CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 515Personality Disorders and PsychopathologyPersonality Traits and PsychologyMental Health Research Topics

The structure of personality pathology: Both general (‘g’) and specific (‘s’) factors?

Sharp, Carla, Wright, Aidan G. C., Fowler, J. Christopher, Frueh, B. Christopher, Allen, Jon G., Oldham, John, Clark, Lee Anna·2015·Journal of Abnormal Psychology
DOI 10.1037/abn0000033
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Recent editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) conceptualize personality disorders (PDs) as categorical constructs, but high PD co-occurrence suggests underlying latent dimensions. Moreover, several borderline PD criteria resemble Criterion A of the new DSM-5 Section III general criteria for personality pathology (i.e., self and interpersonal dysfunction). We evaluated a bifactor model of PD pathology in which a general factor and several specific factors of personality pathology (PD 'g' and 's' factors, respectively) account for the covariance among PD criteria. In particular, we examined the extent to which the borderline PD criteria would load exclusively onto the g-factor versus on both the g- and one or more s-factors. A large (N = 966) sample of inpatients were interviewed for six DSM-IV (American Psychiatric Association, 1994) PDs using the (Structured Clinical Interview for Personality Disorders (SCID-II; First, Spitzer, Gibbon, Williams, & Benjamin, 1994) with no skip-outs. We ran a series of confirmatory, exploratory, and bifactor exploratory factor analyses on the rated PD criteria. The confirmatory analysis largely replicated the DSM PDs, but with high factor correlations. The "standard" exploratory analysis replicated four of the DSM PDs fairly well, but nearly half the criteria cross-loaded. In the bifactor analysis, borderline PD criteria loaded only on the general factor; the remaining PDs loaded either on both the general and a specific factor or largely only on a specific factor. Results are interpreted in the context of several possibilities to define the nature of the general factor.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/abn0000033

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Grandiosity, as reflected in the DSM-5, has been argued to be a key feature of pathological narcissism that distinguishes it from other disorders.

    “Grandiosity, as reflected in the DSM-5, has been argued to be a key feature of pathological narcissism that distinguishes it from other disorders [26, 28].”

    From Living with pathological narcissism: a qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [26]

  • The vulnerable dimension of narcissism may reflect a more general personality pathology similar to BPD.

    “The vulnerable dimension of narcissism, with its internal feelings of emptiness and emotion dysregulation, may reflect a more general personality pathology similar to that of borderline personality disorder (BPD) [26].”

    From Living with pathological narcissism: a qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [26]

  • BPD is representative of generic personality pathology, so findings from BPD studies are generalizable to other types of PD.

    “While most data are based upon studies of BPD, there is both evidence and consensus that BPD is representative of generic personality pathology, so findings are generalizable to other types of PD (11).”

    From The diagnosis that should speak its name: why it is ethically right to diagnose and treat personality disorder during adolescence (2023) · cites this paper as [11]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Sharp, C., Wright, A. G. C., Fowler, J. C., Frueh, B. C., Allen, J. G., Oldham, J., & Clark, L. A.
Affiliations
  • University of Houston (US)
  • University of Pittsburgh (US)
  • Menninger Clinic (US)
  • University of Notre Dame (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Abnormal Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2015-05
Volume
124
Issue
2
Pages
387-398
ISSN
  • 0021-843X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1846
DOI
10.1037/abn0000033
OpenAlex
W2008161258
Cited by
515
References
73
Citations by year
2026: 31 · 2025: 56 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 44 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 81 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 54 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 8
FWCI
46.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Abnormal Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
personality disorders, personality pathology, bifactor model, general factor, specific factors, borderline personality disorder, DSM-5 Section III, cross-loadings
MeSH terms
Adult, Borderline Personality Disorder, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Disorders, Models, Statistical, Comorbidity

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