Persian translation of the levels of personality functioning scale (LPFS; Morey, 2017; Hemmati, et al., 2020), which assesses disturbances in self and interpersonal functioning on a global severity continuum, representing Criterion A of the AMPD of DSM-5. This 80-item instrument comprises four personality function components, including Identity and Self- Direction as subsets of self-functioning, and Empathy and Intimacy as subsets of interpersonal functioning. In the current study, the LPFS was highly internally consistent for the total score (α =.91 for men and α =.92 for women) and component scores (from α =.68 to α =.78 for men and from α =.64 to α =.78 for women).

    The Persian translation of the brief form of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-BF; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2013; Hemmati, Weiss, Mirani, Rezaei, & Miller, 2020), is a 25-item inventory that assesses pathological traits through five domains: negative affectivity, disinhibition, detachment, antagonism, and psychoticism, representing Criterion B of the AMPD of DSM-5. In this study, the PID-5-BF was highly internally consistent for the total score (α =.85 for men and α =.86 for women) and approximately consistent for the component scores (from α =.55 to α =.71 for men and from α =.44 to α =.78 for women).

Results and discussion

Cronbach’s alphas and corrected item-to-total correlations were calculated to assess the internal consistency of the self and spouse report of LPFS-SR and PID-5-BF regarding total score and component scores. Three standard measures of agreement (spousal agreement, actual similarity, and assumed similarity) were used for investigating self and informant reports (South, Oltmanns, Johnson, and Turkheimer, 2011; Jopp & South, 2015). The self-reported and spouse-reported scores were compared to determine levels of spousal agreement. Actual similarities between couples were calculated through Pearson correlations between self-reports from each spouse within a couple. Finally, assumed similarity, or how someone rates the spouse relative to his or her own self-report, was calculated using Pearson correlation between an individual’s self-report and the report of the spouse. As the results show, all correlations are significant (p <0.01), then the good to excellent actual similarity, assumed similarity and self-spousal agreement indices can be concluded for both of measures (see table 1).

    Some scholars have shown very low correlations between self- and spouse-reported personality pathology (Ready, Watson, & Clark, 2002; Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2004; Clifton, Turkheimer, & Oltmanns, 2005; South et al., 2011). Meanwhile, they have discussed different couples' perceptions of a single trait (e.g. Clifton et al., 2005) and low level of familiarity of the studied couples (e.g. South et al., 2011) in explaining these low correlations. However, the average marriage history of the couples studied in the present study does not differ much from those studies. It is thought that the low agreement indices in previous studies should draw the main criticism to measures used in them. Because in two newer studies (Jopp & South, 2015; Markon, et al., 2013) which, like the present study, used the PID-5 of the AMPD model, a much higher agreement was observed.  

Table1.

The actual similarity, assumed similarity, and agreement indices based on correlations between self- and spouse-report

measure

subscales

Actual similarity index 1

Assumed similarity index 2

Agreement index 3

Man  rater

Woman rater

Total

Man  target

Woman target

Total

Levels of Personality Functioning Scale

Identity

.61

.59

.63

.60

.64

.55

.59

Self-Direction

.50

.36

.59

.47

.81

.66

.73

Empathy

.50

.49

.43

.46

.58

.59

.58

Intimacy

.58

.63

.62

.62

.67

.61

.63

Total

.69

.62

.67

.64

.78

.69

.74

Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form

Negative Affectivity

.29

.40

.27

.33

.58

.57

.57

Disinhibition

.40

.46

.34

.40

.52

.56

.54

Detachment

.47

.35

.51

.43

.62

.63

.62

Antagonism

.53

.61

.59

.60

.64

.62

.63

Psychoticism

.39

.39

.53

.45

.52

.41

.46

Total

.61

.65

.65

.64

.77

.74

.75

Note. The Pearson method were applied for all the correlations, but for five domains of PID-5-BF, which were calculated using Spearman method, as their scores had limit ranges. (1) The correlations between self-reports from each spouse within a couple. (2) The correlations between an individual’s self-report and the report of the spouse. (3) The correlations between self-reports and spouse-reports. All the correlations are significant at p <.01.

Conclusion

The present study confirmed the validity of LPFS-SR and PID-5-BF in assessing the pathology of the couple's personality. Overall, results provide support for the use of the informant report measure in assessing personality pathology. The future studies are needed to determine whether spousal reports from measures of AMPD provide incremental validity to self-report ratings of personality functioning and pathological traits.

Acknowledgements

The author acknowledge the students, who cooperated in the administration of the measures; and the couples, who kindly participated.

Authors’ contributions

All stages of research and preparation of the article have been done by the author himself.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Availability of data and materials

For free access to the Persian version of the measures, contact the author.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

All participants voluntarily consented to response the measures.

Consent for publication

The author is entirely agree and content with the publication of the article.

Competing interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest. 

