Development and Validation of the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Problems

The interpersonal circumplex (IPC) is a well-established model of social behavior that spans basic personality and clinical science. Although several measures are available to assess interpersonal functioning (e.g., motives, traits) within an IPC framework, researchers studying interpersonal difficulties have relied primarily on a single measure, the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems-Circumplex Scales (IIP-C; Horowitz, Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 2000). Although the IIP-C is a widely used measure, it is currently the only measure specifically designed to assess maladaptive interpersonal behavior using the IPC framework. The purpose of the current study is to describe a new 64-item measure of interpersonal problems, called the Circumplex Scales of Interpersonal Problems (CSIP). Interpersonal problems derived from a pool of 400 personality-related problems were assessed in two large university samples. In the scale development sample (N = 1,197), items that best characterized each sector of the IPC were identified, and a set of eight 8-item circumplex scales was developed. Psychometric properties of the resulting measure were then examined in the validation sample (N = 757). Results from confirmatory circumplex structural analyses indicated that the CSIP fit well to a quasi-circumplex model. The CSIP converged with the IIP-C and the Revised Interpersonal Adjective Scales (Wiggins, 1995), and associated in theoretically expected ways with broader assessments of adaptive- and maladaptive-range personality traits and symptoms of psychological distress. The CSIP augments the IIP-C with additional content, thereby helping to extend the underlying constructs, and provides an alternative means for studying the interpersonal consequences of personality and psychopathology. (PsycINFO Database Recor

Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data.

The Open Science Movement (OSM) emphasizes increased transparency at many of the steps in the scientific process and has improved psychological science. In the present article, we discuss whether such transparency should find its way into the review process. We discuss a priori thoughts and intuitions about the costs and benefits of signing reviews. In terms of benefits, these include greater alignment with OSM and greater accountability leading to increases in civility, care, and thoughtfulness of reviews. The most obvious cost is potential retaliation for negative reviews. To check these intuitions, we surveyed a sample of 358 faculty members about their experience and views on signing reviews. Results both underscored and extended the initial intuitions. Results suggest there are many benefits to increasing the incidence of reviewers signing their reviews. Fears of retaliation seem to be somewhat exaggerated. We discuss possible means of reducing the possibility of retaliation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data.

The Open Science Movement (OSM) emphasizes increased transparency at many of the steps in the scientific process and has improved psychological science. In the present article, we discuss whether such transparency should find its way into the review process. We discuss a priori thoughts and intuitions about the costs and benefits of signing reviews. In terms of benefits, these include greater alignment with OSM and greater accountability leading to increases in civility, care, and thoughtfulness of reviews. The most obvious cost is potential retaliation for negative reviews. To check these intuitions, we surveyed a sample of 358 faculty members about their experience and views on signing reviews. Results both underscored and extended the initial intuitions. Results suggest there are many benefits to increasing the incidence of reviewers signing their reviews. Fears of retaliation seem to be somewhat exaggerated. We discuss possible means of reducing the possibility of retaliation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Measurement invariance of the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality trait model across sex.

The dimensional pathological personality trait model proposed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), Section III Criterion B, has shown promising results for its validity and utility in conceptualizing personality pathology. However, as its structural equivalence across sex is yet to be tested, the validity for the model across males and females remains uncertain. In the present article, we examined sex measurement invariance of the DSM-5 trait model in a large undergraduate sample using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. A series of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses suggested that, although the exact facet-domain relationships as specified in the DSM-5 were not observed, the facets generally organize into a model with five latent factors similar to those listed in the DSM-5 Section III Criterion B. Further, these five factors were fully measurement invariant across sex at the configural, metric, and scalar levels. Examination of the latent trait mean levels suggests that females tend to have higher scores on latent Negative Affectivity, whereas males tend to have higher scores on latent Antagonism, Detachment, Psychoticism, and Disinhibition. These results indicate that the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality trait model is fully structurally equivalent across sex, a property that is lacking in the traditional categorical model in Section II. This further validates the use of the dimensional DSM-5 trait model for personality disorder assessment and conceptualization in both research and clinical settings. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Altered Positive Affect in Clinically Anxious Youth: the Role of Social Context and Anxiety Subtype.

Anxious youth may experience altered positive affect (PA) relative to healthy youth, perhaps because of greater sensitivity to social experiences. Altered PA may be especially evident during the transition to adolescence, a period in which positive social events increase in salience and value. The current study evaluated whether anxious youth show differences in baseline PA, rate of return to baseline, and variability around baseline PA and tested whether these differences would depend on social context and anxiety subtype. Participants were 176 9- to 14-year-old youth, including 130 clinically anxious (with Social Anxiety Disorder, Generalized Anxiety Disorder, and/or Separation Anxiety Disorder) and 46 healthy youth. Youth reported their current PA, peak PA in the past hour, and social context in natural settings using ecological momentary assessment. Hierarchical linear models showed that both socially anxious and other anxious youth showed greater variability of PA relative to healthy youth. Youth with other anxiety disorders showed higher peak PA to a positive event relative to healthy youth. Feeling close to a friend was associated with higher peak PA, especially for socially anxious youth. Socially anxious youth showed significantly lower peak PA relative to both healthy and other anxious youth when interacting with a less close peer, but similar levels to these youth when interacting with a close friend. These findings suggest that clinically anxious youth may more sensitive to positive events and social interactions than healthy youth. Findings provide potential treatment targets for anxious youth, including applying regulatory strategies to positive events

Properties of the Continuous Assessment of Interpersonal Dynamics Across Sex, Level of Familiarity, and Interpersonal Conflict.

