Sarah A. Griffin

Bio: Sarah A. Griffin is an academic researcher from University of Missouri. The author has contributed to research in topics: Psychology & Personality. The author has an hindex of 8, co-authored 21 publications receiving 270 citations. Previous affiliations of Sarah A. Griffin include Inova Fairfax Hospital & Purdue University.

A closer look at the lower-order structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5: Comparison with the Five-Factor Model.

Abstract: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was developed as a measure of the maladaptive personality trait model included within Section III of the DSM-5. Although preliminary findings have suggested the PID-5 has a five-factor structure that overlaps considerably with the Five-Factor Model (FFM) at the higher order level, there has been much less attention on the specific locations of the 25 lower-order traits. Joint exploratory factor analysis of the PID-5 traits and the 30 facets of the NEO-PI-R were used to determine the lower-order structure of the PID-5. Results indicated the PID-5's domain-level structure closely resembled the FFM. We also explored the placement of several lower-order facets that have not loaded consistently in previous studies. Overall, these results indicate that the PID-5 shares a common structure with the FFM and clarify the placement of some interstitial facets. More research investigating the lower-order facets is needed to determine how they fit into the hierarchical structure and explicate their relationships to existing measures of pathological traits.

Capturing the DSM-5 Alternative Personality Disorder Model Traits in the Five-Factor Model's Nomological Net.

Abstract: Several studies have shown structural and statistical similarities between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) alternative personality disorder model and the Five-Factor Model (FFM). However, no study to date has evaluated the nomological network similarities between the two models. The relations of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) with relevant criterion variables were examined in a sample of 336 undergraduate students (Mage = 19.4; 59.8% female). The resulting profiles for each instrument were statistically compared for similarity. Four of the five domains of the two models have highly similar nomological networks, with the exception being FFM Openness to Experience and PID-5 Psychoticism. Further probing of that pair suggested that the NEO PI-R domain scores obscured meaningful similarity between PID-5 Psychoticism and specific aspects and lower-order facets of Openness. The results support the notion that the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model trait domains represent variants of the FFM domains. Similarities of Openness and Psychoticism domains were supported when the lower-order aspects and facets of Openness domain were considered. The findings support the view that the DSM-5 trait model represents an instantiation of the FFM.

Factorial invariance of the Five-Factor Model Rating Form across gender.

Abstract: The Five-Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF) provides a brief, one-page assessment of the Five-Factor Model. An important and unique aspect of the FFMRF is that it is the only brief measure that includes scales for the 30 facets proposed by Costa and McCrae. The current study builds on existing validity support for the FFMRF by evaluating its factorial invariance across gender within a sample of 699 undergraduate students. Consistent with other measures of the Five-Factor Model, men scored lower than women on the domains of neuroticism, extraversion, agreeableness, and conscientiousness but slightly higher on openness. The novel contribution of the current study is the use of exploratory structural equation modeling to determine that the FFMRF displayed a five-factor structure that demonstrated strong measurement invariance across gender. This factorial invariance adds important support for the validity of the FFMRF as a self-report measure as it indicates that the scores assess the same latent constructs in men and women. Although future work is needed to clarify some facet-level findings and evaluate for potential predictive biases, the present results add to the increasing body of research supporting the validity of the FFMRF as a self-report measure of personality.

Clinicians and clients disagree: Five implications for clinical science.

Abstract: Recent findings highlight the limited agreement between diagnostic ratings provided by practicing clinicians and the self-report and interview methods typically employed in research settings. Such discrepancies between the diagnoses assigned in research and applied settings greatly complicate the translation of empirical findings into practice. This review highlights these disagreements, offers explanations for these observed differences, and provides 5 implications for research. Specifically, we provide evidence that, despite criticisms, self-reported psychopathology may be at least as valid as clinicians' unstructured diagnoses. Further, we highlight the need for research that provides clinicians with the most valid tools, including those that focus on dimensional constructs, rather than diagnostic categories. In addition, we recommend that adult psychopathology research incorporate methodologies from general personality for unraveling informant discrepancies. We highlight recent work that has provided valuable tools for incorporating metaperception-the extent to which one is aware of how they are perceived by others-for contextualizing these differences. We also underscore the utility of emerging technologies that provide rich data, such as ambulatory assessment, for overcoming the criterion problem. Finally, we recommend that advances in combining data from multiple sources from the childhood psychopathology literature, such as examining the extent to which discrepancies themselves might aid in diagnosis, be incorporated into adult psychopathology research. In sum, we hope that these implications inspire research that improves the science of diagnostic assessment in a way that might ultimately improve practice. (PsycINFO Database Record

Dimensional conceptualizations of impulsivity.

