JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 77(2), 339358

Copyright 2001, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Experimental Manipulation
of NEOPIR Items

Edward D. Haigler and Thomas A. Widiger

Department of Psychology
University of Kentucky

Research assessing the relationship of the Five-factor model (FFM) of personality to

personality disorder symptomatology has generally been consistent with theoretical
expectations. Three exceptions, however, have been failures to confirm predicted associations of the NEOPersonality InventoryRevised (NEOPIR; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) Conscientiousness scale with obsessivecompulsive personality
disorder symptomatology, the NEOPIR Agreeableness scale with dependent
symptomatology, and the NEOPIR Openness scale with schizotypal
symptomatology. It was the hypothesis of this study that these findings might be due
in part to a relative emphasis on adaptive rather than maladaptive variants of these domains of personality functioning within the NEOPIR. This hypothesis was tested
by experimentally altering NEOPIR items to reverse their implications for
maladaptiveness. The predicted correlations of the FFM were confirmed with the experimentally altered items in a sample of 86 adult psychiatric outpatients.

The personality disorders included within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSMIV; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 1994) are
diagnosed categorically. The diagnostic approach used in this manual represents
the categorical perspective that Personality Disorders represent qualitatively distinct clinical syndromes (APA, 1994, p. 633). An alternative perspective is that the
DSMIV personality disorder symptoms are extreme, maladaptive variants of common personality traits (Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997; Livesley, 1998; Widiger,
2000). A variety of dimensional models of personality disorder symptomatology
have been proposed, including (but not limited to) the three dimensions of positive
affectivity, negative affectivity, and constraint (Clark, 1993; Tellegen & Waller, in
press) and the seven dimensions of reward dependence, harm avoidance, persistence, novelty seeking, self-directedness, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence

340

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

(Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993). An additional alternative is provided by

the Five-factor model (FFM) of personality that includes the domains of
neuroticism (negative affectivity), extraversion (positive affectivity), conscientiousness (constraint), openness (unconventionality), and agreeableness versus antagonism (Costa & McCrae, 1992a; Widiger & Costa, 1994).
Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson, and Costa (1994) suggested how each of
the 10 DSMIV personality disorders might be described in terms of the domains
and facets of the FFM, as conceptualized by Costa and McCrae (1995). A variety
of studies have assessed the relation of the FFM with personality disorder
symptomatology (e.g., Axelrod, Widiger, Trull, & Corbitt, 1997; Ball, Tennen,
Poling, Kranzler, & Rounsaville, 1997; Clark & Livesley, 1994; Clarkin, Hull,
Cantor, & Sanderson, 1993; Coolidge et al., 1994; Costa & McCrae, 1990; Dyce &
OConnor, 1998; Hyer et al., 1994; Shopshire & Craik, 1994; Soldz, Budman,
Demby, & Merry, 1993; Trull, 1992; Trull, Useda, Costa, & McCrae, 1995;
Wiggins & Pincus, 1989; Yeung, Lyons, Waternaux, Faraone, & Tsuang, 1993).
This research has generally been supportive of the predicted relationships between
the FFM and personality disorder symptomatology, including a correlation of
schizoid symptomatology with introversion, avoidant with introversion and
neuroticism, antisocial with antagonism and low conscientiousness, and borderline with neuroticism (OConnor & Dyce, 1998; Widiger & Costa, 1994). However, there have also been a few notable exceptions (Bornstein & Cecero, 2000). In
particular, prior research has at times failed to confirm the predicted positive correlations of obsessivecompulsive symptomatology with conscientiousness, dependent with agreeableness, and schizotypal with openness.
It was the purpose of this study to explore empirically the potential impact of
the wording of items within the NEOPersonality InventoryRevised
(NEOPIR; Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Most of the FFM personality disorder research has used as a measure of the FFM a variant of the NEOPIR (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). The NEOPIR is the most commonly used and predominant
measure of the FFM for good reason, as there is a substantial amount of research to
support its reliability and validity (Briggs, 1992; Costa & McCrae, 1992b; Widiger
& Trull, 1997). Costa and McCrae (1985, 1992b), however, did not construct the
NEOPIR with the intention of representing the full range of both maladaptive
and adaptive variants of each of the domains of the FFM, and it is conceivable that
the NEOPIR might be somewhat limited in its coverage of maladaptive variants
of high conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness, at least relative to its coverage of maladaptive variants of low conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness (Widiger & Costa, 1994). For example, if the NEOPIR items describing low conscientiousness concern for the most part undesirable, maladaptive variants of low conscientiousness, whereas most of the items describing high
conscientiousness concern desirable, adaptive functioning, it would not be surprising to find that predictions concerning maladaptive variants of low conscientious-

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

341

ness (e.g., correlations with antisocial and passiveaggressive symptomatology;