The Continuous Assessment of Interpersonal Dynamics (CAID) is a method in which trained observers continuously code the dominance and warmth of individuals who interact with one another in dyads. This method has significant promise for assessing dynamic interpersonal processes. The purpose of this study was to examine the impact of individual sex, dyadic familiarity, and situational conflict on patterns of interpersonal warmth, dominance, and complementarity as assessed via CAID. We used six samples with 603 dyads, including two samples of unacquainted mixed-sex undergraduates interacting in a collaborative task, two samples of couples interacting in both collaborative and conflict tasks, and two samples of mothers and children interacting in both collaborative and conflict tasks. Complementarity effects were robust across all samples, and individuals tended to be relatively warm and dominant. Results from multilevel models indicated that women were slightly warmer than men, whereas there were no sex differences in dominance. Unfamiliar dyads and dyads interacting in more collaborative tasks were relatively warmer, more submissive, and more complementary on warmth but less complementary on dominance. These findings speak to the utility of the CAID method for assessing interpersonal dynamics and provide norms for researchers who use the method for different types of samples and applications

International Assessment of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Personality Disorder Traits: Toward a Common Nosology in DSM-5.1

INTRODUCTION: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 classification of personality disorders (PD) are largely commensurate and, when combined, they delineate 6 trait domains: negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism. OBJECTIVE: The present study evaluated the international validity of a brief 36-item patient-report measure that portrays all 6 domains simultaneously including 18 primary subfacets. METHODS: We developed and employed a modified version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 - Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+). A total of 16,327 individuals were included, 2,347 of whom were patients. The expected 6-factor structure of facets was initially investigated in samples from Denmark (n = 584), Germany (n = 1,271), and the USA (n = 605) and subsequently replicated in both patient- and community samples from Italy, France, Switzerland, Belgium, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Poland, Czech Republic, the USA, and Brazil. Associations with interview-rated DSM-5 PD categories were also investigated. RESULTS: Findings generally supported the empirical soundness and international robustness of the 6 domains including meaningful associations with familiar interview-rated PD types. CONCLUSIONS: The modified PID5BF+ may be employed internationally by clinicians and researchers for brief and reliable assessment of the 6 combined DSM-5 and ICD-11 domains, including 18 primary subfacets. This 6-domain framework may inform a future nosology for DSM-5.1 that is more reasonably aligned with the authoritative ICD-11 codes than the current DSM-5 AMPD model. The 36-item modified PID5BF+ scoring key is provided in online supplementary Appendix A see www.karger.com/doi/10.1159/000507589 (for all online suppl. material).status: publishe

Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice.

ObjectiveDiagnosis is a cornerstone of clinical practice for mental health care providers, yet traditional diagnostic systems have well-known shortcomings, including inadequate reliability, high comorbidity, and marked within-diagnosis heterogeneity. The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) is a data-driven, hierarchically based alternative to traditional classifications that conceptualizes psychopathology as a set of dimensions organized into increasingly broad, transdiagnostic spectra. Prior work has shown that using a dimensional approach improves reliability and validity, but translating a model like HiTOP into a workable system that is useful for health care providers remains a major challenge.MethodThe present work outlines the HiTOP model and describes the core principles to guide its integration into clinical practice.ResultsPotential advantages and limitations of the HiTOP model for clinical utility are reviewed, including with respect to case conceptualization and treatment planning. A HiTOP approach to practice is illustrated and contrasted with an approach based on traditional nosology. Common barriers to using HiTOP in real-world health care settings and solutions to these barriers are discussed.ConclusionsHiTOP represents a viable alternative to classifying mental illness that can be integrated into practice today, although research is needed to further establish its utility. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)

Redefining phenotypes to advance psychiatric genetics: Implications from hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology.

Genetic discovery in psychiatry and clinical psychology is hindered by suboptimal phenotypic definitions. We argue that the hierarchical, dimensional, and data-driven classification system proposed by the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) consortium provides a more effective approach to identifying genes that underlie mental disorders, and to studying psychiatric etiology, than current diagnostic categories. Specifically, genes are expected to operate at different levels of the HiTOP hierarchy, with some highly pleiotropic genes influencing higher order psychopathology (e.g., the general factor), whereas other genes conferring more specific risk for individual spectra (e.g., internalizing), subfactors (e.g., fear disorders), or narrow symptoms (e.g., mood instability). We propose that the HiTOP model aligns well with the current understanding of the higher order genetic structure of psychopathology that has emerged from a large body of family and twin studies. We also discuss the convergence between the HiTOP model and findings from recent molecular studies of psychopathology indicating broad genetic pleiotropy, such as cross-disorder SNP-based shared genetic covariance and polygenic risk scores, and we highlight molecular genetic studies that have successfully redefined phenotypes to enhance precision and statistical power. Finally, we suggest how to integrate a HiTOP approach into future molecular genetic research, including quantitative and hierarchical assessment tools for future data-collection and recommendations concerning phenotypic analyses. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved)