The Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

Timothy J. Trull
University of Missouri

ABSTRACT The Five-Factor Model of personality disorders (FFMPD; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009) developed from the recognition that the popular Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality could be used to describe and understand the ofcial personality disorder (PD) constructs from the American Psychiatric Associations (APA) diagnostic manuals (e.g., DSM-IV-TR, APA, 2000). This article provides an overview of the FFM, highlighting its validity and utility in characterizing PDs as well as its ability to provide a comprehensive account of personality pathology in general. In 2013, DSM-5 is scheduled to appear, and the hybrid PD proposal will emphasize a 25personality trait model. I present the current version of this new model, compare it to the FFMPD, and discuss issues related to the implementation of the FFMPD.

This article presents an overview of the Five-Factor Model of personality disorders (FFMPD; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009), including its historical development, empirical support, and previous use in evaluating the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000). Next, the proposed hybrid model of personality disorders (PDs) that is being considered for DSM-5 is discussed, focusing primarily on its 25-trait model of personality, as well as its relationship to the FFMPD. I close with issues related to the implementation of the FFMPD.
THE FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY

Although a number of personality trait models have been discussed in the context of the DSM personality disorders, the Five-Factor
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Timothy J. Trull, 210 McAlester Hall, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211. Email: trullt@missouri.edu.

Journal of Personality 80:6, December 2012 2012 The Author Journal of Personality 2012, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00771.x

1698

Trull

Model of personality has received both the most research attention and empirical support in this context (e.g., Allik, 2005; Clark, 2007; Clark & Livesley, 2002; Costa & Widiger, 2002; OConnor & Dyce, 1998; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004; Trull & Durrett, 2005; Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005; Widiger & Trull, 2007). As stated by Clark (2007), The ve-factor model of personality is widely accepted as representing the higher-order structure of both normal and abnormal personality traits (p. 246). Indeed, the Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality is a popular way to conceptualize major personality traits. It has a long history and rich tradition, and was derived through factor-analytic studies of personality trait terms from the English language (see Goldberg, 1993; John & Srivastava, 1999). As Widiger and Mullins-Sweatt (2009) noted: Language can be understood as a sedimentary deposit of the observations of persons over the thousands of years of the languages development and transformation. The most important domains of personality functioning are those with the greatest number of trait terms to describe and differentiate the various manifestations and nuances of a respective domain, and the structure of personality is suggested by the empirical relationships among these trait terms. (p. 199) Thus, the FFM is often termed lexical, in that it reects the structure of personality descriptions that occur most frequently in the English language. It also appears to be fairly universal in that this ve-factor structure in trait terms has been replicated in a variety of other languages, including German, Dutch, Czech, Polish, Russian, Italian, Spanish, Hebrew, Hungarian, Turkish, Korean, and Filipino (Allik, 2005; Ashton & Lee, 2001). The ve major domains of this model are typically referred to as Neuroticism versus emotional stability, Extraversion versus introversion, Openness versus closedness to experience, Agreeableness versus antagonism, and Conscientiousness versus negligence. The FFM was originally developed using nonclinical samples, and the goal was to provide a comprehensive account of major personality traits and dimensions. However, several came to realize that the FFM might also be applied to issues relating to various forms of

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1699

psychopathology. Personality traits are indeed dimensional, and personality disorders by denition involve maladaptive or extreme personality traits. Further, the hierarchical structure of FFM traits (i.e., higher order domains and lower order facets) has been replicated across populations (i.e., nonclinical and clinical) and cultures, and evidence suggests a heritable and biological basis for both higher order and lower order FFM traits (Trull & Durrett, 2005). Over the last two decades, many studies have assessed the relations between FFM constructs and personality disorders (see Widiger & Costa, 2002; Samuel & Widiger, 2008, for reviews). These studies have sampled clinical subjects, community residents, and college students. For example, perhaps the rst study examining the relationship between the FFM and PDs in a clinical sample was conducted by Trull (1992). Importantly, this study demonstrated strong relationships between the FFM and personality disorder features in a clinical sample of psychiatric outpatients. FFM scores accounted for signicant amounts of variance in individual personality disorders in almost every case, and many of the patterns of FFM relations for individual personality disorders were replicated across three different personality disorder measures (i.e., a semistructured interview and two self-report inventories). Many studies using both clinical and nonclinical samples have followed; studies have consistently demonstrated signicant relations between the traits included in the FFM and the DSM PD constructs (Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004; Trull & Durrett, 2005; Widiger & Costa, 2002). However, simply demonstrating that, overall, these traits are related to PDs is not particularly surprising. After all, by denition PDs comprise extreme, maladaptive versions of personality traits (APA, 2000). Instead, what is of interest is the extent to which PDpersonality trait relations may help distinguish among the ofcial PD diagnoses. Therefore, based on an understanding of the FFM as well as of personality disorders, Widiger and colleagues (Lynam & Widiger, 2001; Widiger et al.,1994; Widiger, Trull, et al., 2002) offered a set of predicted correlates between the ve major dimensions of the FFM, as well as the facets composing each dimension, and the DSM-IV personality disorders. Subsequent studies have found general support for the relevance of the FFM to the full range of personality disorders. For example, OConnor and Dyce (1998) used a conrmatory factor-analytic strategy to evaluate the