Widiger et al., 1994) would be more readily confirmed than predictions concerning maladaptive variants of high conscientiousness. More specifically, it is the hypothesis of this study that the predicted relationships of obsessivecompulsive
personality disorder symptomatology with conscientiousness (as well as dependent with agreeableness and schizotypal with openness) might be obtained if the relative emphases on adaptive rather than maladaptive variants of the FFM domains
of personality functioning within the NEOPIR were reversed.
The obsessivecompulsive personality disorder includes such symptoms as
perfectionism, preoccupation with order and organization, workaholism, and
overconscientiousness (APA, 1994). FFM conscientiousness includes such traits
as dutifulness, self-discipline, deliberation, and order (Costa & McCrae, 1995;
Goldberg, 1992, 1993). Persons within a normal range of conscientiousness would
be organized, ordered, reliable, businesslike, hard working, punctual, and disciplined (Hogan & Ones, 1997). It is not unreasonable to hypothesize that persons
who are excessively conscientious will be overconscientious; will engage in excessive deliberation; will be excessively devoted to their work to the detriment of
social and leisure activities; will be perfectionistic to the point that tasks are not
completed; or will be preoccupied with order, organization, rules, and details
(APA, 1994; Widiger et al., 1994).
However, a number of studies have failed to obtain a relationship of FFM
conscientiousness with obsessivecompulsive symptomatology. For example,
Costa and McCrae (1990) reported a correlation of only .06 between the
NEOPI Conscientiousness scale and the Morey, Waugh, and Blashfield (1985)
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) ObsessiveCompulsive
scale in a sample of 297 normal adults. Trull (1992) obtained a correlation of
.14 between the NEOPI Conscientiousness scale and the MMPI ObsessiveCompulsive scale in a sample of 54 psychiatric outpatients. Trull also reported that NEOPI Conscientiousness correlated .12 with the
ObsessiveCompulsive scale from the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire
(PDQ; Hyler, 1994) and .02 with the ObsessiveCompulsive scale from the
Structured Interview for Personality DisordersRevised (SIDPR; Pfohl, Blum,
Zimmerman, & Stangl, 1989). Coolidge et al. (1994) reported a correlation of
.09 in a sample of 233 college students between NEOPI Conscientiousness and
the ObsessiveCompulsive scale from the Coolidge Axis II Inventory (CATI;
Coolidge & Merwin, 1992). Yeung et al. (1993) reported a correlation of .04
for the NEOFive-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992b), an
abbreviated form of the NEOPIR, with the SIDP in a sample of 224 first-degree relatives of psychiatric patients; and Ball et al. (1997) reported a correlation
of .02 between the NEOFFI and the Structured Clinical Interview (SCIDII;
First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) for the DSMIIIR in a
sample of 370 patients with substance-related disorders.

342

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

The failure of these studies to confirm the predicted relationship for obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology is, in one respect, surprising, as the NEOPI, NEOFFI, and NEOPIR even include items that appear to
correspond explicitly with some DSM obsessivecompulsive diagnostic criteria
(e.g., Im something of a workaholic; Costa & McCrae, 1992b). However,
most of the NEOPIR Conscientiousness items might be describing adaptive
rather than maladaptive conscientiousness (e.g., I am efficient and effective at my
work, and Once I start a project, I almost always finish it; Costa & McCrae,
1992b), and persons who are excessively conscientious may not describe themselves as being effective or successful in their work. As suggested by Widiger and
Costa (1994)
it is not surprising that a person who would describe him- or herself on the NEOPIR
as being a productive person who always gets the job done and efficient and effective at my work (Costa & McCrae, 1992b) would not describe him- or herself as being overconscientious, unable to complete a project because his or her strict standards
are not met, and being preoccupied with order and organization to the extent that the
major point of the activity is lost. (p. 87)

Additional support for this hypothesis is obtained from studies that have correlated NEOPIR Conscientiousness with various editions of the Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1994) as the measure of obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology. Whereas correlations
for NEOPIR Conscientiousness have ranged from .14 to .02 (all ps > .05) when
obsessivecompulsive symptomatology was assessed by the CATI, MMPI, PDQ,
SIDPR, or SCIDII, Costa and McCrae (1990) reported a correlation of .38 (p <
.001) when the same symptomatology was assessed by the MCMI and .52 (p < .001)
when it was assessed by the MCMIII. Soldz et al. (1993) likewise obtained a correlation of .43 (p < .001) with the MCMIII assessment of obsessivecompulsive
symptomatology in a sample of 102 psychiatric outpatients (with conscientiousness
assessed in this instance by the 50-Bipolar Self-Rating scale; Goldberg, 1992), compared to .29 (p < .01) when the obsessivecompulsive symptomatology was assessed by the Personality Disorder Examination (Loranger, 1999). Hyer et al. (1994)
reported a correlation of .33 (p < .01) between the MCMIII ObsessiveCompulsive
scale and the NEOPI Conscientiousness scale in a sample of 80 male Vietnam veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. Finally, Dyce and OConnor (1998) obtained a correlation of .62 (p < .0001) between the MCMIIII Obsessive
Compulsive scale with the NEOPIR Conscientiousness scale in a sample of 614
college students.
The confirmation of the FFM prediction for obsessivecompulsive
symptomatology when a version of the MCMI is used may reflect the fact that
many of the MCMII, MCMIII, and MCMIIII items also appear to describe

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

343

adaptive rather than maladaptive variants of conscientiousness (Leaf et al., 1987),

such as I keep very close track of my money so I am prepared if a need comes up,
I always make sure that my work is well planned and organized, A good way to
avoid mistakes is to have a routine for doing things, and I always see to it that my
work is finished before taking time out for leisure activities. These items describe
behaviors that are relatively more desirable or adaptive than maladaptive or dysfunctional. For example, it is relatively more desirable (or more adaptive) to make
sure ones work is well planned and organized than not to do so; it is more
maladaptive to fail to keep track of ones money so that one is unprepared when a
need arises; and it does appear to be more desirable to complete ones work before
taking time out for leisure activities than not to do so.
The failure to confirm the predicted relationships for dependent and schizotypal
symptomatology with FFM agreeableness and openness (respectively) may also
reflect, at least in part, the relative emphasis provided within the NEOPIR on
items assessing adaptive rather than maladaptive expressions of these domains of
personality functioning. The NEOPIR was constructed to be a measure of normal personality functioning (Costa & McCrae, 1985) and has therefore placed relatively more emphasis on adaptive, desirable facets of agreeableness, such as
being trusting, altruistic, and compliant, rather than maladaptive variants of excessive agreeableness, such as being gullible, self-sacrificing, and submissive
(Widiger et al., 1994). NEOPIR items for openness were in fact constructed in
part to assess optimal psychological functioning as described by Coan (1974),
Rokeach (1960), and others (Costa & McCrae, 1985). The NEOPIR Openness
scale might then similarly emphasize that which is positive or useful about being
open to fantasy, ideas, and actions, with relatively less consideration given to
maladaptively dwelling on fantasies, having ideas or beliefs that have little basis
within reality, or often engaging in activities that are bizarre, deviant, or aberrant
(Tellegen & Waller, in press).
In this study, we explored these hypotheses by first assessing whether there was
a disproportionate representation of adaptiveness (desirability) versus
maladaptiveness (undesirability) among the items within NEOPIR domain
scales consistent with the aforementioned hypotheses. Second, we further addressed the aforementioned hypotheses by experimentally manipulating existing
NEOPIR items by converting the items that were judged to be describing adaptive, desirable traits to items describing excessive, dysfunctional variants of these
same traits, without otherwise altering the keying or content of the items (items
judged to be describing undesirable or maladaptive behaviors or traits were likewise altered to items describing desirable or adaptive behaviors or traits). Third, it
was predicted that this limited alteration of the existing items would result in a confirmation of the predicted relationships for obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and
schizotypal symptomatology with conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness.

344

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

METHOD
Materials
Each participant completed the following three measures of personality disorder
symptomatology: (a) Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP;
Clark, 1993), (b) MMPI2 Personality Disorder scales (MMPI2 PD; Colligan,
Morey, & Offord, 1994), and (c) PDQ4 (Hyler, 1994). Each participant also completed the NEOPIR and an experimentally altered version of the NEOPIR.
The order of their administration was randomized across 86 participants (described
later).

SNAP. The SNAP is a 375-item, truefalse, self-report questionnaire. The

SNAP provides scores for 15 personality traits and temperaments (e.g.,
manipulativeness, impulsivity, workaholism, and aggression) and six validity
scales. The SNAP also provides scores for the 11 DSMIIIR personality disorders.
Internal consistency coefficients for two patient samples have ranged from .70 (ObsessiveCompulsive) to .90 (Paranoid).
MMPI2 PD. Morey et al. (1985) constructed 11 scales from the original
MMPI item pool to assess the 11 personality disorders of DSMIII. These scales
were modified somewhat with the development of the MMPI2 (Butcher,
Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). The MMPI2 scales consist of
157 truefalse items (Colligan et al., 1994). Internal consistency coefficients reported by Morey et al. (1985) for an inpatient sample ranged from .67 to .85. Trull
and Goodwin (1993) reported 6-month testretest intraclass correlations for an outpatient clinical sample ranging from .58 (Schizoid) to .87 (Paranoid).
PDQ4. The PDQ4 is a 99-item, truefalse, self-report questionnaire. Each
of the PDQ4 items were constructed to parallel a respective DSMIV personality
disorder diagnostic criterion. Internal consistency coefficients reported by Hyler et
al. (1989) ranged from .56 (Schizoid) to .84 (Dependent). Six-month testretest
intraclass correlation coefficients for an outpatient clinical sample ranged from .58
(Avoidant) to .77 (Borderline).
NEOPIR. The NEOPIR is a 240-item, self-report questionnaire. Respondents are given five response choices for each item, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. There are 48 items for each of the five FFM domain scales.
Internal consistency coefficients have ranged from .86 (Agreeableness) to .92
(Neuroticism), and 7-year testretest reliability coefficients ranged from .63 to .81
(Costa & McCrae, 1992b).

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

345

Experimental Manipulation of NEOPIR Items

Each item of the NEOPIR was altered to derive an experimentally manipulated version (hereafter referred to as the EXPNEOPIR). The intention of the
alteration was to reverse the direction of the maladaptiveness of every item without otherwise changing its content. The development of the EXPNEOPIR
items proceeded through two stages. In the first stage, the direction of the adaptiveness versus maladaptiveness of each of the 240 NEOPIR items was determined; in the second stage, each of the 240 items was revised to reverse the
direction of maladaptiveness.
We first judged independently which direction of the scoring for each of the
current 240 NEOPIR items was relatively more adaptive or desirable. For example, we judged whether it was more desirable or adaptive to agree or disagree with
the NEOPIR item, I keep my belongings neat and clean. In all but a few instances, this judgment was straightforward (e.g., it is relatively more desirable or
adaptive to keep ones belongings neat and clean than not to do so). However,
there were a few of the 240 total items for which this decision was somewhat difficult (e.g., Poetry has little or no effect on me). Items for which there was a perceived ambiguity by either one of us or for which a disagreement occurred, were
discussed by us until a consensus decision was reached.
To assess the reliability of the coding decisions, three graduate students in clinical psychology were also asked to indicate (independently and blindly) whether it
would be more adaptive to agree or disagree with each of the 240 NEOPIR
items. They were given the following instructions:
For each item, please indicate which potential response is more adaptive/desirable. If
you think that it is relatively more adaptive/desirable to agree with the item, mark an
A in the margin beside the item. Similarly, if you think it is relatively more adaptive/desirable to disagree with the item, mark a D in the margin beside the item.
Sometimes your decision will not be clearcut or obvious. Nevertheless, for each item,
please make a choice as to which of the two possible responses (either Agree or
Disagree) is relatively more adaptive/desirable.

All three of these independent coders agreed unanimously with our judgments on
75% (181) of the 240 items; at least two of the three coders agreed with us on 90%
(217) of the 240 items. We reevaluated our decisions for the remaining 23 items.
The final coding of the 240 NEOPIR items indicated that 2% of the Neuroticism,
90% of the Extraversion, 88% of the Openness, 83% of the Agreeableness, and
90% of the Conscientiousness items were considered to involve a more adaptive,
desirable behavior when the person responded in the direction of a high level rather
than a low level of the respective domain of personality functioning (i.e., for 83% of

346

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

the 48 items assessing agreeableness vs. antagonism, the more desirable, adaptive
response would be to endorse the item as indicating agreeableness rather than
antagonism).
The second stage of the development of the EXPNEOPIR items was to alter
each NEOPIR item to reverse the direction of adaptiveness (or
maladaptiveness) without changing the direction in which the item was keyed or
otherwise altering the content of the item. Items were revised to suggest
maladaptiveness for the most part by simply inserting words such as excessively, too much, or preoccupied with to alter the behaviors described
within the item into a maladaptive variant of the same trait. For example, the
Conscientiousness item, I keep my belongings neat and clean, was revised to
I keep my belongings excessively neat and clean. Items judged to be describing a maladaptive or undesirable behavior or trait were likewise altered to items
describing an adaptive or desirable behavior or trait. Table 1 provides illustrative
examples of item manipulations from the NEOPIR Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness scales that were the primary focus of this study.
These 240 EXPNEOPIR items were then submitted to three additional graduate students in clinical psychology to independently and blindly judge the adaptiveness and desirability of each item to provide an estimate of the success of the
item reversals. The instructions were identical to those provided to the coders of
the original NEOPIR items. At least two of the three raters agreed with the alterations for 89% of the items. The wording of the remaining items was again reevaluated, although a degree of ambiguity appeared to be unavoidable for a few items.

Procedure
Participants were solicited at outpatient psychiatric clinics through flyers and ads.
Outpatients who were under 18 years of age, who had been given any form of psychotic diagnosis (e.g., schizophrenia), or who demonstrated an inability to adequately understand the written verbal instructions of the NEOPIR or other
instruments, were excluded. All other outpatients were included. Potential participants were given a brief description of the study by phone. Individual, face-to-face
meetings were scheduled for persons who appeared on the basis of the phone interview to qualify for participation. Written informed consent and biographic information was obtained during the face-to-face meetings. Each participant was
provided a packet with the five questionnaires (in randomized order), with a selfaddressed, stamped envelope for their return. Participants were blind to the purposes of the study, other than being told that the study was comparing how different questionnaires measure various characteristics of people in therapy. On
returning the completed questionnaires, each participant received a written explanation of the study and was paid $15.00 for their participation.

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

347

TABLE 1
NEOPIR and EXPNEOPIR Items
NEOPIR

EXPNEOPIR

Conscientiousness
I keep my belongings neat and clean
I think things through before coming to a
decision
I am a productive person who always gets the
job done
I adhere strictly to my ethical principles
Im something of a workaholica
Agreeableness
I would rather cooperate with others than
compete with them
I think of myself as a charitable person
Some people think of me as cold and
calculatingb
I believe that most people are basically wellintentioned
Id rather not talk about myself and my
achievementsa
Openness
I have a very active imagination
I often enjoy playing with theories or abstract
ideas
I am sometimes completely absorbed in
music I am listening to
How I feel about things is important to me
Once I find the right way to do something, I
stick to ita,b

I keep my belongings excessively neat and

clean
I think about things too much before coming to
a decision
I am an excessively productive person
My adherence to moral and ethical principles is
described sometimes as extreme
I work hard to achieve success
I cooperate with others even when it would be
better to be competitive
I am so charitable that I give more than I can
afford
I can be cold and calculating when its
necessaryb
I tend to be gullible regarding the intentions of
others
I try not to gloat about myself and my
achievements
I have an excessive imagination
I become preoccupied with theories or abstract
ideas
I often get too absorbed in music I am listening to
How I feel about things has always been too
important to me
Once I find a way to do something, I stubbornly
stick to it.b

Note. NEOPIR = NEO Personality InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae, 1992b);

EXPNEOPIR = experimentally manipulated NEO PIR items.
aItems judged to be describing a maladaptive behavior when keyed for high levels of trait. bItems
keyed in reverse direction.

RESULTS
Five of the original 91 outpatients who participated were subsequently excluded
from the analyses on the basis of a questionable validity of responses. More specifically, 3 participants whose raw scores on the SNAP Invalidity Index exceeded 25
were excluded. Participants who failed to respond to more than 10 items on any one

348

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

TABLE 2
Mean Scores and Standard Deviations on Personality Disorder Measures
SNAP

Scale
Paranoid
Schizoid
Schizotypal
Antisocial
Borderline
Histrionic
Narcissistic
Avoidant
Dependent
ObsessiveCompulsive

MMPI2

PDQ4

SD

SD

SD

10.15
6.61
10.05
7.91
11.51
8.07
7.83
10.34
8.95
11.98

6.1
3.5
5.6
5.1
5.2
4.3
4.1
4.8
5.0
3.5

4.82
4.96
5.17
7.40
9.32
6.66
5.52
8.48
7.66
6.05

3.2
2.4
2.8
3.6
3.5
2.7
2.4
3.7
3.7
2.1

3.05
2.13
3.20
1.37
4.05
2.91
2.55
4.15
2.35
3.73

2.0
1.8
2.2
1.5
2.5
1.9
1.8
2.2
2.0
1.8

Note. SNAP = Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); MMPI2 =
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2 Personality Disorder scales (Colligan, Morey,
&Offord, 1994); PDQ4 = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire4 (Hyler, 1994).

of the measures were also excluded (Clark, 1993). None of the participants endorsed the items suggesting invalid responding on the PDQ4.
The final participants were 86 adults currently receiving outpatient psychotherapy within a public or private mental health center in Lexington, Kentucky. Seventy-seven percent of the participants were women, 56% were single, and 94%
were White. Ninety-four percent were receiving individual psychotherapy; the remaining 6% were receiving group or couples therapy (54% were receiving in addition an anxiolytic or antidepressant medication). The modal diagnoses were
anxiety and mood disorders. Many of the participants were also given personality
disorder diagnoses by their therapists, but the reliability and validity of these unstructured clinical diagnoses were not considered to be adequate for the purposes
of this study. The mean length of therapy was 1.6 years (SD = 2.8), with a range
from 1 week to 17 years in duration. The mean age of the sample was 36.4 years
(SD = 10.7, range from 18 to 67). The mean number of years of education was 14.8
(SD = 2.8, range from 6 to 21). Finally, the mean yearly income was $19,188 (SD =
18,061, range from $0 to $100,000).
The means and standard deviations obtained by the participants for each of the
personality disorder scales are presented in Table 2. The mean scores obtained on
the MMPI2 and PDQ4 scales are quite similar to (within a standard deviation of)
scores reported by Trull and Goodwin (1993) for a comparable sample of psychiatric outpatients. Five of the 10 MMPI2 personality disorder mean scores are more
than 1 standard deviation higher than the mean scores reported in the Colligan et
al. (1994) normative sample. All of the SNAP personality disorder mean scores are
within 1 standard deviation of those presented by Clark (1993) for a psychiatric
outpatient sample.

