See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/334312496

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11: A Facet-Level Assessment of

the ICD-11 Trait Model

Preprint · July 2019

DOI: 10.31234/osf.io/ycgwn

CITATION READS
1 2,765

2 authors, including:

Joshua Oltmanns
Southern Methodist University
59 PUBLICATIONS 1,366 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Joshua Oltmanns on 16 July 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: FFiCD

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11:

A Facet-Level Assessment of the ICD-11 Trait Model

Joshua R. Oltmanns and Thomas A. Widiger

University of Kentucky

© 2019, American Psychological Association. This paper is not the copy of record
and may not exactly replicate the final, authoritative version of the article. Please
do not copy or cite without authors' permission. The final article will be available,
upon publication, via its DOI: 10.1037/pas0000763

Authors’ note:

This research was supported by the National Institute of Aging under Award Number

F31AG055233. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily

represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Correspondence should be addressed to Joshua R. Oltmanns, Department of Psychology,

University of Kentucky, 111-D Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY, 40506. Email: jroltmanns@uky.edu
FFiCD 2

Abstract

The ICD-11 includes a dimensional model of personality disorder assessing five domains of

maladaptive personality. To avoid unnecessary complexity, the ICD-11 model includes

assessment of personality traits only at the domain level. A measure exists to assess the domains

of the ICD-11 model (the Personality Inventory for ICD-11; PiCD), yet a more rich and useful

assessment of personality is provided at the facet level. We used items from the scales assessing

the five-factor model of personality disorder (FFMPD) to develop the Five-Factor Personality

Inventory for ICD-11 (FFiCD), a new 121-item, 20-facet, self-report measure of the ICD-11

maladaptive personality domains at the facet level. Further, the FFiCD includes 47 short scales

organized beneath the facets—at the “nuance” level. Items were selected and evaluated

empirically across two independent data collections, and the resulting scales were further

validated in a third data collection. Correlational and factor analytic results comparing the scales

of the FFiCD to the five-factor model, PiCD, and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)

supported the validity of the theoretical structure of the FFiCD and the ICD-11 model. The

FFiCD may be a useful instrument for clinicians and researchers interested in a more specific

assessment of maladaptive personality according to the dimensional ICD-11 personality disorder

model.

keywords: ICD-11, personality disorders, DSM-5, five-factor model, personality

assessment

Public Significance Statement: A dimensional personality disorder model is included in ICD-11,

which is a dramatic change in the classification of personality disorder. The model is at the
maladaptive personality domain level—however, a more useful assessment of personality is at
the facet-level. The present investigation provides initial support for a new, optional, facet-level
self-report measure of the ICD-11 maladaptive trait domains.
Running head: FFiCD

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11:

A Facet-Level Assessment of the ICD-11 Trait Model

A large and growing amount of empirical research has indicated that personality disorder

is best classified dimensionally (Tyrer et al., 2011; Widiger & Trull, 2007). Indeed, the World

Health Organization’s (WHO) International Classification of Diseases, 11th edition (ICD-11),

includes a dimensional model of personality disorder (WHO, 2019), that provides what is

perhaps a paradigm shift in the way that personality disorder is classified (Krueger, 2016; Tyrer,

2012). The ICD-11 dimensional model consists of a general personality disorder severity rating,

five maladaptive personality trait domains, and a borderline pattern specifier (Tyrer, Mulder,

Kim, & Crawford, in press). The Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (PiCD; Oltmanns & Widiger,

2018) was developed to provide a self-report assessment of the five-domain dimensional trait

model. Consistent with the ICD-11 Working Group for the Revision of Personality Disorders

recommendations, this instrument only includes domain-level scales because the work group

members believed that facet scales would provide an unnecessary complexity (Tyrer et al.,

2011).

However, there is a considerable body of research to suggest that a description at the

facet level provides the most accurate and informative assessment (Reynolds & Clark, 2001;

Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Sprock, 2002). For example, Saulsman and Page (2004) conducted a

meta-analysis of the FFM-personality disorder research at the domain level, indicating that the

paranoid and avoidant personality disorders were both characterized by high neuroticism,

whereas Samuel and Widiger’s (2008) subsequent meta-analysis at the facet level demonstrated

that—within neuroticism—paranoid is characterized by high angry hostility and the avoidant is

characterized by anxiousness, depressiveness, and self-consciousness. Similarly, Saulsman and

FFiCD 4

Page found that paranoid and narcissistic personality disorders both have low agreeableness, but

paranoid is characterized by suspiciousness, specifically, whereas narcissistic is characterized

more so by arrogance (Samuel & Widiger, 2008). Many of the DSM-5 Section II personality

disorder syndromes involve negative affectivity (i.e., neuroticism), but clinicians (and

researchers) are likely to want to distinguish between affective lability and vulnerability (evident

in persons diagnosed with borderline personality disorder), anxiousness (evident in persons

diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive personality disorder), shamefulness (evident in persons

with vulnerable narcissism), and depressiveness (evident in dependent persons). In sum, the

development of a facet-level self-report measure for the ICD-11 model will be imperative to

adequately assess maladaptive personality in research and in the clinic. The purpose of the

present study was to develop and validate a facet-level self-report measure for the ICD-11

maladaptive personality trait domains.