1700

Trull

t of the FFM across 12 data sets of personality disorder symptoms. The authors used the proposals of Widiger et al. (1994) to predict the covariance structure, and results supported the FFM as a way of conceptualizing personality disorder pathology. More recent studies have examined FFM and personality disorder relations at the facet level. The main reason for this more detailed focus is that better differentiation among the personality disorders is possible at the level of rst-order versus higher order traits (Samuel & Widiger, 2008). Most of the personality disorders are associated with elevations on Neuroticism, introversion, antagonism, and negligence (Saulsman & Page, 2004; Samuel & Widiger, 2008). However, it appears that the personality disorders can be distinguished by the patterns of relations at the rst-order, facet trait level (OConnor & Dyce, 1998; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Trull, Widiger, & Burr, 2001). Although these studies have primarily conceptualized personality pathology and disorder from the perspective of the existing diagnostic manual, the ndings do help explain some of the comorbidity patterns typically reported among the PDs (e.g., see Lynam & Widiger, 2001). As mentioned, Samuel and Widiger (2008) recently presented ndings from a meta-analysis of studies that examined the relations between both the ve domains and the 30 facets of personality traits included in the FFM and the DSM-IV PDs. Their results for the relationships between domain scores of the FFM and individual PDs are consistent with the nding that most PDs appear to be related to each other and comorbidity is more the rule than the exception: The majority of PDs are characterized by signicant positive relations with Neuroticism, signicant negative relations with Extraversion, signicant negative relations with Agreeableness, and signicant negative relations with Conscientiousness. Second, the facet-level relations provide some understanding of comorbidity patterns between certain pairs of PDs (Lynam & Widiger, 2001). For example, the relatively parallel pattern of FFM facet associations with paranoid, schizoid, and schizotypal PD suggests that these diagnostic constructs might co-occur with each other (consistent with the nding that these withincluster A correlations are signicant). Finally, Samuel and Widigers (2008) FFM facet results also are consistent with the nding that both antisocial and obsessive-compulsive PD, respectively, are consistently less highly associated with other PDs; an examination of their respective FFM facet proles indicates that

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1701

they show less personality trait overlap with the other PDs. In the case of antisocial PD, it is characterized primarily by low levels of Agreeableness facets (i.e., low levels of trust, straightforwardness, altruism, and compliance) and low levels of Conscientiousness facets (i.e., low levels of competence, dutifulness, self-discipline, and deliberation). Although borderline PD also shows a similar pattern of associations with these facets, in addition (unlike antisocial PD), borderline PD is signicantly positively related to all Neuroticism facets (i.e., anxiousness, angry hostility, depressiveness, self-consciousness, impulsiveness, and vulnerability). This explains why antisocial PD is often most highly associated with borderline PD. Obsessive-compulsive PD is another case in point. This PDs FFM facet prole is unique in that there are some small positive associations with Neuroticism facets (but not Extraversion, Openness, or Agreeableness facets) but stronger positive associations with Conscientiousness facets (i.e., high levels of competence, order, dutifulness, achievement striving, self-discipline, and deliberation). Obsessive-compulsive PD is the only PD to show positive relations with these Conscientiousness facets.

DSM-IV-TR AND PERSONALITY TRAITS

As has been documented for some time now, the categorical model of personality disorders, as exemplied in the DSM-IV-TR and its immediate predecessors, is fraught with problems. These include excessive heterogeneity within diagnoses, excessive diagnostic comorbidity, inadequate coverage, arbitrary boundaries with normal psychological functioning, and an inadequate scientic foundation (Clark, 2007; Livesley, 2001; Trull & Durrett, 2005; Widiger & Trull, 2007). Although the DSM-IV-TR embraces the categorical approach to personality pathology diagnosis, it does at least mention the possibility of an alternative dimensional approach: An alternative to the categorical approach is the dimensional perspective that Personality Disorders represent maladaptive variants of personality traits that merge imperceptibly into normality and into one another (APA, 2000, p. 689). In addition, DSM-IV-TR acknowledges the relevancy of major personality trait models (e.g., the FFM) to the PDs.

1702

Trull

But how are personality traits and the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders connected? DSM-IV-TR states: Personality traits are enduring patterns of perceiving, relating to, and thinking about the environment and oneself that are exhibited in a wide range of social and personal contexts. Only when personality traits are inexible and maladaptive and cause signicant functional impairment or subjective distress do they constitute Personality Disorders. (APA, 2000, p. 686) Nevertheless, an examination of the criteria sets for the personality disorders reveals that the majority of the criteria are not personality traits per se, but rather behavioral, cognitive, or interpersonal indicators of problematic levels of traits (Widiger & Mullins-Sweatt, 2009). A recent analysis of the personality traits/psychopathology dimensions that underlie the DSM-IV-TR criteria for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is instructive (Trull, Tomko, Brown, & Scheiderer, 2010). As can be seen in Table 1, there are only three BPD symptoms that are directly related to the underlying personality trait dimension of emotional dysregulation and only one directly related to impulsivity/behavioral disinhibition (labeled Direct in

Table 1 Personality Traits and Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms

Impulsivity/ Behavioral Disinhibition Indirect Indirect Indirect Direct Indirect

Borderline Symptom Frantic efforts to avoid abandonment Unstable interpersonal relationships Identity disturbance Impulsivity Recurrent suicidal behavior/ self-harm/suicidal threats Affective instability Chronic emptiness Extreme anger Transient, stress-related paranoid ideation or dissociation

Emotional Dysregulation Indirect Indirect Indirect Indirect Direct Direct Direct Indirect

Indirect

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1703

Table 1). The other criteria for BPD may be seen as either indirect indicators of these personality traits or combinations of traits. Although some might disagree with specic entries in Table 1, the major point should not be lost. With the exception of affective instability, chronic emptiness, excessive anger, and impulsivity, these criteria seem better conceptualized as possible indicators of traits (which may be inferred but are not identied by name). The criteria sets for other personality disorders are similar in their mix of traits and of indicators of unnamed traits. Therefore, the DSM-IV-TR PD criteria are really a mixture of personality traits per se and indicators of these traits, the latter of which differ in the degree of inference required for assessment as well as for making the connection to the underlying personality trait.