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

349

The three criterion measures obtained significant convergent validity coefficients for all of the respective personality disorder scales. For the personality disorders of primary interest to this study, the correlations ranged in value from .68
(PDQ4 with MMPI2) to .82 (PDQ4 with SNAP) for dependent
symptomatology; from .56 (SNAP with MMPI2) to .77 (SNAP with PDQ4) for
schizotypal symptomatology; and from .44 (PDQ4 with MMPI2) to .60 (PDQ4
with SNAP) for obsessivecompulsive symptomatology (p < .001 in each case).
Table 3 provides the correlations of the EXPNEOPIR domain scales with the
NEOPIR domain scales. The EXPNEOPIR scales correlated significantly with
the respective scales from the NEOPIR, ranging in value from .43 for Conscientiousness to .67 for Openness. However, there were also some instances of weak
discriminant validity. For example, the EXPNEOPIR Agreeableness scale correlated .50 with NEOPIR Neuroticism.
Table 4 provides the correlations of the NEOPIR domain scales with the ObsessiveCompulsive, Dependent, and Schizotypal scales from the SNAP,
MMPI2 and PDQ4. Table 4 also provides the correlations for the Avoidant and
Antisocial scales to provide a comparison of findings with scales for which consistently supportive findings have been obtained in prior research. It is evident from
Table 4 that the correlations for the NEOPIR replicated the prior research by obtaining a significant correlation of NEOPIR Neuroticism and Introversion with
avoidant personality disorder symptomatology, and NEOPIR Antagonism and
(low) Conscientiousness with antisocial personality disorder symptomatology.
However, of particular importance to this study was the replication of the failure to
obtain the hypothesized correlations of conscientiousness with obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology, agreeableness with dependent, or
openness with schizotypal. The only exception was the obtainment of a marginally
significant correlation of the NEOPIR Conscientiousness scale with the SNAP
ObsessiveCompulsive scale.
TABLE 3
Correlations of EXPNEOPIR With NEOPIR
EXPNEOPIR
NEOPIR
Neuroticism
Extraversion
Openness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness

.48**
.03
.11
.00
.09

.21
.50**
.35**
.44**
.11

.29*
.19
.67**
.31*
.21

.50**
.46**
.22
.53**
.35**

.33*
.13
.08
.12
.43**

Note. EXPNEOPIR = experimentally manipulated NEOPIR items; NEOPIR = NEO

Personality InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae, 1992b); N= Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O =
Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness.
*p < .01. **p < .001.

350

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

Table 5 provides the same correlations using the EXPNEOPIR scales, in

which the adaptiveness or desirability of all of the items has been reversed. It is apparent from Table 5 that the predicted correlations of conscientiousness with obsessivecompulsive symptomatology, agreeableness with dependent, and
openness with schizotypal are obtained with the extension of the NEOPIR items
into a more excessive, maladaptive range. The findings are particularly striking for
Conscientiousness (increases in correlation from .27, .15, and .02 to .69, .47,
and .69, respectively) and Agreeableness (increases in correlation from .04, .17,
and .04 to .57, .66, and .45, respectively). The effect of the revision was not as substantial for the relation of openness to schizotypal symptomatology, but the differences in magnitude between the respective NEOPIR and EXPNEOPIR
correlations were statistically significant for all nine comparisons (p < .05, df =
84). It is also apparent from Table 5 that the revisions likewise affected correlations for other scales. For example, the predicted correlations of avoidant
symptomatology with neuroticism and introversion, and antisocial with agreeableTABLE 4
Correlations of NEOPIR Scales With Personality Disorder Scales
Scales
ObsessiveCompulsive
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Dependent
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Schizotypal
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Avoidant
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Antisocial
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4

.39***
.56***
.36***

.13
.33**
.17

.04
.09
.11

.17
.03
.11

.73***
.70***
.67***

.30**
.50***
.25*

.23**
.29**
.09

.59***
.57***
.50***

.35***
.34**
.35***

.11
.15
.06

.29**
.16
.28**

.20
.19
.15

.64***
.73***
.70***

.75***
.66***
.53***

.33**
.30**
.20

.02
.06
.10

.31**
.32**
.38***

.43***
.43***
.46***

.45***
.33***
.31**

.24*
.23*
.31**

.06
.03
.05

.19
.26*
.13

.04
.17
.04

.27*
.15
.02
.43***
.49***
.46***

Note. NEOPIR = NEOPersonality InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae, 1992b); N = Neuroticism; E =

Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness; SNAP = Schedule for Nonadaptive and
Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); MMPI2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2 Personality
Disorder scales (Colligan, Morey, & Offord, 1994); PDQ4 = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (Hyler, 1994).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

351

TABLE 5
Correlations of EXPNEOPIR Scales With Personality Disorder Scales
Scale
ObsessiveCompulsive
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Dependent
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Schizotypal
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Avoidant
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4
Antisocial
SNAP
MMPI2
PDQ4

.20
.21
.12

.16
.11
.13

.21*
.24*
.17

.19
.47***
.33**

.69***
.47***
.69***

.18
.05
.21

.13
.03
.18

.57***
.66**
.45***

.27*
.20
.20

.28**
.24*
.33**

.33**
.41***
.29**

.36***
.38***
.35***

.08
.06
.10

.53***
.58***
.58***

.27*
.39***
.24*

.33**
.24*
.30**
.05
.05
.09
.12
.26*
.31**
.03
.04
.14

.20
.16
.10
.16
.06
.02
.38***
.41***
.37***

.40***
.49***
.34**

.10
.09
.09

.21
.00
.04

Note. EXPNEOPIR = experimentally manipulated NEO Personality InventoryRevised (Costa & McCrae,
1992b) items; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; O = Openness; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscientiousness;
SNAP = Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); MMPI2 = Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory2 Personality Disorder scales (Colligan, Morey, & Offord, 1994); PDQ4 = Personality
Diagnostic Questionnaire4 (Hyler, 1994).
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

ness and conscientiousness, that were obtained with the NEOPIR, were lost
when the maladaptiveness of the items was reversed (p < .05, df = 84).

