CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 169Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 44 of the 45 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depression.

De Fruyt, Filip, Van Leeuwen, Karla, Bagby, R. Michael, Rolland, Jean-Pierre, Rouillon, Frédéric·2006·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.71
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Structural, mean- and individual-level, differential, and ipsative personality continuity were examined in 599 patients treated for major depression assigned to 1 of 6 forms of a 6-month pharmaco-psychotherapy program. Covariation among traits from the Five Factor model remained invariant across treatment, and patients described themselves as slightly more extraverted, open to experience, agreeable and conscientious, and substantially more emotional stable after treatment. Trait changes were only to a small extent explained by changes in depression severity. There was evidence for differential, individual-level, and ipsative stability, with stable personality profiles in terms of shape and to a lesser extent in terms of scatter and elevation. Traits remain relatively stable, except for emotional stability, despite the depressive state and the psychopharmacological interventions.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.71

Cites

44 of 44 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Costa, 1992, Professional manual: Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor-Inventory (NEO-FFI).
  2. Haynes, 1992, Models of causality in psychopathology.
  3. Rolland, 2001, Systeme de description en cinq dimensions (D5D). Manuel.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 169

Related

Metadata

Authors
De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., Bagby, R. M., Rolland, J.-P., & Rouillon, F.
Affiliations
  • Ghent University (BE)
  • Université Paris Nanterre (FR)
  • Hôpital Albert-Chenevier (FR)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2006
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
71-80
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/1040-3590.18.1.71
OpenAlex
W2007449032
Cited by
168
References
45
Citations by year
2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 12
FWCI
11.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Ghent University Academic Bibliography (Ghent University) (submittedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Traits and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Personality Disorders and Psychopathology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
personality change, personality continuity, major depressive disorder, Big Five personality traits, emotional stability, personality stability, depression severity, psychopharmacological treatment, psychotherapy
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Antidepressive Agents, Combined Modality Therapy, Major Depressive Disorder, Double-Blind Method, Electroconvulsive Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Hospitalization, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychotherapy, Treatment Outcome

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