FIVE-FACTOR MODEL OF PERSONALITY DISORDER

To this point, I have evaluated the FFM in reference to its ability to characterize and account for the DSM-IV-TR PDs. It is clear that PDs can be understood as maladaptive variants of the FFM (Clark, 2007; Livesley, 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Saulsman & Page, 2004), and the predominant models of normal and abnormal personality functioning converge onto at least four of the ve broad domains of the FFM (Bouchard & Loehlin, 2001; Clark, 2007; John & Srivastava, 1999; Livesley, 2003; Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005; Trull & Durrett, 2005; Watson, Clark, & Harkness, 1994; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). Findings such as these have encouraged investigators to go even one step further. Clearly, the DSM-IV-TR does not present a comprehensive catalog of all personality pathology, nor is it an efcient classication system (given rampant comorbidity among the PDs, heterogeneity within diagnosis, and the high prevalence of the PD not otherwise specied diagnosis; Trull & Durrett, 2005). It makes much more sense to characterize and dene personality pathology and disorder through the lens of a widely accepted, comprehensive, and empirically validated model of personality as opposed to the current PD diagnostic system embodied in the ofcial diagnostic manual. Such an approach is likely to improve the weak construct validity of the DSM-IV diagnostic categories (Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2006).

1704

Trull

The Four Steps So how can the FFM characterize personality pathology and diagnose PD? Widiger, Costa, and McCrae (2002) proposed a four-step procedure for an FFM diagnosis of personality disorder. Briey, the rst step is to obtain a personality trait description of an individual in terms of the ve domains and 30 facets of the FFM. This description will provide a comprehensive description of the persons adaptive as well as maladaptive personality traits. There are a number of psychological measures that can be used for this FFM description (De Raad & Perugini, 2002), including, for example, the questionnairebased Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997), a semistructured interview for the assessment of the FFM. Other FFM self-report inventories and brief clinician rating scales can also be used (De Raad & Perugini, 2002; Mullins-Sweatt, Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006). For example, Few et al. (2010) demonstrated the use of a brief rating form for FFM facets to evaluate patients. The second step involves an assessment of any social and occupational impairments and distress associated with extreme scores on the FFM personality traits. For example, Widiger, Costa, et al. (2002) and McCrae, Lckenhoff, and Costa (2005) identied problems likely to be found in people scoring high or low on each of the FFM domains and facets. In the case of the SIFFM interviews, there are questions included that assess these maladaptive variants of each of the 30 trait facets of the FFM. Further, both the SIFFM and the Five Factor Model Score Sheet (FFMSS; Mullins-Sweatt et al., 2006) include separate, independent assessments of many of the problems identied by Widiger et al. (2002) and McCrae et al. (2005). The third step is to determine whether the dysfunction and distress reach a clinically signicant level of impairment that would warrant a diagnosis of personality disorder. There are several possibilities for this assessment. For example, one could use the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF) scale currently used for Axis V of the DSMIV-TR (APA, 2000). Other possibilities, measures that purport to measure personality-related impairment and dysfunction specically, include the General Assessment of Personality Dysfunction (GAPD; Livesley, 2010) and the Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP-118; Verheul et al., 2008).

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1705

The fourth step is necessary only if one desires a single quantitative index of the match between an individuals FFM personality prole and prototypic proles of diagnostic constructs (e.g., Miller, 2012; Miller & Lynam, 2003; Trull, Widiger, Lynam, & Costa, 2003). Although this can be used to assess a match between an individuals FFM prole and a FFM characterization of the DSMIV-TR PD constructs, it is also possible for clinicians and researchers to develop FFM proles for personality disorder constructs not included within DSM-IV (e.g., successful psychopath). However, prototypal matching with the DSM PDs is not generally recommended, as the purpose of the FFM diagnosis would not simply be to provide a roundabout method of returning to the DSM diagnostic categories (Clark, 2007).
DIAGNOSING PDS IN DSM-5: COMPARISONS WITH THE FFMPD

Before comparing the DSM-5 revisions for PD with the FFMPD, it is useful to briey outline this new proposal for PD diagnosis. The new version of the DSM (DSM-5) proposes that a diagnosis of PD involves a series of determinations concerning overall personality dysfunction as well as specic personality trait elevations (www.dsm5.org). It is important to note that the original DSM-5 PD proposal (published on the Web site in February 2010) was revised to address concerns and clarify confusion (Skodol et al., 2011). Most importantly, it is now clearer how to arrive at a diagnosis of PD, and the prototype matching approach for PD types has been dropped. According to the latest version of the proposal (updated June 21, 2011, on the DSM-5 Web site: http://www.dsm5.org/proposedre vision/Pages/PersonalityDisorders.aspx), the diagnostician is asked to rst determine whether impairment in personality functioning is present and, if so, to what degree. The clinician is asked to rate a patients level of personality functioning; specically, ratings are made as to the level of self and interpersonal functioning for each individual (see also Livesley, 2001, 2003). Self functioning is dened in two areas (identity and self-direction), as is interpersonal functioning (empathy and intimacy). A 5-point scale is used to rate overall level of personality functioning for this purpose (0 = no impairment; 1 = mild impairment; 2 = moderate impairment; 3 = serious impairment; and 4 = extreme impairment). Descriptions of each quantitative rating are

