Talk:Dimensional models of personality disorders

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Psychology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2012. The result of the discussion was Keep.

This article is the subject of an

The lead section should summarize the rest of the article. There should probably be a sentence describing the different models (FFM, 7, 2) with a brief synopsis of each. Is the two factor model related to this - Two-factor models of personality? If so, there could be a link to that page in the two factor section. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gobonobo, thanks you for your suggestions. I added a short description of each model in the introduction - if you think this should be changed in some way (longer, shorter, too unclear, etc.), please let me know. I also looked over the Two-factor models of personality page, and it doesn't seen to be getting at the same idea as I'm presenting in this article - here the two factors are specifically about internalizing and externalizing behaviors. I think I'll rename that section "Internalizing/Externalizing model", to make it a little more clear. Thank you again for your help! Allexe11 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Allexe11, you asked about the link to the Two factor models of personality, and I agree that it is unclear. An argument for not including it is that it doesn't refer to the internalizing/externalizing model, so that could confuse readers. An argument for including the link is that it is nice to see some context to two-factor models. I guess I come down in favor of not including it, but it is close. William Fleeson (talk) 01:54, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You should add some sourced criticism to the article to keep it

In the lede, dimensions (a key word used in the title of the article is piped to Degrees of freedom (statistics)? Can someone explain what is meant by this? (The name of the article is Dimensional models of personality disorders - can this be translated to Degrees of freedom models of personality disorders?

Since this article is about the Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders, shouldn't the article be renamed to reflect this? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did the piping to

Stuartyeates (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi Stuartyeates, I've been trying to think of a way to easily explain the idea of dimensions. Regarding clarifying the first 1-2 sentences in the lede, would saying dimensional models of personality disorders hold that "personality disorders consist of extreme, maladaptive levels of various basic personality characteristics, or dimensions" be too unclear? The basic idea is that, in these models, dimensions refer to a continuum of a personality characteristics. Allexe11 (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In

Stuartyeates (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I looked at

Dimension (statistics) has no meaning, according to the editor who made that edit. The word dimension goes directly to the meaning of the word "dimension" in science and mathematics and other fields. Isn't the meaning of "dimension" defined anywhere in these models of personality that are the subjects of these articles? MathewTownsend (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

I've re-worked the lead to try to make the meaning of "dimensions" clearer within this context. Does it make more sense now? Allexe11 (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No.

I've looked at a few articles and I think that these "models" like the "Big Five" use

16 PF in the 1940s and 1950s. And the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was derived empirically in part using statistical techniques. e.g. Item response theory

describes how factors or dimensions are determined using mathematical models. The number of of "dimensions" or "factors" - whether a 5-factor model, 7-factor model etc. depends on how the statistical analysis is manipulated, and what mathematical methods are used.

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory article says: "Costa and McCrae report that in looking at the competing factorally analyzed trait personality theories of the day, they noticed much more agreement at the level of the higher-order factors than at the lower order factors.[2] Costa and McCrae report that they began by looking for the broad and agreed-upon traits of Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E), but factor analysis also led them to a third broad trait, Openness to Experience (O)."

So all the DSM-V drafts are saying that statistical analysis will play a role in developing measures for assessing and diagnosing clients (bye, bye psychoanalysis), but no where do they say the "Big Five" has any special standing from their point of view -- unless some sources can be found that say otherwise. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you think there is a claim that "the 'Big Five' has any special standing" in the DSM-V model. The two are separated in the article, because they attribute different factors to the structures of personality disorders... The only similarity between the two is that they are both dimensional models, i.e. view personality disorders as consistent of levels of a characteristic. Allexe11 (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest name change to Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders since is what almost all of the article is about. MathewTownsend (talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although one of the most prominent dimensional models is a direct extension of of the Big Five, "dimensional model" and "Big Five model" are not equivalent or interchangeable - the latter is an example/subset of the former. In fact, two of the models presented in the article (the two-dimension aka internalizing/externalizing model, and the model that will be used for assessment in the DSM-V) are completely independent of the Big Five, and a third (the seven-factor model) was originally based on the Big Five, but made changes to the content and structure and is now a different approach. Allexe11 (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right. There is no mention in any of the DSM-V drafts of the "Big Five" models or dimensions. The proposal combines several models:

"the work group has recommended a significant reformulation of the approach to the assessment and diagnosis of personality psychopathology, including the proposal of a revised general category of personality disorder, and the provision for clinicians to rate dimensions of personality traits, a limited set of personality types, and the overall severity of personality dysfunction. Accordingly, the structure of this section of the Web site is necessarily somewhat different from those of the other disorders."^[1]

Changes to the Reformulation of Personality Disorders for DSM-5 (Updated January 21, 2011)

A hybrid dimensional-categorical model for personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis has been proposed for DSM-5 field testing. Since its original posting on the APA’s DSM-5 Web site in February of 2010, the model has been simplified and streamlined in response to comments received and to critiques in the published literature.

In its current iteration, ratings from three assessments combine to comprise the essential criteria for a personality disorder:

(1) A rating of mild impairment or greater on the Levels of Personality Functioning (criterion A),

(2) A rating of

(a) a “good match” or “very good match” to a Personality Disorder Type or

(b) “quite a bit” or “extremely” descriptive on one or more of six Personality Trait Domains (criterion B).

