Date of Award

2020

Document Type

Dissertation

Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

Department

Psychology

Abstract

For decades, mental health clinicians and researchers have debated over the classification of personality disorders (PDs). Although currently classified categorically, dimensional models have increased in popularity, and there have been several proposals to overhaul the classification of these disorders (cf. Livesley, Schroeder, Jackson, & Jang, 1994; McCrae, 1994; Widiger & Clark, 2000). Disagreements over PDs raise conflict for psychologists who assume normal personality to be dimensional, but recognize that some pathological personality disorders may be discrete entities (e.g., Haslam, 2003). Moreover, growing evidence suggests that some diagnostic constructs may be distributed as discrete latent classes rather than quantitative shifts in normal personality (cf. Beach & Amir, 2003; Fossati et al., 2005; Golden & Meehl, 1978). Utilizing taxometric procedures (MAMBAC and MAXCOV), this study aimed to evaluate whether a categorical or dimensional classification system is more appropriate for categorizing Cluster A personality disorders, as measured by either the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II) or the Personality Disorder Interview for DSM-IV (PDI-IV) . Overall, the findings of the present study were inconclusive and did not support the hypothesis that a categorical model of classification best fits the data for each of the Cluster A PDs. However, there was also no support to suggest that a dimensional model of classification best fit the date for each of the Cluster A PDs either. Although the findings from the present study were deemed inconclusive, the present study contributes to the very small body of literature surrounding personality disorder taxa. A thorough overview of taxometrics is reviewed and directions for future research are provided in the context of the results.

Download

Share

COinS