Identifying person characteristics that predict functional status and disorder is an important objective of this project. Identification of personality trait predictors of both DSM-IV Axis I and II disorders are important aims which is consistent with LPC's emphasis on individual differences. In this regard, the relations or links between personality traits and depression are of paramount importance. A variety of hypothesized models describing the associations between personality and depression have been proposed. These models differ in terms of whether or not, personality and depression are each considered distinct from one another or whether they are associated with one another and if associated, whether they share an etiological basis. ? ? The Pathoplasty model holds that personality and depression are distinct conditions and they do not share a common etiology but that one influences the expression or course of the other. ? ? Another similar model is the Vulnerability or predisposition model, which treats both personality and depression as distinct and having no shared etiology but where the nature of the association is such that one creates risk for onset of the other.? ? Most often personality traits are seen as the predisposing factor for depression. There is growing evidence that Neuroticism is the preeminent personality factor conferring vulnerability to depression and several studies (Costa et al., 1996; Gunther et al, 1999) have identified N as the major predictor of distress and worry. Several studies have also shown that N is the key dimension sensitizing individuals to task-induced distress. A recent experimental study of 200 undergraduates randomly assigned to I of 4 task-induced stress conditions indicated that high N participants are vulnerable to negative affective changes induced by task-stress. A particularly important extension of this finding involves the link between personality, job-stress and affective distress, particularly depression? ? A third form of the association is the Complication or Scar model in which both personality and depression are treated as distinct conditions without a shared etiology, but one is the residual effect or scar of the other. Under the complication or scar model, personality is frequently seen to be scarred by or result from the residual effect of depression. A related issue under the complication model is the frequent criticisms that personality traits assessed in those with depression are distorted by the ongoing depressive process and thus do not accurately represent the individual?s true traits. This is frequently referred to as the state artifact hypothesis.? ? To test the state artifact hypothesis that the depressive state distorts the assessment of general personality traits 109 depressed patients completed the NEO-PI-R at baseline and after 14 to 26 weeks of antidepressant pharmacotherapy. 48 patients (49.5%) were identified as responders while 49 (50.5%) were identified as nonresponders. The remaining 12 patients were excluded because they met response criteria using one depression instrument but not for another at treatment completion. At baseline, NEO-PI-R scales showed high internal consistency and replicated the normative factor structure, suggesting that psychometric properties were preserved. Among non-responders, retest correlations were uniformly high (rs=.50 to .88) and mean levels showed little change, providing evidence for the consistency of personality self-reports during an acute depressive episode. NEO-PI-R scales showed construct validity in the concurrent prediction of a number of clinical criteria. Effective treatment had significant effects on the mean levels of neuroticism, which decreased, and extraversion, openness, and conscientiousness, which increased.? ? The results suggest that the effect of acute depression is to amplify somewhat the personality profile of people prone to depression. Rather than regard these depression-caused changes in assessed personality trait levels as a distortion, we interpret them as accurate reflections of the current condition of the individual. Personality traits have biological bases, and when they are changed (by disease or therapeutic interventions) trait levels change. ? ? There is a growing consensus based upon an ever-growing empirical base that personality disorders can be understood as variants of the general personality dimensions summarized in the FFM. In a chapter published during this reporting period, consideration was given to how the FFM could be used in the service of the DSM-IV categories. A simplified approach to create PD scales was put forth based upon the theoretically-relevant NEO-PI-R facets (Widiger, Trull, Clarkin, Sanderson & Costa, 2002. Raw scores from facets positively related to the disorder criteria are added while scores from facets negatively related to the DSM-IV PD criteria are subtracted, and a constant is added to eliminate negative values in the NEO-PI-R PD scores. Correlations of the NEO-PI-R PD scores with the PDI-IV and PDQ-4 symptom scales showed that the simplified system worked about as well as the more elaborate profile matching system. ? ? But we do not recommend that these NEO-PI-R PD scores be used as a screening tool. At best these PD scores would identify persons with probable impairments or problems in living and clinical assessment of the presence and severity of these problems would have to be done. It may be that the NEO-PI-R PD scale scores are more useful in screening disorders out. Persons and patients whose scores are below suggested or potential cut-off scores are presumably unlikely to have the disorder.
Showing the most recent 10 out of 32 publications