Abstract: Impulsivity is a transdiagnostic dimension of crucial importance to understanding psychopathology, as it is highly relevant to a wide array of maladaptive life outcomes including substance use, criminality, and other risky behaviors. There exist a variety of operationalizations of impulsivity across the literature distinct nomological networks. In fact, research suggests that "impulsivity" is a multifaceted construct comprised of at least 4 distinct traits that have unique pathways to maladaptive behaviors. Those traits are positive and negative urgency, sensation seeking, premeditation, and perseverance. Thus, it is crucial that any diagnostic system, or model of maladaptive traits, capture the nuances among these impulsigenic traits. The present study investigated the conceptualization of impulsigenic traits within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Alternative personality disorder model and an alternative trait model to determine how well they captured these variants. This study obtained questionnaire ratings and behavioral task data from 450 community-dwelling adults oversampled for a history of involvement in the legal and/or mental health systems. The results showed that although the DSM-5 trait model captures well a broad conceptualization of impulsivity, some lower-order facets lack specificity. (PsycINFO Database Record

A psychometric review of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5): Current status and future directions.

Abstract: The paradigm of personality psychopathology is shifting from one that is purely categorical in nature to one grounded in dimensional individual differences. Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), for example, includes a hybrid categorical/dimensional model of personality disorder classification. To inform the hybrid model, the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group developed a self-report instrument to assess pathological personality traits-the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5). Since its recent introduction, 30 papers (39 samples) have been published examining various aspects of its psychometric properties. In this article, we review the psychometric characteristics of the PID-5 using the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing as our framework. The PID-5 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties, including a replicable factor structure, convergence with existing personality instruments, and expected associations with broadly conceptualized clinical constructs. More research is needed with specific consideration to clinical utility, additional forms of reliability and validity, relations with psychopathological personality traits using clinical samples, alternative methods of criterion validation, effective employment of cut scores, and the inclusion of validity scales to propel this movement forward.

Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.

Abstract: The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an alternative model of personality disorders (PDs) in Section III, consisting in part of a pathological personality trait model. To date, the 220-item Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) is the only extant self-report instrument explicitly developed to measure this pathological trait model. The present study used item response theory-based analyses in a large sample (n = 1,417) to investigate whether a reduced set of 100 items could be identified from the PID-5 that could measure the 25 traits and 5 domains. This reduced set of PID-5 items was then tested in a community sample of adults currently receiving psychological treatment (n = 109). Across a wide range of criterion variables including NEO PI-R domains and facets, DSM-5 Section II PD scores, and externalizing and internalizing outcomes, the correlational profiles of the original and reduced versions of the PID-5 were nearly identical (rICC = .995). These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that an abbreviated set of PID-5 items can be used to reliably, validly, and efficiently assess these personality disorder traits. The ability to assess the DSM-5 Section III traits using only 100 items has important implications in that it suggests these traits could still be measured in settings in which assessment-related resources (e.g., time, compensation) are limited.

DSM-5 Alternative Personality Disorder Model Traits as Maladaptive Extreme Variants of the Five-Factor Model: An Item-Response Theory Analysis

Abstract: Over the past two decades, evidence has suggested that personality disorders (PDs) can be conceptualized as extreme, maladaptive variants of general personality dimensions, rather than discrete categorical entities. Recognizing this literature, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) alternative PD model in Section III defines PDs partially through 25 maladaptive traits that fall within 5 domains. Empirical evidence based on the self-report measure of these traits, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), suggests that these five higher-order domains share a structure and correlate in meaningful ways with the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality. In the current study, item response theory was used to compare the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits to those from a normative FFM inventory (the International Personality Item Pool-NEO [IPIP-NEO]) in terms of their measurement precision along the latent dimensions. Within a combined sample of 3,517 participants, results strongly supported the conclusion that the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits and IPIP-NEO traits are complimentary measures of 4 of the 5 FFM domains (with perhaps the exception of openness to experience vs. psychoticism). Importantly, the two measures yield largely overlapping information curves on these four domains. Differences that did emerge suggested that the PID-5 scales generally have higher thresholds and provide more information at the upper levels, whereas the IPIP-NEO generally had an advantage at the lower levels. These results support the general conceptualization that 4 domains of the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits are maladaptive, extreme versions of the FFM. (PsycINFO Database Record

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders.

Abstract: Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD. A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.