(3) Diagnosis also requires relative stability of (1) and (2) across time and situations, and excludes culturally normative personality features and those due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition.^[1]

MathewTownsend (talk) 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - The dimensional model is distinct from the categorical model, hence the need for DSM revision. The Big five is a prominent model, though there are other models that have been influenced by it. Additionally, you should discuss renaming proposals at the AFD.Smallman12q (talk) 23:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's the whole point - that categorical models are distinct from dimensional models. Psychiatry has insisted on categories since DSM-I. And ever since they have been bogged down in coming up with more categories and rating scales, none of which have proved to have acceptable reliability or validity. Now they are opening the door to dimensional models. Not only are empirically derived factors or dimensions more reliable and valid, they permit rating on a continuum rather than putting people in boxes that don't fit. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand your response. If you understand that there are multiple dimensional models, then why do you want this page moved to "Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders"?Smallman12q (talk) 01:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Big Five happen to be getting a lot of attention at the moment through all these articles on wikipedia. But there's no indication that it is better or more important that the other models based on
        DSM-V is going to be based specifically on the Big Five. None of these articles explains what's important about the Big Five over other models that it resembles. This article would be better off if it dropped the Big Five traits, that have been repeated over and over in the other Big Five articles, and instead actually explained what a "dimensional model" is and how such models are developed and refined. There's no explanation of cluster analysis and hierarchical clustering etc., the methodology and techniques upon which these theoretical models rely. MathewTownsend (talk) 01:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I've added a blank section that will be expanded for model development. The big five dimensional model is getting more coverage (in the number of articles) because multiple editors are writing about it. It's fine if the articles a summary of the big five, if its a central concept. There are a number of math/computer science/chemistry articles which reiterate/summarize certain key concepts. You are welcome to write about other models and various aspects provided they are notable.Smallman12q (talk) 11:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The "Big Five" needs more coverage in journal review articles and other reliable sources. Please provide current peer-reviewed journal article that review the literature and conclude that the "Big Five" specifically is more important than other dimensional models or dimensional models in general. There is just not enough evidence that the real world considers the "Big Five" important enough to justify the amount if its coverage in wikipedia. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The conflict of interest for this article exists because a requirement of the course is to submit an article for

The idea is to meet course requirements through wikipedia. I've asked User:JMathewson (WMF) to comment.Smallman12q (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale used above would seem to imply that every single student assignment is a conflict of interest. While there is a requirement to submit the article to DYK, that does not mean there is a conflict of interest. I'm not seeing anything in the course description page indicating course aims that are at odds with Wikipedia. While student contributors probably hope to get good grades in their classes, that does not mean their contributions will not be neutral or reliably sourced. Rather, I would think that the students who worked well with Wikipedia and complied with our policies would receive better grades. The broader issue of the appropriateness of DYKs for student assignments is already being discussed elsewhere. Gobōnobo ^{+ c} 23:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that you all are engaging in
  WP:POV. They're only expressing their opinion because you are in the class. This is especially bad for an Online Ambassador to do. And they are not helping because they're not expressing constructive criticism. MathewTownsend (talk) 00:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've raised the issue at

ANI so that non-involved admins may help resolve the matter.Smallman12q (talk) 02:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Not COI, not MEAT. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 05:09, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not a COI, and the only meat here is seafood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:05, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This is (or was, before it was removed) an absolutely ridiculous use of a COI tag. Kevin Gorman (talk) 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Allexe11, nice expansion on the FFM section! I think it actually helped me better understand McCrae et al.'s (2005) article about cataloging personality-related problems. I copy-edited the first paragraph in your Usage section; I just fixed minor grammatical things and broke up the longer sentences. A few suggestions:

• One way to combat NPOV may be to use less "comparison language" by avoiding words/phrases like "better," "more explanatory," "over 50 published studies supporting this model," etc. I think the information you have is relevant, but it may help to restate them or rephrase them in a manner that is less npov-ambiguous.
• I found the last sentence of the FFM Criticism section a little confusing, as it seemed like you were presenting evidence of criticism and rebuttal at the same time/within the Criticism section. Do you think Support could be a section of its own?

Over all, nice work! Linp11 (talk) 20:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I added some more wikilinks to pages. Since I'm not very familiar with this topic, I added a wikilink to a lot of things I didn't completely understand and assumed that others wouldn't understand either. I think it's well written. Paris (2007) might be another great source to get information about criticisms of FFM for the diagnosis of BPD. That might be too narrow for this article, but it might be a good place for an example in your article. I also thought the Lead is well written and helped me understand the rest of the article better. Desasu11 (talk) 16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  personality traits had not been discovered. MathewTownsend (talk) 02:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Merge seems like a good idea to me, and resolve many of the issues others have raised with the article.

Stuartyeates (talk) 03:28, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

Merging with Trait theory would commingle two related, but distinct topics. Merging with Two-factor_models_of_personality#Other_Factor_pairs would amount to an artificial admixture of two divergent fields, viz., psychopathology and personality types.

On the other hand, incorporating a discussion of dimensional models of personality disorders into the

I have just modified one external link on Dimensional models of personality disorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513181645/http://www.dsm5.org/ProposedRevision/Pages/PersonalityDisorders.aspx to http://www.dsm5.org/proposedrevision/Pages/PersonalityDisorders.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{

This message was posted before February 2018.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]