1706

Trull

provided, and the diagnostician is reminded that the ratings must reect functioning that is of multiple years in duration, not due solely to another mental disorder/physical condition/effect of a substance, and not a norm within a persons cultural background. Next, if signicant personality dysfunction is present, the clinician considers whether one (or more?) of the six proposed personality disorder types are present: borderline, obsessive-compulsive, avoidant, schizotypal, antisocial, or narcissistic. For each of these proposed PD types, a listing of characteristic trait elevations is provided. Table 2 presents the current DSM-5 proposal for borderline personality disorder, and one can see that for this PD type the clinician is asked to consider whether there are elevations on seven traits tapping negative affectivity (emotional lability, anxiousness, separation insecurity, and depressivity), disinhibition (impulsivity, risk taking), and antagonism (hostility). For obsessive-compulsive, the clinician considers two primary traits, for avoidant four primary traits, for schizotypal six primary traits, for antisocial seven primary traits, and for narcissistic two primary traits. If a specic PD type is not indicated but personality dysfunction is present, then the clinician may designate a diagnosis of personality disorder trait specied (PDTS), which replaces the DSM-IV-TR designation of personality disorder not otherwise specied (PDNOS). Table 3 indicates how each of the 25 proposed DSM-5 PD primary traits is mapped onto the PD types (as well as the General denition of personality disorder), according to the latest proposal. Of most relevance to the present article are the 25 traits, as well as the higher-order trait domains, included in the DSM-5 PD proposal. The current proposal lists 25 maladaptive personality traits, organized within ve broad domains, which can be rated for each individual. The 25 facet traits are organized into ve higher order trait domains: Negative Affectivity (emotional lability, anxiousness, separation anxiety, perseveration, submissiveness, hostility, restricted affectivity [lack of], depressivity, and suspiciousness); Detachment (restricted affectivity, depressivity, suspiciousness, withdrawal, anhedonia, and intimacy avoidance); Antagonism (hostility, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, grandiosity, attention seeking, and callousness); Disinhibition (irresponsibility, impulsivity, rigid perfectionism [lack of], distractibility, and risk taking); and Psychoticism (unusual beliefs and experiences, eccentricity, and cognitive and perceptual dysregulation).

Table 2 New DSM-5 Proposal for Diagnosing Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD)

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1707

A diagnosis of BPD requires all of the following: Signicant impairment in Personality Functioning manifest by: Impairments in self functioning: Identity: Markedly impoverished, poorly developed, or unstable self-image, often associated with excessive self-criticism; chronic feelings of emptiness; dissociative states under stress Self-direction: Instability in goals, aspirations, values, or career plans Impairments in interpersonal functioning: Empathy: Compromised ability to recognize the feelings and needs of others associated with interpersonal hypersensitivity (i.e., prone to feel slighted or insulted); perceptions of others selectively biased toward negative attributes and vulnerabilities. Intimacy: Intense, unstable, and conicted close relationships, marked by mistrust, neediness, and anxious preoccupation with real or imagined abandonment; close relationships often viewed in extremes or idealization and devaluation and alternating between over involvement and withdrawal. Elevated Personality Traits in the following domains: Negative affectivity characterized by: Emotional lability: Unstable emotional experiences and frequent mood changes; emotions that are easily aroused, intense, and/or out of proportion to events and circumstances. Anxiousness: Intense feelings of nervousness, tenseness, or panic, often in reaction to interpersonal stresses; worry about the negative events of past unpleasant experiences and future negative possibilities; feeling fearful, apprehensive, or threatened by uncertainty; fears of falling apart or losing control. Separation insecurity: Fears of rejection byand/or separation fromsignicant others, associated with fears of excessive dependency and complete loss of autonomy. Depressivity: Frequent feelings of being down, miserable, and/or hopeless; difculty recovering from such moods; pessimism about the future; pervasive shame; thoughts of suicide and suicidal behavior. Disinhibition, characterized by: Impulsivity: Difculty controlling behavior, including self-harm behavior, under emotional distress; acting with urgency or on the spur of the moment in response to immediate stimuli; acting on momentary basis without a plan or consideration of outcomes; difculty establishing or following plans. Risk taking: Engagement in dangerous, risky, and potentially self-damaging activities, unnecessarily and without regard to consequences. Antagonism, characterized by: Hostility: Persistent or frequent angry feelings; anger or irritability in response to minor slights and insults. The impairments in personality functioning and the individuals personality trait expression are relatively stable across time and consistent across situations. The impairments in personality functioning and the individuals personality trait expression are not better understood as normative for the individuals developmental stage or socio-cultural environment. The impairments in personality functioning and the individuals personality trait expression are not solely due to the direct physiological effects of a substance (e.g., a drug of abuse, medication) or a general medical condition (e.g., severe head trauma).

Source: http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/proposedrevision.aspx?rid=17.

1708
Table 3 Mapping of DSM-5 Personality Traits onto Personality Disorder Types
DSM-5 Facet Trait Emotional Lability Anxiousness Separation Anxiety Perseveration Submissiveness Hostility Restricted Affectivity Depressivity Suspiciousness Withdrawal Anhedonia Intimacy Avoidance Manipulativeness Deceitfulness Grandiosity Attention Seeking Callousness Irresponsibility Impulsivity Rigid Perfectionism Distractibility Risk Taking Unusual Beliefs and Experiences Eccentricity Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregulation

Trull

BRD OBC AVD SZT ATS NAR GEN x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

Note. BRD = borderline; OBC = obsessive-compulsive; AVD = avoidant; SZT = schizotypal; ATS = antisocial; NAR = narcissistic; GEN = general denition of personality disorder.

