title: [Personality and personality disorders I. Universality and sensitivity of dimensional personality models as diagnostic systems for personality disorders].
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  A dimensional diagnostic system for personality disorders (PD) postulates continuous transitions from normal to disordered personalities (continuity hypothesis) and universal validity of basic personality dimensions (universal hypothesis). In the present study three dimensional personality models that claim to provide a systematic representation of the overall domain of personality disorders were compared: the Big-Five model proposed by Costa and McCrae, the psychobiological model proposed by Cloninger and colleagues, and the "Dimensional Assessment of Personal Pathology (DAPP)" model proposed by Livesley and colleagues.
  
  
  METHODS
  The "Six Factor Test" (SFT) measuring the Big-Five factors of personality, the "Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI)" measuring 4 temperament and 3 character dimensions, and the DAPP measuring 18 basic traits and 4 second ordered factors were administered to general population subjects (n = 156), and a clinical sample (n = 220) including a subsample of 69 patients with at least one diagnosis of DSM-IV PD. Group comparisons, regression analyses, and facet theoretical analyses were conducted.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The nonmetric similarity analyses of the three personality models show a nearly identical radex-representation of the second ordered factors in the non-clinical and clinical sample reflecting an universal validity of 4 basic personality dimensions and confirming the universal hypothesis. In comparison with the BIG-Five concept and the psychobiological model the DAPP model seems to be more sensitive to differentiate PD patients from controls with a reclassification rate of 94.5 %.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The Big-Five model, the DAPP and the TCI represent a substantially similar domain despite their different conceptualization. However, the DAPP was more sensitive to differences between PD patients and controls, offered a more comprehensive account of PD, and could differentiate the two groups more effectively.
authors.affiliation: Klinik für Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie der Universität zu Köln. Eckhard.Steinmeyer@medizin.uni-koeln.de
authors.forename: E M
authors.initials: EM
authors.lastname: Steinmeyer
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Klosterkötter
authors.forename: H J
authors.initials: HJ
authors.lastname: Möller
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Sass
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Herpertz
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Czernik
authors.forename: J T
authors.initials: JT
authors.lastname: Marcea
authors.forename: F
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Matakas
authors.forename: J
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Mehne
authors.forename: H
authors.initials: H
authors.lastname: Bottländer
authors.forename: W
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Hesse
authors.forename: I
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Steinbring
authors.forename: R
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Pukrop
mesh_terms: D002605:Character; D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical; D006801:Humans; D008960:Models, Psychological; D010551:Personality; D010554:Personality Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis* / Q000523:psychology*; D010556:Personality Tests; D011569:Psychiatric Status Rating Scales; D013694:Temperament