Samuel et al50 demonstrated through item response theory analysis that the maladaptive personality trait scales assessed in the models of Livesley11 and Clark18 lie along the same latent traits as those assessed by measures of the FFM, with the measures of abnormal personality representing more IPI-145 solubility dmso extreme variants
of the traits of normal personality. Samuel et al51 extended this research to focus specifically on borderline personality disorder. They indicated that the borderline symptoms (eg, recurrent suicidality) lie along the same latent trait as FFM neuroticism (or emotional instability). Stepp et al52 similarly integrated an FFM Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical measure with scales to assess the dimensional models of Cloninger10 and Clark,8 in a confirmatory factor and item response theory analyses that documented the presence of a common five-factor model that was closely aligned with the FFM. More specifically, they demonstrated Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical that dependent traits were extreme variants of FFM agreeableness,
obsessive-compulsive traits were extreme variants of FFM conscientiousness, and schizotypal Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical cognitive-perceptual aberrations were extreme variants of FFM openness. Distel et al53 examined the phenotypic and genetic association between borderline personality and FFM personality traits in 4403 monozygotic twins, 4425 dizygotic twins, and 1661 siblings from 6140 Dutch, Belgian, and Australian families. Multivariate genetic analyses indicated that the genetic factors that influenced individual differences in neuroticism, agreeableness, Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical conscientiousness, and extraversion accounted for all of the genetic liability for borderline personality (though unique environmental effects were not completely shared with the FFM traits). Saulsman and Page54 conducted a meta-analysis of FFM personality disorder research Inhibitors,research,lifescience,medical and concluded that the results “are consistent with the view that personality disorders can be conceptualized using the five-factor model of normal personality” (p 1075). Samuel and Widiger55 replicated and extended this meta-analysis with 16 studies (containing 18 independent samples) that administered a facet-level assessment of the FFM.
They concluded that the findings were “congruent at the facet level with hypothesized FFM translations of the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders,”55, p1326 though they did note significant variation of the strength of findings across different Phosphoprotein phosphatase assessment instruments. Livesley,56 at one time a member of the DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group, concluded on the basis of his review of this research that “all categorical diagnoses of DSM can be accommodated within the five-factor framework” (p 24). Clark,57 another member of the DSM-5 Personality Disorders Work Group, similarly concluded that “the five-factor model of personality is widely accepted as representing the higher-order structure of both normal and abnormal personality traits” (p 246).