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub. [Link]
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2004). Contrasting perspectives on personality problems: Descriptions from the self and others. Personality and Individual Differences36(7), 1499-1514. [Link]
Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2005). Self-and peer perspectives on pathological personality traits and interpersonal problems. Psychological Assessment17(2), 123. [Link]
Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). Another perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. [Link]
Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). The convergent validity between self and observer ratings of personality: A meta‐analytic review. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 110-117. [Link]
Cooper, L. D., Balsis, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Self- and informant-reported perspectives on symptoms of narcissistic personality disorder. Personality Disorders, 3(2), 140–154. [Link]
Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate Personality Judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21(3), 177–182. [Link]
Ganellen, R. J. (2007). Assessing normal and abnormal personality functioning: Strengths and weaknesses of self-report, observer, and performance-based methods. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 30-40. [Link]
Hemmati, A., Morey, L. C., McCredie, M. N., Rezaei, F., Nazari, A., & Rahmani, F. (2020a). Validation of the Persian Translation of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale—Self-Report (LPFS-SR): Comparison of College Students and Patients with Personality Disorders. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 42, 546–559. [Link]
Hemmati, A., Weiss, B., Mirani, A., Rezaei, F., & Miller, J. D. (2020b). Examining the contribution of perfectionistic traits to the construct validity of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 1-18. [Link]
Jopp, A. M., & South, S. C. (2015). Investigating the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 using self and spouse reports. Journal of Personality Disorders29(2), 193-214. [Link]
Kaufman, A. (2011). Personality, Partner Similarity and Couple Satisfaction: Do Opposites Attract or Birds of a Feather Flock Together? Retrieved by https://www.prepare-enrich.com, 3 Jan 2020. [Link]
Kelley, S. E., Edens, J. F., Donnellan, M. B., Mowle, E. N., & Sörman, K. (2017). Self-and informant perceptions of psychopathic traits in relation to the triarchic model. Journal of Personality. Retrieved from [Link]
Kim, H., Di Domenico, S. I., & Connelly, B. S. (2019). Self–other agreement in personality reports: A meta-analytic comparison of self-and informant-report means. Psychological Science30(1), 129-138. [Link]
Klein, D. N. (2003). Patients' versus informants' reports of personality disorders in predicting 7 1/2-year outcome in outpatients with depressive disorders. Psychological Assessment15(2), 216. [Link]
Kotov, R., Gamez, W., Schmidt, F., & Watson, D. (2010). Linking “big” personality traits to anxiety, depressive, and substance use disorders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(5), 768-821. [Link]
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological medicine42(9), 1879. [Link]
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The personality inventory for DSM-5—brief form (PID-5-BF)—adult. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. [Link]
Lieberman, L., Gorka, S. M., Huggins, A. A., Katz, A. C., Sarapas, C., & Shankman, S. A. (2016). Agreement between Self and Informant-Reported Ratings of Personality Traits: The Moderating Effects of Major Depressive and/or Panic Disorder. The Journal of nervous and mental disease204(4), 306. [Link]
Malouff, J. M., Thorsteinsson, E. B., Schutte, N. S., Bhullar, N., & Rooke, S. E. (2010). The five-factor model of personality and relationship satisfaction of intimate partners: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality44(1), 124-127. [Link]
Markon, K. E., Quilty, L. C., Bagby, R. M. & Krueger, R. F. (2013). The development and psychometric properties of an informant-report form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Assessment, 20(3), 370–383. [Link]
Miller, J. D., Pilkonis, P. A., & Clifton, A. (2005). Self- and other-reports of traits from the five-factor model: relations to personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(4), 400–419. [Link]https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.4.400
Miller, J. D., Rausher, S., Hyatt, C. S., Maples, J., & Zeichner, A. (2014). Examining the relations among pain tolerance, psychopathic traits, and violent and nonviolent antisocial behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(1), 205–213. [Link]
Morey, L. C. (2017). Development and initial evaluation of a self-report form of the DSM–5 Level of Personality Functioning Scale. Psychological Assessment, 29(10), 1302. [Link]
Mottus, R., McCrae, R. R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2014). Cross-rater agreement on common and specific variance of personality scales and items. Journal of Research in Personality, 52, 47-54.[Link]
Ready, R. E., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Psychiatric patient- and informant-reported personality: Predicting concurrent and future behavior. Assessment, 9(4), 361–372. [Link]
Roberts, B. W., Kuncel, N. R., Shiner, R., Caspi, A., & Goldberg, L. R. (2007). The power of personality: The comparative validity of personality traits, socioeconomic status, and cognitive ability for predicting important life outcomes. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 313–345. [Link]
Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1055–1085. [Link]
Sedikides, C., & Gregg, A. P. (2007) Portraits of the self. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage handbook of social psychology. London: Sage. [Link]
Sheldon, K. M. (2014). Becoming oneself the central role of self-concordant goal selection. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 18, 349–365. [Link]
Shrout, P. E., & Fiske, S. T. (Eds.). (2014). Personality research, methods, and theory: A festschrift honoring Donald W. Fiske. Psychology Press. [Link]
Sleep, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Crowe, M. L., & Miller, J. D. (2019). An evaluation of DSM–5 Section III personality disorder Criterion A (impairment) in accounting for psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 31(10), 1181. [Link]
South, S. C., Oltmanns, T. F., Johnson, J., & Turkheimer, E. (2011). Level of agreement between self and spouse in the assessment of personality pathology. Assessment, 18(2), 217–226. [Link]
Vandermeer, M. R., Kotelnikova, Y., Simms, L. J., & Hayden, E. P. (2018). Spousal agreement on partner personality ratings is moderated by relationship satisfaction. Journal of Research in Personality76, 22-31. [Link]
Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology98(2), 281. [Link]
Wilson, S., Elkins, I. J., Blair, J. L., Oleynick, V. C., Malone, S. M., McGue, M., & Iacono, W. G. (2018). Maladaptive personality traits and romantic satisfaction: A monozygotic cotwin control analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 127(4), 339-347. [Link]