Using self‐ and informant reports in the assessment of personality pathology in clinical settings—An easy and effective 1–2 combination

Differentiation of Self and Interpersonal Functioning with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0

Research on Criterion A of the alternative model for personality disorders is recently expanding and provides mixed results concerning the unidimensional operational definition of severity by the model, characterized by impaired self (identity and self-direction) and interpersonal (empathy and intimacy) functioning. Studies resulted in one, as well as two or more factor structures. The present study demonstrated the importance of the structural and relational differentiation of self and interpersonal dimensions of personality functioning. One thousand seventy-four participants (community and clinical mixed sample) completed the Level of Personality Functioning Scale - Brief Form 2.0 (LPFS-BF 2.0), the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form and the Questionnaire for the World Health Organization Disability Assessment. An LPFS-BF 2.0 two-factor structure with self and interpersonal functioning factors was corroborated by confirmatory factor analyses and bifactor modeling. Joint Exploratory Factor Analysis of the LPFS-BF 2.0 domains with maladaptive personality domains clearly differentiated the personality functioning factors. While the self-functioning factor was more closely linked to negative affect (and to disinhibition and psychoticism), the interpersonal functioning factor connected to detachment. Self-functioning predicted functional impairment along and beyond personality domains. The LPFS-BF 2.0 appears a useful tool for clinical routine monitoring of both self and interpersonal functioning.

Evaluating the validity of brief prototype-based informant ratings of triarchic psychopathy traits in prisoners

The validity of self-report psychopathy assessment has been questioned, especially in forensic settings where clinical evaluations influence critical decision-making (e.g., institutional placement, parole eligibility). Informant-based assessment offers a potentially valuable supplement to self-report but is challenging to acquire in under-resourced forensic contexts. The current study evaluated, within an incarcerated sample (n = 322), the extent to which brief prototype-based informant ratings of psychopathic traits as described by the triarchic model (boldness, meanness, disinhibition; Patrick et al., 2009) converge with self-report trait scores and show incremental validity in predicting criterion measures. Self/informant convergence was robust for traits of boldness and disinhibition, but weaker for meanness. Informant-rated traits showed incremental predictive validity over self-report traits, both within and across assessment domains. These findings indicate that simple prototype-based informant ratings of the triarchic traits can provide a useful supplement to self-report in assessing psychopathy within forensic-clinical settings.

The Goldwater Rule: Perspectives From, and Implications for, Psychological Science

When, if ever, should psychological scientists be permitted to offer professional opinions concerning the mental health of public figures they have never directly examined? This contentious question, which attracted widespread public attention during the 1964 U.S. presidential election involving Barry Goldwater, received renewed scrutiny during and after the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign, when many mental health professionals raised pointed questions concerning the psychiatric status of Donald Trump. Although the Goldwater Rule prohibits psychiatrists from offering diagnostic opinions on individuals they have never examined, no comparable rule exists for psychologists. We contend that, owing largely to the Goldwater Rule's origins in psychiatry, a substantial body of psychological research on assessment and clinical judgment, including work on the questionable validity of unstructured interviews, the psychology of cognitive biases, and the validity of informant reports and of L (lifetime) data, has been overlooked in discussions of its merits. We conclude that although the Goldwater Rule may have been defensible several decades ago, it is outdated and premised on dubious scientific assumptions. We further contend that there are select cases in which psychological scientists with suitable expertise may harbor a "duty to inform," allowing them to offer informed opinions concerning public figures' mental health with appropriate caveats.

Incremental Validity of Self- and Informant Report of Personality Disorders in Later Life

Research shows moderate agreement between different sources of information when assessing personality disorders (PDs) in older adults. The differences between measurement methods appear to be not only the result of measurement error, but also an indication that each source holds nonredundant information relevant to PD diagnosis. The current article examines three sources of diagnostic information (self-report, informant report, and clinical interview) and the utility of these instruments in predicting important outcomes in older adulthood. We analyzed data from 1,630 adults between the ages of 55 and 64 years participating in a longitudinal study of later life. PD symptomatology was assessed using multiple methods, which were then used to predict health, marital satisfaction, and cognitive decline. All three sources contributed significantly to the prediction of these outcomes, with important implications for the assessment of older adults in research and clinical settings.

Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in Adolescents: Determining Cutoff Scores for the Inventory of Callous and Unemotional Traits

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to establish a cut score for the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits, a well-validated measure of callous-unemotional (CU) traits in youth for which there is currently no cutoff score.

METHOD

We analyzed data on 634 adolescents from high schools (n = 343) and juvenile detention centers (n = 291). Participants, their parents and guardians, and their teachers and staff members reported on participants' CU traits and aggressive/violent behavior.

RESULTS

All three reports of CU traits as well as intersource composites were associated with aggression, violence, and detained status. Parent report was a better indicator compared to self-reports and teacher reports. Appropriate cut scores based on each report and composite were determined.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that information from all available informants should be used whenever possible, but when only one informant report is feasible, parent reports are preferable.

Convergence of Self-Reports and Informant Reports on the Personality Assessment Screener

The present study is the first to investigate the Personality Assessment Screener, a brief self-report measure of risk for emotional and behavioral dysfunction, in relation to the informant report version of this instrument, the Personality Assessment Screener–Other. Among a sample of undergraduate roommate dyads ( N = 174), self-report and informant report total scores on the Personality Assessment Screener/Personality Assessment Screener–Other moderately converged ( r = 0.45), with generally greater agreement between perspectives observed for externalizing behaviors compared with internalizing distress. In addition, selves tended to report more psychological difficulties relative to informant ratings ( d = 0.45) with an average absolute discrepancy between sources of 6.31 ( SD = 4.96) out of a possible range of 66. Discrepancies between self-report and informant report were significantly associated with characteristics of the dyadic relationship (e.g., length of acquaintanceship) as well as the severity of self-reported psychological difficulties and positive impression management.