DISCUSSION
The results of this study suggest that the NEOPIR does have substantially more
items describing desirable or adaptive behaviors keyed in the direction of high conscientiousness, high agreeableness, and high openness than keyed in the direction
of low conscientiousness, low agreeableness, or low openness. In addition, this
study also suggests that predicted relations of FFM conscientiousness, agreeableness, and openness with obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and schizotypal personality disorder symptomatology (respectively) would be confirmed if some of
the items contained within these NEOPIR scales were altered to provide rela-

352

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

tively more representation of maladaptive or problematic variants of high conscientiousness, high agreeableness, and high openness.
An alternative interpretation of these findings is that the NEOPIR items were
simply revised to provide a more explicit representation of obsessivecompulsive,
dependent, and schizotypal symptomatology. A correlation between the MMPI2
ObsessiveCompulsive and PDQ4 Dependent scales could likewise be obtained
if the MMPI2 ObsessiveCompulsive items were replaced by items that represented explicitly the DSMIV criteria for dependent personality disorder. However, we did not replace NEOPIR items with new items that represented the
respective personality disorder symptomatology. On the contrary, the items were
revised only to indicate that the behaviors or trait already described therein were
excessive, extreme, problematic, or maladaptive. For example, displaying prudence was revised to displaying excessive prudence, being productive was revised
to being excessively productive, and working hard to accomplish ones goals was
revised to working too hard (see Table 1).
Some of the revisions did result in items that might appear to describe personality disorder symptomatology. For example, the revision of the NEOPIR Openness item describing an active imagination to one describing an excessive
imagination might be said to have resulted in an explicit representation of DSMIV
schizototypal symptomatology (e.g., magical thinking or unusual perceptual experiences), and the revision of the NEOPIR Conscientiousness item describing an
adherence to ethical principles to one describing an extreme adherence might be
said to have resulted in an explicit representation of DSMIV obsessivecompulsive symptomatology (e.g., overconscientious or scrupulousness about matters of
morality, ethics, or values). However, these resulting correspondences in content
offer themselves face validity for the original FFM hypotheses. If simply inserting
an indication that a behavior or trait described within a NEOPIR item is excessive creates an item that resembles closely a DSMIV personality disorder diagnostic criterion, this would suggest that the original items were already close to the
personality disorder symptomatology. Missing from the items was simply the indication that the conscientiousness, agreeableness, or openness traits described
therein were excessive, extreme, or maladaptive.
The existing NEOPIR items to assess conscientiousness, agreeableness, and
openness were not written to assess obsessivecompulsive, dependent, or
schizotypal symptomatology. The items were written to assess hypothesized domains and facets of the FFM (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992b). The results of this
study indicate that simply altering the content of the items to indicate that the behaviors, attitudes, or traits described therein are excessive, problematic, or otherwise
maladaptive produces items that correlate substantially with obsessivecompulsive, dependent, or schizotypal personality disorder symptomatology and, in some
instances, even produce items that resemble explicitly the symptomatology for these
personality disorders. Removal of references to maladaptive, excessive, or extreme
variants of the trait, attitudes, or behaviors described therein likewise reduced (if not

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

353

eliminated) the predicted correlations with avoidant and antisocial personality disorder symptomatology. The results of this study thereby offer further support for the
hypothesis that the personality disorders represent maladaptive variants of normal
personality traits (Widiger & Costa, 1994).
Limitations of This Study
The convergent validity of the three criterion measures (SNAP, MMPI2, and
PDQ4) was good to excellent for the assessment of dependent and schizotypal
symptomatology. Convergent validity for their assessment of obsessivecompulsive symptomatology, however, was somewhat weaker (ranging in value from .44
to .60, p < .001). One possible explanation for the weaker convergence in their assessment of obsessivecompulsive symptomatology was a relatively more limited
range of this symptomatology within the sample (see Table 2). Nevertheless, despite their relatively weaker convergent validity, the hypotheses of the study were
still confirmed by all three criterion measures of obsessivecompulsive
symptomatology.
It is important to emphasize that the experimental manipulation of the
NEOPIR items was not entirely successful. The intention of the alteration was
not to otherwise alter the content of the items such that they would no longer be
representative of or correlate with a respective FFM domain. Empirical support for
the retention of the original content of the NEOPIR items was provided by the
convergent correlations of the scales from the EXPNEOPIR with the respective
scales from the NEOPIR (see Table 3). However, the convergent validity coefficients were perhaps less than expected given the overlap in content that remained
after the item alterations. Correlations of .43, .53, and .67 between the original
NEOPIR and EXPNEOPIR Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness
scales, respectively, does suggest a convergent validity, but these correlations are
perhaps less than would be expected or desired. In addition, there was weakened
discriminant validity. For example, EXPNEOPIR Agreeableness correlated as
highly with NEOPIR Neuroticism (.50, p < .01) as it did with NEOPIR
Agreeableness (.53, p < .01).
In defense of the EXPNEOPIR, it should also be noted that the NEOPIR did
not itself always obtain good discriminant validity in this study. For example,
NEOPIR Neuroticism also correlated .51 (p < .001) with NEOPIR Conscientiousness. Nevertheless, the loss of acceptable levels of discriminant validity with
the experimentally revised items was probably due in large part to unintended alterations to the content or meaning of the items. For example, the insertion of the
maladaptive component within some of the agreeableness items apparently had the
effect of adding components of neuroticism. The NEOPIR Agreeableness item, I
dont mind bragging about my talents and accomplishments (keyed false for agreeableness) was revised to I am able to acknowledge my talents and accomplishments. Responding false to the original item was rated as more desirable or adaptive

