Cited by 74Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health Research Topics

An examination of the factor structure of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, narcissistic personality disorder criteria: one or two factors?

Open access
Miller, Joshua D., Hoffman, Brian J., Campbell, W. Keith, Pilkonis, Paul A.·2008·Comprehensive Psychiatry

Abstract

A growing body of research has suggested that narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) contains 2 factors or types: overt/grandiose and covert/vulnerable. A recent factor analysis of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), NPD symptoms supported a similar 2-factor model. The present research tested this proposed 2-factor solution against a 1-factor solution (N = 289; 72% patients) using both confirmatory factor analysis and an examination of associations between the resultant factors and theoretically relevant criteria (other personality disorders; depression, anxiety). The results of the confirmatory factor analysis supported a 1-factor solution. Likewise, the 2 factors each yielded a similar pattern of correlations with relevant criteria. Together, these results argue against a 2-factor structure for the current DSM-IV NPD symptoms. Given the broader research literature suggesting a 2-factor structure of narcissism, strategies for assessing both overt/grandiose and covert/vulnerable forms of narcissism in DSM-V are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.comppsych.2007.08.012

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The study found many grandiose features that have been validated through empirical research.

    “We found many grandiose features that have been validated through empirical research [2, 3, 19].”

    From Living with pathological narcissism: a qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Campbell, W. K., & Pilkonis, P. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Georgia (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (US)
Corresponding author
Miller, Joshua D.
Venue
Comprehensive Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-03
Volume
49
Issue
2
Pages
141-145
ISSN
0010-440X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2145543432
Cited by
74
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 4 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Comprehensive Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Mental Health (MH56888, R01MH056888)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
Keywords
narcissistic personality disorder, factor structure, DSM-IV diagnostic criteria, DSM-V, personality disorders, depression, anxiety, personality disorder assessment
MeSH terms
Adult, Factor Analysis, Statistical, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Narcissism, Personality Disorders, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review