Integration of the Work Group Proposal With the FFM Table 4 provides an illustration of how the 25 trait scales proposed by the DSM-5 Work Group would be classied within the FFM domains (also see Widiger, 2011). The placement of several of the 25 primary

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1709

Table 4 Placement of the 25 DSM-5 Facet Traits Within the Domains of the Five-Factor Model
FFM Domain Neuroticism-High Neuroticism-Low Extraversion-High Extraversion-Low Openness-High Openness-Low Agreeableness-High Agreeableness-Low Conscientiousness-High Conscientiousness-Low DSM-5 Traits Emotional Lability, Separation Insecurity, Depressivity, Anxiousness None Attention Seeking Intimacy Avoidance, Withdrawal, Restricted Affectivity, Anhedonia Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregulation, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity None Submissiveness Suspiciousness, Hostility, Deceitfulness, Manipulativeness, Grandiosity, Callousness Perseveration, Rigid Perfectionism Irresponsibility, Distractibility, Impulsivity, Risk Taking

traits by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group within certain personality domains appears inconsistent with the personality literature. For example, the extensive research on the FFM indicates that suspiciousness (i.e., FFM low trust) is within antagonism (not negative affectivity and detachment), submissiveness (i.e., FFM compliance) is within Agreeableness (not negative affectivity), histrionism/attention seeking (i.e., FFM gregariousness) is within Extraversion (not antagonism), and disinhibition and compulsivity/rigid perfectionism are opposite ends of one bipolar dimension (i.e., FFM Conscientiousness; Widiger, 2011). Related to this latter point, although there is good evidence to suggest that certain personality traits are bipolar in nature, the DSM-5 Work Group chose to only include unipolar facet traits. Although the Work Group acknowledged that the higher order trait domains are bipolar in nature, they chose to include only unipolar markers of the extreme poles. The major consequence is that the interpretation of a low score on a uniploar trait is ambiguous. For example, does a low score on emotional lability mean that one has a

1710

Trull

normal range level of emotionality or that ones lack of emotionality is pathological (e.g., alexithymia; Luminet et al., 1999; Taylor & Bagby, 2004)? In addition, when viewed though an FFM lens, it appears that the DSM-5 trait model undersamples certain maladaptive poles of personality trait domains. In particular, there are no traits that assess lower levels of Neuroticism, only one trait that assesses high Extraversion, no traits for low Openness, and one trait for high Agreeableness. Therefore, quite a few important traits are still missing. Table 5 presents a translation of the DSM-5 PD types into the personality traits from the DSM-5 personality model. For comparison, this table also lists the FFM traits corresponding to each of the ve PDs, as proposed by Lynam & Widiger (2001) in their FFMPD trait model. Once again, one is struck by the gaps in coverage for the PD types. For example, where is the fearlessness (low Neuroticism) that is crucial to the antisocial/psychopathy construct? Where is the alexithymia and closed-minded dogmatism (low Openness) that characterizes obsessive-compulsive PD? Where is the meekness and modesty that characterizes avoidant PD? In addition, several traits are included within two trait domains without explanation (e.g., restricted affectivity, depressivity, suspiciousness). Finally, some of the choices for DSM-5 traits seem odd: Anhedonia for avoidant PD? Why not submissiveness for avoidant PD? These examples only concern the six PD types retained for DSM-5. Skodol (2010) argued that the personality disorders deleted from the prior diagnostic manual (paranoid, schizoid, histrionic, dependent) can be recovered from the new trait model (see http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/DSM5TypeandTraitCross-Walk.aspx). However, the gaps in trait coverage are also apparent when one considers traits relevant to dependent PD (high Agreeableness), paranoid and schizoid PD (low Openness), and histrionic PD (high Extraversion). Finally, it is unclear whether the four PDs excluded from DSM-5 are recoverable from the DSM-5 traits. Specically, paranoid PD is characterized by a relatively small number of traits (e.g., suspiciousness, hostility, unusual beliefs and experiences, intimacy avoidance), as is true for schizoid (e.g., restricted affectivity, withdrawal, intimacy avoidance, anhedonia), histrionic (e.g., emotional lability, manipulativeness, attention seeking), and dependent (e.g., anxiousness, separation insecurity, submissiveness) PDs.

Table 5 Translation of PD Types/Traits Into FFMPD Traits

Personality Disorder FFMPD Traits1

DSM-5 Type Traits

Schizotypal

Ideas (O), low Warmth (E), low Gregariousness (E), low Positive Emotions (E), Anxiousness (N), Self-Consciousness (N), low Order (C)

Antisocial/ Dyssocial

Eccentricity (P), Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregulation (P), Unusual Beliefs and Experiences (P), Withdrawal (DT), Restricted Affectivity (DT and NA), Suspiciousness (NA) Callousness (A), Hostility (NA and A), Manipulativeness (A), Deceitfulness (A), Irresponsibility (DS), Impulsivity (DS), Risk Taking (DS)

Borderline

Low Trust (A), low Straightforwardness (A), low Altruism (A), low Compliance (A), low Modesty (A), low Tender-mindedness (A), low Dutifulness (C), low Self-Discipline (C), low Deliberation (C), low Anxiousness (N), Angry Hostility (N), low Self-Consciousness (N), Impulsiveness (N), Assertiveness (E), Activity (E), Excitement Seeking (E) Anxiousness (N), Angry Hostility (N), Depressiveness (N), Impulsiveness (N), Vulnerability (N), low Compliance (A), low Competence (C), low Deliberation (C), Feelings (O), Actions (O)

Avoidant

Emotional Lability (NA), Anxiousness (NA), Separation Insecurity (NA), Hostility (NA), Depressivity (NA), Impulsivity (DS), Risk Taking (DS) Anxiousness (NA), Withdrawal (DT), Anhedonia (DT), Intimacy Avoidance (DT)

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

Obsessivecompulsive

Rigid Perfectionism (DS), Perseveration (NA)

Narcissistic

Grandiosity (A), Attention Seeking (A)

Anxiousness (N), Self-Consciousness (N), low Impulsiveness (N), Vulnerability (N), low Gregariousness (E), low Assertiveness (E), low Excitement Seeking (E), low Positive Emotions (E), Modesty (A), Actions (O) Competence (C), Order (C), Dutifulness (C), Achievement Striving (C), Self-Discipline (C), Deliberation (C), Anxiousness (N), low Impulsiveness (N), low Excitement Seeking (E), low Feelings (O), low Actions (O), low Ideas (O), low Values (O) Angry Hostility (N), low Self-Consciousness (N), low Warmth (E), Assertiveness (E), Excitement Seeking (E), low Feelings (O), Actions (O), low Trust (A), low Straightforwardness (A), low Altruism (A), low Compliance (A), low Modesty (A), low Tender-mindedness (A)

1711

Note. NA = Negative Affectivity; DT = Detachment; A = Antagonism; DS = Disinhibition; P = Psychoticism; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness.