354

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

than responding true (e.g., responding in an affirmative direction suggested an undesirable arrogance in contrast to a more desirable or adaptive modesty). The intention
of the revision was to reverse the direction of the undesirability while retaining the
original content and the direction of keying. The revision was judged by the independent coders to be successful (i.e., being able to acknowledge ones talents and accomplishments is more desirable, adaptive than not being able to do so). However,
being unable to acknowledge ones talents and accomplishments may also suggest a
depressiveness, anxiousness, or self-consciousness of neuroticism as well as an excessive modesty. Individuals high in neuroticism characteristically complain of being distressed by a variety of problems (Costa & McCrae, 1992b). Reformulating a
statement into one that describes difficulties with a poor self-image is likely to be assessing, at least in part, neuroticism.
A more conscientious process of item alteration would have included pilot versions of EXPNEOPIR items correlated with NEOPIR scales to assess their
convergent and discriminant validity. The use of pilot data to obtain correlations of
proposed item revisions with NEOPIR scales would have alerted us to the presence of potentially problematic item revisions prior to the data collection. More
valid FFM items might then have been constructed. However, the purpose of this
study was not in fact to develop new items for the NEOPIR. The purpose of this
study was appreciably more modest. Its purpose was simply to determine whether
a particular experimental manipulation of existing items would have an hypothesized effect. More specifically, whether the predicted correlations of conscientiousness with obsessivecompulsive personality disorder symptomatology,
agreeableness with dependent symptomatology, and openness with schizotypal
symptomatology could be obtained by simply introducing such words as excessive, extreme, or problematic into existing items. The results of the study
have confirmed these hypotheses, and the findings do appear then to have significant implications for NEOPIR personality disorder research and for potential
revisions to the NEOPIR.
Implications for Future Research
The NEOPIR is the preferred measure of the FFM (Briggs, 1992; Widiger &
Trull, 1997), but the results of this study suggest that a more comprehensive assessment of adaptive and maladaptive personality traits would require a revision to the
NEOPIR. Clinical assessments of personality disorder symptomatology will at
times be concerned with the assessment of obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and
schizotypal personality traits. These personality disorders are not currently well assessed by the NEOPIR, but the results of this study suggest that only minor revisions or extensions of the NEOPIR are needed to obtain more valid and
comprehensive assessments of obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and schizotypal
personality traits.

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

355

Researchers and clinicians might be able to use a revised version of the

NEOPIR not only to provide a reasonably comprehensive assessment of normal
personality functioning but also to assess for and diagnose personality disorders in
a manner comparable to existing self-report personality disorder inventories, such
as the MMPI2, PDQ4, SNAP, or MCMIIII, all of which currently have cutoff
points for the clinical assessment of personality disorder symptomatology. Optimal cutoff points could likewise be identified for each of the 60 poles on each of
the 30 NEOPIR facet scales for the identification of clinically significant
maladaptiveness on a respective facet of FFM personality functioning. This study
indicated that additional items would need to be developed for the assessment of
maladaptive variants of high conscientiousness, high agreeableness, and high
openness although it is unclear from this study how many or what proportion of
maladaptive items would be necessary for adequate assessments. Establishment of
cutoff points is perhaps currently possible for some of the existing NEOPIR
scales for which an adequate number of items assessing maladaptive variants are
available (e.g., maladaptive variants of high neuroticism, high introversion, or low
conscientiousness). However, an extensive amount of research with different clinical populations in different settings would be needed to establish optimal cutoff
points. Clinical samples of persons with each of the DSMIV personality disorders
(or, perhaps more important, with clinically significant levels of each of the 60
poles of the 30 facets of the FFM) would need to be obtained to identify the optimal cutoff points on each scale.
Alternatively, one could simply provide a cutoff point that is uniform across the
30 facet scales (e.g., 1.5 standard deviations in either direction beyond a normative
mean score; Colligan et al., 1994) but given the considerable variation in prevalence rates for the maladaptive variants of each domain and facet of the FFM
(Millon et al., 1994) and, equally important, the considerable variation in the implications for maladaptiveness across the domains and facets of the FFM (Widiger
& Costa, 1994; Widiger et al., 1994), different cutoff points for each of the 60
poles of the 30 facets would be preferable. For example, a lower cutoff point might
be used for identifying maladaptive variants of antagonism than for identifying
maladaptive variants of agreeableness because increased levels of antagonism will
suggest clinically significant maladaptiveness sooner than increased levels of
agreeableness. In sum, it is evident that an extensive amount of additional research
would be needed to establish optimal cutoff points, but the results of this study do
suggest that a comprehensive assessment of both abnormal and normal personality
functioning could ultimately be provided by the FFM and the NEOPIR.
CONCLUSIONS
The NEOPIR was constructed to assess normal personality functioning
(Briggs, 1992; Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992b). It was not the original intention

356

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

of its authors that it be used for the assessment of personality disorder

symptomatology. Many studies have since indicated, however, that the
NEOPIR is correlated significantly with measures of personality disorder
symptomatology, particularly for the borderline, avoidant, schizoid, antisocial,
paranoid, narcissistic, and passiveaggressive personality disorders. Significant
correlations between the NEOPIR and scales to assess these personality disorders developed within the psychiatric literature are perhaps all the more remarkable given that the NEOPIR was constructed on the basis of more general
personality research and was developed primarily to assess normal personality
functioning (Widiger & Costa, 1994). The results of this study offer further support for the hypothesis that personality disorders are maladaptive variants of
normal personality traits by indicating that correlations of NEOPIR Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness scales with obsessivecompulsive, dependent, and schizotypal symptomatology would also be obtained by simply
altering existing NEOPIR Conscientiousness, Agreeableness, and Openness
items that describe desirable, adaptive behaviors or traits into items that describe
undesirable, maladaptive variants of the same traits.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This study was conducted in partial fulfillment of the first authors doctoral dissertation under the supervision of the second author. We express our appreciation to
Paul T. Costa, Jr., Lew Goldberg, and Allen Hess for their many helpful comments
and criticisms concerning earlier versions of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th
edition). Washington, DC: Author.
Axelrod, S. R., Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., & Corbitt, E. M. (1997). Relationship of five-factor model antagonism facets with personality disorder symptomatology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67,
297313.
Ball, S. A., Tennen, H., Poling, J. C., Kranzler, H. R., & Rounsaville, B. J. (1997). Personality, temperament, and character dimension differences and the DSMIV personality disorders in substance abusers. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 545553.
Bornstein, R. F., & Cecero, J. J. (2000). Deconstructing dependency in a five-factor world: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 324343.
Briggs, S. R. (1992). Assessing the five-factor model of personality description. Journal of Personality,
60, 253293.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Clark, L. A., & Livesley, W. J. (1994). Two approaches to identifying the dimensions of personality disorder: Convergence on the five-factor model. In P. T. Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality dis-

