An Item Response Theory Integration of Normal and Abnormal Personality Scales
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
CORRECTED JUNE 24, 2010; SEE LAST PAGE Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment © 2010 American Psychological Association 2010, Vol. 1, No. 1, 5–21 1949-2715/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0018136 An Item Response Theory Integration of Normal and Abnormal Personality Scales Douglas B. Samuel Leonard J. Simms Yale University School of Medicine University at Buffalo, State University of New York Lee Anna Clark W. John Livesley University of Iowa University of British Columbia Thomas A. Widiger University of Kentucky The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–IV–TR) currently conceptualizes personality disorders (PDs) as categorical syndromes that are distinct from normal personality. However, an alternative dimensional viewpoint is that PDs are maladaptive expressions of general personality traits. The dimensional perspective postulates that personality pathology exists at a more extreme level of the latent trait than does general personality. This hypothesis was examined using item response theory analyses comparing scales from two personality pathology instruments—the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley & Jackson, in press) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Person- ality (SNAP; Clark, 1993; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press)—with scales from an instrument designed to assess normal range personality, the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The results indicate that respective scales from these instruments assess shared latent constructs, with the NEO PI-R providing more information at the lower (normal) range and the DAPP-BQ and SNAP providing more information at the higher (abnormal) range. Nevertheless, the results also demonstrated substantial overlap in coverage. Implications of the findings are discussed with respect to the study and development of items that would provide specific discriminations along underlying trait continua. Keywords: IRT, psychopathology, dimensional, personality disorder, assessment The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of 2005; Widiger & Samuel, 2005). According to Mental Disorders (DSM–IV–TR; American this hypothesis, items from instruments assess- Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000) repre- ing the DSM–IV personality disorder criteria sents “the categorical perspective that Personal- assess the same underlying constructs as general ity Disorders are qualitatively distinct clinical personality inventories, albeit at more extreme syndromes” (p. 689). However, an alternative levels. While much research has demonstrated perspective is that personality disorder criteria that instruments assessing personality pathol- are maladaptive, extreme versions of general ogy and those assessing normal personality personality structure (Clark, 2007; Livesley, traits do share common latent dimensions Douglas B. Samuel, Department of Psychiatry, Yale Uni- Health, awarded to Douglas B. Samuel. Douglas B. Samuel versity School of Medicine; Leonard J. Simms, Department is the author of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality of Psychology, University at Buffalo, State University of Pathology-Basic Questionnaire. Lee Anna Clark is affiliated New York; Lee Anna Clark, Department of Psychology, with the Schedule of Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personal- University of Iowa; W. John Livesley, Department of Psy- ity. She has no financial interest in the product. chiatry, University of British Columbia; Thomas A. Widi- Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- ger, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky. dressed to Douglas B. Samuel, VA Connecticut Healthcare This research was partially supported by a fellowship System–Building 35, 950 Campbell Avenue (151-D), West (F31MH074245-02) from the National Institute of Mental Haven, CT 06516. E-mail: [email protected] 5 6 SAMUEL ET AL. (Markon, Krueger, & Watson, 2005; O’Connor, We are aware of only two published studies 2005; Schroeder, Wormsworth, & Livesley, that have used IRT in this manner (Walton, 1992), there has been very little research that Roberts, Krueger, Blonigen, & Hicks, 2008; has tested whether personality disorder instru- Zickar, Russell, Smith, Bohle, & Tilley, 2002; ments assess the shared traits at more extreme and the latter is not directly pertinent to the levels than general personality instruments. current study as it addresses time-of-day pref- However, such a comparison is possible using erences for working). Walton and colleagues item response theory (IRT). administered the Psychopathic Personality In- The field of psychological assessment has ventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) and been based largely in classical test theory the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (CTT), but significant advances in psychomet- (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982). Subsets of items from rics have led to improved techniques for devel- each instrument that were deemed to assess the oping and evaluating assessment instruments. A same underlying construct were subjected to primary example of these advances is the appli- IRT analysis. Information curves were calcu- cation of IRT (for a detailed history and descrip- lated for each instrument and presented on a tion of IRT, see Embretson & Reise, 2000). IRT common graph. Walton and colleagues con- was first introduced to psychology by way of cluded from a visual inspection of these curves educational testing, as a method of developing that, inconsistent with the hypothesis that psy- more efficient measures of educational attain- chopathy items were assessing extreme variants ment or achievement. Only recently has it been of normal personality, the instruments did not applied to personality assessment, primarily to appear to be assessing different regions of the develop computerized adaptive testing (CAT) latent trait. This may be because the PPI as- versions of existing measures. For example, Re- sesses personality traits that are risk factors for ise and Henson (2000) reported on a CAT ver- psychopathy rather than psychopathic personal- sion of the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised ity per se. These two studies have demonstrated (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) using a a novel use of IRT techniques; however, given that the results of Walton et al. (2008) were real-data simulation, and Simms and Clark inconsistent with hypotheses, a closer examina- (2005) developed and validated an IRT-based tion of normal and abnormal personality scales CAT for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and is warranted. Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993). One of the most heavily researched models of Another potentially useful extension of IRT general personality functioning is the Five Fac- to the study of personality and personality pa- tor Model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 1999), thology is its ability to compare the amount of which has the five broad dimensions of extra- information that existing instruments provide at version (vs. introversion), agreeableness (vs. different levels of a latent trait (Reise & Hen- 1 antagonism), neuroticism (vs. emotional stabil- son, 2000). Items typically vary in the amount ity), conscientiousness (vs. undependability), of information they provide across levels of a and openness (vs. closedness to experience). trait. For example, some items may provide Over the past two decades, the FFM has pro- little information at low levels of a trait (e.g., all vided a useful dimensional framework for un- persons within the lower range provide the same derstanding the DSM personality disorders, and answer), but a great deal of information at well over 50 published studies support the link higher levels (i.e., persons at the higher levels of between them (Widiger & Costa, 2002). A the trait respond differentially to the item). meta-analysis of a number of these studies Thus, as long as items from different measures (Samuel & Widiger, 2008), reviews of this re- can be shown to load on the same latent dimen- search (Clark, 2007; Livesley, 2001), and an sion, they can be compared in terms of the interbattery factor analysis of published data levels of that latent trait where they provide the greatest discrimination. It is this aspect of IRT that could be used to compare where measures 1 In a literal sense, the phrase “IRT-based analyses” should be used (rather than simply “IRT”) in this sentence of normal and abnormal personality functioning and many others in this article. However, it is most common provide more or less information along an un- in the literature to refer to both the theory and its application derlying latent continuum. simply by “IRT” and we shall follow this usage. AN IRT INTEGRATION OF PERSONALITY SCALES 7 sets that examined relations between the FFM ness appeared not to be well represented in and the personality disorders (O’Connor, 2005) either instrument. all have led to the conclusion that there are Finally, Markon et al. (2005) conducted a strong and robust links between the DSM–IV series of exploratory factor analyses of a meta- PD formulations and dimensions of normal per- analytically derived correlation matrix as well sonality. Thus, the FFM is a compelling candi- as new data sets that included the DAPP-BQ, date to assess general personality traits within SNAP, NEO PI-R, and other measures of nor- an IRT-based comparison. mal and abnormal personality functioning. This Two instruments measuring maladaptive per- study explored how normal and abnormal per- sonality traits that would lend themselves to an sonality scales might be integrated within a integrated IRT