FFMPD predicted relations based on Lynam and Widiger (2001).

1712

Trull

These problems perhaps reect that the traits selected were in part the result of Work Group member nominations (Krueger, 2010), rather than a systematic, comprehensive attempt to adequately sample major domains of personality (and to do so as distinctly as possible). Many have decried the overlapping PD constructs that have appeared in previous diagnostic manuals, as evidenced by the high levels of comorbidity (Clark, 2007; Livesley, 2007; Widiger & Trull, 2007). However, many of the 25 traits appear to be closely related and perhaps difcult to distinguish (e.g., separation insecurity and anxiousness; perseveration and rigid perfectionism; cognitive and perceptual dysregulation and unusual beliefs and experiences or eccentricity). Therefore, the new proposal does not seem to adequately address the concern regarding overlap and redundancy.

CONCERNS AND COMMENTS ON THE FFMPD

Although the evidence supporting the use of the FFM to characterize and diagnose personality pathology is strong, there are some criticisms and limitations that should be noted as well. In particular, Krueger et al. (2011) argued that there is much confusion over exactly what constitutes the FFM. In particular, they highlighted that there are some differences in the conceptual models of the FFM as operationalized by the various FFM and Big Five measures that are available. Although it is true that there are differences in these measures, we must not conate measures with conceptual models (Haigler & Widiger, 2001; Krueger et al., 2011). A measure is simply an operationalization of the conceptual model, and some measures may emphasize certain aspects of the model over others. Further, in the case of briefer measures, it is sometimes not possible to adequately sample all aspects of a conceptual model with precision; for example, some brief FFM/Big Five measures do not adequately sample the facets or primary traits of the ve major personality domains of the FFM. In the end, however, Krueger and colleagues (2011) argument could be applied to other measures of alternative personality models. Ironically, the 25-trait model of personality disorder adopted by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group suffers from a more damning problemit is not based on a well-established model of personality or personality pathology at all. Although the

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1713

Work Group noted that it bears some resemblance to the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995), this appears to be more of a post hoc observation instead of the outcome of a theory-driven approach to measurement. Although four of the ve domains are recognizable from the FFM, the Work Group grafted a new personality dimension onto four of the ve personality domains included in the FFM. Specically, the Work Group included the new domain of Schizotypy, which is now labeled Psychoticism. DSM-5 Psychoticism is dened by only three facet traits, all of which emphasize the quasi-psychotic experiences and behavior of schizotypal PD. Although there is only limited support to date for this new personality dimension in clinical samples, when this fth personality domain is conceptualized as FFM Openness, there is a wealth of supporting data from clinical samples (see Samuel & Widiger, 2008). One of the strongest arguments being raised against the FFMPD, as well as other dimensional models, is clinical utility (e.g., First, 2005). However, the implication of such an argument is that the existing diagnostic system has clinical utility (Kupfer, First, & Regier, 2002; Rounsaville et al., 2002; Trull & Widiger, 2008; Westen & Arkowitz-Westen, 1998). Although on the surface it might appear that a categorical diagnosis of PD is congruent with the clinical decisions that must be made (i.e., whether to hospitalize, whether to medicate, whether to provide disability, and whether to provide insurance coverage), DSM-IV (or even DSM-5) PD diagnoses do not seem suitable for any of these decisions. The diagnostic boundaries and thresholds were not developed with these clinical decisions in mind. Dimensional systems can easily be converted to categorical systems, provided appropriate cut-offs are available as well as decision algorithms (Trull & Widiger, 2008). We believe that a dimensional model of classication has considerably greater potential to be clinically useful because one can set different cutoff points along the respective dimensions that are optimal for different clinical decisions. One can identify the level of emotional instability that suggests the need for insurance coverage, pharmacotherapy, hospitalization, or disability. The diagnostic system would be constructed explicitly for maximizing utility for different clinical decisions, an approach that is currently non-existent and very cumbersome (if not impossible) to imple-

1714

Trull

ment for the existing diagnostic categories. (Trull & Widiger, 2008, pp. 958959) Although there are published treatment manuals for many DSMIV-TR disorders, ofcial treatment guidelines have been developed for only one personality disorder: borderline (APA, 2001). One explanation is that the DSM-IV-TR PDs are generally not well suited for treatment manuals because each PD involves an array of maladaptive personality traits, behaviors, and other indicators of these traits. Furthermore, there is great heterogeneity within diagnoses (e.g., patients diagnosed with the same PD may share few of the same traits), and traits may cut across different PD categories (e.g., impulsivity for both borderline PD and antisocial PD). In contrast, the FFM appears much better suited to develop specic treatment plans and guidelines. First, because the model was developed iteratively, the FFM is a more conceptually (as well as empirically) coherent personality structure. For example, by denition, personality disorders are diagnosed when the maladaptive personality traits result in clinical signicant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (APA, 2000, p. 689). The FFM model assesses traits relevant to emotional dysregulation/distress (e.g., Neuroticism traits), to social/interpersonal (e.g., Extraversion and Agreeableness traits), to work-oriented behavior and responsibility (e.g., Conscientiousness traits), and to cognitive (e.g., Openness traits) domains of functioning. Further, Miller, Pilkonis, and Mulvey (2006) demonstrated that FFM traits provided unique information about treatment utilization and satisfaction above and beyond what could be accounted for by general distress and by the DSM-IV-TR PDs themselves. FFM traits may also have implications for treatment choices as well as within-treatment behavior. Extraversion and Agreeableness are relevant to relationship quality both within and outside the consultation room. Interpersonal models of therapy, marital and family therapy, and group therapy might be suggested by maladaptive variants of Extraversion and Agreeableness traits. Neuroticism traits are relevant to mood, anxiety, and emotional dyscontrol, and problems here might suggest pharmacologic interventions (e.g., mood stabilizers) or cognitive interventions targeting these dysfunctions. In the case of Conscientiousness, maladaptively high levels might suggest

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1715

treatments that target obsessionality or compulsivity (e.g., exposure plus response prevention or SSRIs). In contrast, low levels might suggest treatments for attention decit, hyperactivity, and impulsivity (e.g., ADHD stimulant medication). Finally, maladaptively high Openness could indicate cognitive-perceptual aberrations and problems with reality testing, conditions that might be amenable to pharmacologic treatment (e.g., low-dose antipsychotic medication). These examples are offered to show the treatment implications of an FFM of personality disorder, and that these are substantially more distinct and specic than those for the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders. However, an important question is whether clinicians actually nd FFM information useful in their clinical formulations. Several studies have provided encouraging ndings. For example, Samuel and Widiger (2006) provided practicing psychologists with detailed descriptions of actual persons with maladaptive personality traits (e.g., Ted Bundy). When asked to describe the person with respect to the FFM and, alternatively, with the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders, clinicians indicated that an FFM dimensional rating was more useful than the DSM-IV-TR with respect to providing a global description of the individuals personality, communicating information to clients, encompassing all of the individuals important personality difculties, and even assisting in formulating effective treatment interventions. Another concern raised regarding the FFMPD is that it is cumbersome and not user-friendly. However, as detailed above, an FFMPD evaluation can proceed in logical steps, and evaluating individuals standing on 30 trait facets is much easier and more time-efcient than assessing almost 100 DSM-IV-TR PD criteria or than assessing the 25 DSM-5 traits, six PD types, and four variants of personality functioning called for in the current DSM-5 Work Group proposal (Trull & Widiger, 1997; Widiger & Coker, 2002; Widiger & Lowe, 2007).

CONCLUSION

For years, researchers have called for a switch to a dimensional model of personality disorders (Clark, 2007; Livesley, 2007; Widiger & Frances, 1985; Widiger & Trull, 2007), and there have even been references to dimensional models within the text of the DSM-IV-TR

1716

Trull

(APA, 2000), the most recent diagnostic manual. The time seemed ripe for making this change, but, regrettably, the DSM-5 Work Groups proposal for a trait-based PD system falls at for several reasons (Widiger, 2011). First, the Work Group had the opportunity to integrate normal personality trait models researched within psychology with the personality disorders of psychiatry. Instead, they decided to construct a new ve-dimensional model of personality disorder. This ve-dimensional model excludes normal personality traits, does not incorporate years of research on personality and personality pathology, and is operationalized in ways so as to miss important areas of personality functioning. The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Groups proposal includes 25 maladaptive personality traits that differentially saturate major domains of personality, that are unipolar in nature, and that overlap excessively with each other. As noted earlier, the failure to recognize the bipolarity of personality structure contributes to a number of problems for the DSM-5 proposal, including the failure to include some important traits and the misplacement of others. Furthermore, as discussed, this 25-trait model does not adequately cover the personality pathology that is assessed in the proposed six PD types as well as that of the excluded PDs from DSM-IV-TR (the latter which can purportedly be accounted for by this model). In the end, the FFMPD seems better suited for the task of representing personality and personality disorder than the DSM-5 Work Group 25-trait model. The FFMPD has a strong conceptual and empirical base, its relationship to PD diagnoses has been demonstrated, and it can also point to areas of personality dysfunction that are not currently represented in diagnostic systems (e.g., racism, alexithymia; Bell, 2004, 2006; Luminet et al., 1999; Taylor & Bagby, 2004; Trull, 2005). In addition, the FFMPD holds promise in its ability to inform and guide treatment, as well as in other areas of clinical utility.

REFERENCES
Allik, J. (2005). Personality dimensions across cultures. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 212232. American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1717

American Psychiatric Association. (2001). Practice guidelines for the treatment of patients with borderline personality disorder. Washington, DC: Author. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327353. Bell, C. C. (2004). Taking issue: Racism. A mental illness? Psychiatric Services, 55, 1343. Bell, C. C. (2006). Reservations and hopes. In T. A. Widiger, E. Simonsen, P. J. Sirovatka, & D. A. Regier (Eds.), Dimensional models of personality disorders: Rening the research agenda for DSM-V (pp. 195198). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Bouchard, T. J., & Loehlin, J. C. (2001). Genes, evolution, and personality. Behavior Genetics, 31, 243273. Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227257. Clark, L. A., & Livesley, W. J. (2002). Two approaches to identifying the dimensions of personality disorder: Convergence on the ve-factor model. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 161176). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Costa, P.T., Jr., & T. A. Widiger. (2002). Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. De Raad, B., & Perugini, M. (Eds.). (2002). Big Five assessment. Bern, Switzerland: Hogrefe & Huber. Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Morse, J. Q., Yaggi, K. E., Reynold, S. K.., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2010). Examining the reliability and validity of clinician ratings on the Five-Factor Model Score Sheet. Assessment, 17, 440453. First, M. B. (2005). Clinical utility: A prerequisite for the adoption of a dimensional approach in DSM. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114, 560564. Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 2634. Haigler, E. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Experimental manipulation of NEO-PI-R items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 339358. Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology-Five: Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104114. John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102138). New York: Guilford Press. Krueger, R. F. (2010, March). Personality traits: Prospects for DSM-V. In C. J. Hopwood (Chair), Personality assessment in context of DSM-V. Symposium