EXPERIMENTAL MANIPULATION OF NEOPIR ITEMS

357

orders and the five-factor model of personality (pp. 261277). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Clark, L. A., Livesley, W. J., & Morey, L. (1997). Personality disorder assessment: The challenge of
construct validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 205231.
Clarkin, J. F., Hull, J. W., Cantor, J., & Sanderson, C. (1993). Borderline personality disorder and personality traits: A comparison of SCIDII BPD and NEOPI. Psychological Assessment, 5, 472476.
Cloninger, C. R., Svrakic, D. M., & Przybeck, T. R. (1993). A psychobiological model of temperament
and character. Archives of General Psychiatry, 50, 975990.
Coan, R. W. (1974). The optimal personality. New York: Columbia University Press.
Colligan, R. C., Morey, L. C., & Offord, K. P. (1994). The MMPI/MMPI2 personality disorder scales:
Contemporary norms for adults and adolescents. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50, 168200.
Coolidge, F. L., Becker, L. A., Dirito, D. C., Durham, R. L., Kinlaw, M. M., & Philbrick, P. T. (1994).
On the relationship of the five-factor personality model to personality disorders: Four reservations.
Psychological Reports, 75, 1121.
Coolidge, F. L., & Merwin, M. M. (1992). Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: A
new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 59,
223238.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1985). The NEO Personality Inventory manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1990). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 362371.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). The five-factor model of personality and its relevance to personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 6, 343359.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEOPIR) and NEO
Five-Factor Inventory (NEOFFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using
the Revised NEO Personality Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64, 2150.
Dyce, J. A., & OConnor, B. P. (1998). Personality disorders and the five-factor model: A test of facetlevel predictions. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 3145.
First, M. B., Gibbon, M., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., & Benjamin, L. S. (1997). Users guide for
the Structured Clinical Interview for DSMIV Axis II personality disorders. Washington, DC:
American Psychiatric Press.
Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers of the big five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 2642.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48,
2634.
Hogan, J., & Ones, D. S. (1997). Conscientiousness and integrity at work. In R. Hogan, J. Johnson, & S.
Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality (pp. 849870). New York: Academic.
Hyer, L., Braswell, L., Albrecht, B., Boyd, S., Boudewyns, P., & Talbert, S. (1994). Relationship of
NEOPI to personality styles and severity of trauma in chronic PTSD victims. Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 50, 699707.
Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire4 (PDQ4). Unpublished test, New York
State Psychiatric Institute.
Hyler, S. E., Rieder, R. O., Williams, J. B. W., Spitzer, R. L., Lyons, M., & Hendler, J. (1989). A comparison of clinical and self-report diagnoses of DSMIII personality disorders in 552 patients. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 30, 170178.
Leaf, R. C., DiGiuseppe, R., Ellis, A., Mass, R., Backx, W., Wolfe, J., & Alington, D. E. (1987).
Healthy correlates of MCMI Scales 4, 5, 6, and 7. Journal of Personality Disorders, 4, 312328.
Livesley, W. J. (1998). Suggestions for a framework for an empirically based classification of personality disorder. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 43, 137147.

358

HAIGLER AND WIDIGER

Loranger, A. W. (1999). International Personality Disorder Examination (PDE). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Millon, T., Millon, C. M., & Davis, R. (1994). MCMIIII manual. Minneapolis: National Computer
Systems.
Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSMIII personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245251.
OConnor, B. P., & Dyce, J. A. (1998). A test of models of personality disorder configuration. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 107, 316.
Pfohl, B., Blum, N., Zimmerman, M., & Stangl, D. (1989). Structured interview for DSMIIIR Personality (SIDPR). Iowa City: University of Iowa College of Medicine.
Rokeach, M. (1960). The open and closed mind. New York: Basic.
Shopshire, M. S., & Craik, K. H. (1994). The five factor model of personality and the DSMIIIR personality disorders: Correspondence and differentiation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 4152.
Soldz, S., Budman, S., Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation of personality disorders in
circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment, 5,
4152.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (in press). Exploring personality through test construction: Development
of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality measures: Development and evaluation (Vol. 1). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Trull, T. J. (1992). DSMIIIR personality disorders and the five factor model of personality: An empirical comparison. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101, 553560.
Trull, T. J., & Goodwin, A. H. (1993). Relationship between mood changes and the report of personality
disorder symptoms. Journal of Personality Assessment, 61, 99111.
Trull, T. J., Useda, J. D., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Comparison of the MMPI2 Personality
Psychopathology Five (PSY5), the NEOPI, and the NEOPIR. Psychological Assessment, 7,
508516.
Widiger, T. A. (2000). Personality disorders in the 21st century. Journal of Personality Disorders, 14,
316.
Widiger, T. A., & Costa, P. T. (1994). Personality and personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 103, 7891.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (1997). Assessment of the five-factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 228250.
Widiger, T. A., Trull, T. J., Clarkin, J. F., Sanderson, C., & Costa, P. T. (1994). A description of the
DSMIIIR and DSMIV personality disorders with the five-factor model of personality. In P. T.
Costa & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (pp.
4156). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, H. A. (1989). Conceptions of personality disorder and dimensions of personality. Psychological Assessment, 1, 305316.
Yeung, A. S., Lyons, M. J., Waternaux, C. M., Faraone, S. V., & Tsuang, M. T. (1993). The relationship
between DSMIII personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Comprehensive
Psychiatry, 34, 227234.

Thomas A. Widiger
Department of Psychology
University of Kentucky
Lexington, KY 405060044
E-mail: widiger@uky.edu
Received July 27, 2000
Revised February 18, 2001