CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 29Personality Traits and PsychologyPersonality Disorders and PsychopathologyPsychological Testing and Assessment

Informant assessment: The Informant Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory.

Open access
Oltmanns, Joshua R., Crego, Cristina, Widiger, Thomas A.·2018·Psychological Assessment
DOI 10.1037/pas0000487PMC PMC5930358
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A series of self-report measures of personality disorder from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM) have been published; however, no informant-report versions have been developed. An informant version of the Five Factor Narcissism Inventory (FFNI) is particularly apt, given the degree of distortion in self-description inherent to narcissism. The present study provides initial validation for the Informant Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (IFFNI). In Study 1, informant reports from friends, romantic partners, parents, and other family members were compared with self-reports provided by undergraduate college students on the IFFNI, FFM personality, and social dysfunction. Self-other agreement for IFFNI Grandiose (G) was higher than what has been found with other narcissism measures. No self-informant convergence, though, was found for IFFNI Vulnerable (V). From the informant view, IFFNI-G and V narcissism were associated with social dysfunction, whereas from the self-view only FFNI-V was associated with social dysfunction. In Study 2, grandiose and vulnerable narcissists, identified by participants recruited from MTurk, were described in terms of the IFFNI, FFM, and Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI). Results indicated that the IFFNI discriminated well between G and V narcissism for all but a few scales. The exceptions may reflect vulnerable narcissistic traits within grandiose narcissists. In comparison, the PNI obtained a very similar informant profile for the G and V narcissists. In sum, the results of the current study suggest value in having an informant-based measure of narcissism. (PsycINFO Database Record

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/pas0000487

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Informant ratings may be a novel and valid methodology to assess for personality pathology.

    “As such, informant ratings may be a novel and valid methodology to assess for personality pathology [36]”

    From Living with pathological narcissism: a qualitative study (2020) · cites this paper as [36]

    The Discussion reports initial validity evidence for the Informant Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory, and the Conclusions suggest it may usefully complement self-report assessment of narcissism. The paper does not establish informant ratings as a novel methodology for personality pathology generally: it describes their existing use and tests a new measure specifically for narcissism. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The use of informant ratings is a valid methodology to assess aspects of personality pathology, including pathological narcissism.

    “The use of informant ratings have found to be a valid methodology to assess aspects of personality pathology, including pathological narcissism (Lukowitsky & Pincus, 2013; Oltmanns et al., 2018), given the documented limitations of self‐report research for this population (Klonsky & Oltmanns, 2002).”

    From Pathological narcissism: An analysis of interpersonal dysfunction within intimate relationships (2022) · cites this paper as Oltmanns et al., 2018

  • Informant-based methods of assessing narcissism have demonstrated reliability.

    “research has demonstrated the reliability of informant‐based methods of assessing narcissism (Lukowitsky & Pincus, 2013; Oltmanns et al., 2018).”

    From Pathological narcissism: An analysis of interpersonal dysfunction within intimate relationships (2022) · cites this paper as Oltmanns et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Lawton E 2014 Reconceptualizing social impairment using informant report Doctoral dissertation Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations Publishing. 3630299

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Oltmanns, J. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A.
Affiliations
University of Kentucky (US)
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Assessment
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2018-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
31-42
ISSN
  • 1040-3590 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-134X
DOI
10.1037/pas0000487
PMC
PMC5930358
OpenAlex
W2783305745
Cited by
29
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3
FWCI
4.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Assessment (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (F31AG055233)
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
narcissism, grandiose narcissism, vulnerable narcissism, Big Five personality traits, self-other agreement, social dysfunction, Pathological Narcissism Inventory, personality disorder assessment, self-report bias
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Narcissism, Personality, Personality Assessment, Personality Disorders, Personality Inventory, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Young Adult

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