1718

Trull

conducted at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, San Jose, CA. Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., et al. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 170191. Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B., & Regier, D. E. (2002). Introduction. In D. J. Kupfer, M. B. First, & D. E. Regier (Eds.), A research agenda for DSM-V (pp. xvxxiii). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Livesley, W. J. (2001). Conceptual and taxonomic issues. In W. J. Livesley (Ed.), Handbook of personality disorders: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 338). New York: Guilford Press. Livesley, W. J. (2003). Diagnostic dilemmas in classifying personality disorder. In K. A. Phillips, M. B. First, & H. A. Pincus (Eds.), Advancing DSM: Dilemmas in psychiatric diagnosis (pp. 153190). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Livesley, W. J. (2007). A framework for integrating dimensional and categorical classication of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21, 199 224. Livesley, W. J. (2010). General Assessment of Personality Dysfunction. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessments Systems. Luminet, O., Bagby, R. M., Wagner, H., Taylor, G. J., Parker, J. D. A., & James, D. A. (1999). Relation between alexithymia and the ve-factor model of personality: A facet-level analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 345358. Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the ve factor model to represent the DSM-IV personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 401412. Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 88, 139157. McCrae, R. R., Lckenhoff, C. E., & Costa, P. T. (2005). A step toward DSM-V: Cataloguing personality-related problems in living. European Journal of Personality, 19, 269286. Miller, J. D. (2012). Five-factor model personality disorder prototypes: A review of their development, validity, and comparison to alternative approaches. Journal of Personality, 80, 15651591. Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2003). Psychopathy and the ve-factor model of personality: A replication and extension. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81, 168178. Miller, J. D., Pilkonis, P. A., & Mulvey, E. P. (2006). Treatment utilization and satisfaction: Examining the contributions of axis II psychopathology and the ve-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 20, 369387. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, D. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument of the vefactor model. Assessment, 13, 119137. Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). The ve-factor model of personality disorder: A translation across science and practice. In R. F. Krueger &

Five-Factor Model of Personality Disorder and DSM-5

1719

J. L. Tackett (Eds.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 3970). New York: Guilford Press. OConnor, B. P., & Dyce, J. A. (1998). A test of models of personality disorder conguration. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 107, 316. Rounsaville, B. J., Alarcon, R. D., Andrews, G., Jackson, J. S., Kendell, R. E., & Kendler, K. (2002). Basic nomenclature issues for DSM-V. In D. J. Kupfer, M. B. First, & D. E. Regier (Eds.), A research agenda for DSM-V (pp. 129). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2006). Clinicians judgments of clinical utility: A comparison of the DSM-IV and ve factor models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 298308. Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the ve-factor model and DSM-VI-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 13261342. Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The ve-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 10551085. Skodol, A. (2010, February 10). Rationale for proposing ve specic personality types. Retrieved from http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevisions/Pages/ RationaleforProposingFiveSpecicPersonalityDisorderTypes.aspx Skodol, A. E., Bender, D. S., Morey, L. C., Clark, L. A., Oldham, J. M., Alarcon, R. D., et al. (2011). Personality disorder types proposed for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 136169. Taylor, G. J., & Bagby, R. M. (2004). New trends in alexithymia research. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 73, 6877. Trull, T. J. (1992). DSM-III-R personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality: An empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 553560. Trull, T. J. (2005). Dimensional models of personality disorder: Coverage and cutoffs. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 262282. Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categorical and dimensional models of personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 1, 355 380. Trull, T. J., Tomko, R. L., Brown, W. C., & Scheiderer, E. M. (2010). Borderline personality disorder in 3-D: Dimensions, symptoms, and measurement challenges. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 11, 10571069. Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (1997). Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model of personality. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Trull, T. J., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). Geology 102: More thoughts on a shift to a dimensional model of personality disorders. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 949967. Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., & Burr, R. (2001). A structured interview for the assessment of the ve factor model of personality: Facet level relations to the axis II personality disorders. Journal of Personality, 69, 175198. Trull, T. J., Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2003). Borderline personality disorder from the perspective of general personality functioning. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 193202.

1720

Trull

Verheul, R., Andrea, H., Berghout, C. C., Dolan, C., Busschbach, J. J. V., van der Kroft, P. J. A., et al. (2008). Severity Indices of Personality Problems (SIPP118): Development, factor structure, reliability, and validity. Psychological Assessment, 20, 2334. Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Harkness, A. R. (1994). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 1831. Westen, D., & Arkowitz-Westen, L. (1998). Limitations of axis II in diagnosing personality pathology in clinical practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 155, 17671771. Widiger, T. A. (2011). The DSM-5 dimensional model of personality disorder: Rationale and empirical support. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 222234. Widiger, T. A., & Coker, L. A. (2002). Assessing personality disorders. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Clinical personality assessment: Practical approaches (2nd ed., pp. 407434). New York: Oxford University Press. Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2002). Five-factor model personality disorder research. In P. T. Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 5987). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (2002). A proposal for axis II: Diagnosing personality disorders using the ve factor model. In P. T. Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the ve factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 431456). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1985). The DSM-III personality disorders: Perspectives from psychology. Archives of General Psychiatry, 42, 615623. Widiger, T. A., & Lowe, J. (2007). Five factor model assessment of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment, 89, 1629. Widiger, T. A., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2009). Five-factor model of personality disorder: A proposal for DSM-V. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 5, 115138. Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 110130. Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classication of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 7183. Widiger, T., Trull, T., Costa, P., McCrae, R., Clarkin, J. F., & Sanderson, C. (1994). Description of the DSM-III-R and DSM-IV personality disorders with the ve factor model of personality. In P. Costa & T. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality (pp. 4156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Widiger, T. A., Trull, T., Costa, P. T., Jr., McCrae, R., Clarkin, J. F., & Sanderson, C. (2002). Description of the DSM-IV personality disorders with the ve factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa, Jr., & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the ve-factor model of personality (2nd ed., pp. 8999). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.