The ICD-11 maladaptive trait model includes detachment, dissociality, anankastia,

negative affectivity, and disinhibition domains (Tyrer, Reed, & Crawford, 2015). Four of these

domains align with those of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders’ (AMPD)

Criterion B, which includes the maladaptive trait domains of detachment, antagonism (analogous

to dissociality), negative affectivity, and disinhibition (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

The inconsistencies of the two dimensional trait models are that the ICD-11 model includes

anankastia (analogous to compulsivity) and the DSM-5 model includes psychoticism. A

compulsivity domain was originally included in the DSM-5 AMPD but was eventually deleted

through factor analysis to reduce the model from 37 traits to just 25, albeit the specific

compulsivity traits of rigid perfectionism and perseveration were retained (Krueger, Derringer,

Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Traits from psychoticism are most characteristic of
FFiCD 5

schizotypal personality disorder. The ICD-11 trait model’s exclusion of psychoticism is

consistent with the history of the ICD—in which schizotypal personality disorder has been

included with the schizophrenia-related disorders.

The fundamental problems of the DSM-IV Section II categorical syndromes are well

documented, including inadequate coverage, excessive co-occurrence, heterogeneity within

diagnoses, and arbitrary diagnostic thresholds (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Trull, 2007). The

dimensional trait models address these problems. The domains of the dimensional trait models—

typically developed through factor analysis—are more homogenous and distinct than the

heterogeneous and overlapping categorical syndromes. Clinicians can also provide a more

specific and individualized description of a respective patient, rather than lumping persons

together within categories that may include traits the person does not have (and lack other traits

the person does have). The dimensional trait models also provide considerably more coverage

than the existing syndromes. Each is aligned with the FFM, which provides a reasonably

comprehensive coverage of both the maladaptive and adaptive personality traits (Clark, 2007; De

Raad & Mlačić, 2017; O’Connor, 2005).

There is reasonable consensus with regard to the broad domains of maladaptive

personality (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). As noted earlier, the DSM-5 Section III

and ICD-11 both include the domains of negative affectivity, disinhibition, detachment, and

dissocial/antagonism. These domains, along with compulsivity, are also evident within the

historical precedents provided by the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP;

Livesley, Jang, & Vernon, 1998) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality

(SNAP; Clark, 1993).

FFiCD 6

There is less consensus, however, with respect to the facets that fall within each domain.

There are some traits that are common to all of the alternative maladaptive trait models (e.g.,

anxiousness within negative affectivity). However, each model does include relatively unique

traits. Unique to the SNAP is a scale for propriety (Clark, 1993). Unique for the DSM-5 is a

scale for perseveration (Crego & Widiger, 2016). Unique to the Computerized Adaptive Test-

Personality Disorder (CAT-PD; Simms et al., 2011) is a scale for rudeness (Crego & Widiger,

2016). This is perhaps not particularly surprising. By one count there are 803 maladaptive trait

terms within the English language (Coker, Samuel, & Widiger, 2002). Including all of them

would be clearly excessive, but which would provide the optimal representation of each domain

is not yet clear.

The maladaptive trait measure that includes the largest number of options is provided by

the Five Factor Model of Personality Disorder (FFMPD; Widiger, Lynam, Miller, & Oltmanns,

2012). There are 99 FFMPD scales. They were constructed with the intention of fully covering

the traits included within the DSM-IV personality disorder syndromes. Relevant facet selections

were based on surveys of 197 personality disorder researchers’ (Lynam & Widiger, 2001) and

154 clinicians’ (Samuel & Widiger, 2004) descriptions of each personality disorder from the

perspective of the FFM, as well as the existing FFM-personality disorder research at the facet

level (Samuel & Widiger, 2008). For example, the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (Lynam

et al., 2011) includes 18 scales for the assessment of FFM traits of psychopathy; the Five Factor

Narcissism Inventory (FFNI: Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012) includes 15

scales for the assessment of both grandiose and vulnerable narcissism.

The goal of the present study was to use the items from the FFMPD scales to create a

facet-level self-report assessment of the ICD-11 maladaptive trait domains, and then cross-
FFiCD 7

validate the measure in an independent sample. Additionally, shorter “nuance-level” scales were

developed below the facets, expected to provide an even more specific and homogeneous

assessment of personality (c.f., Mõttus, Kandler, Bleidorn, Riemann, & McCrae, 2017; Smith,

McCarthy, & Zapolski, 2009). The present investigation was preregistered before the item

selection phase and scale validation phase (osf.io/t5mhs). The present research was approved by

the University of Kentucky institutional review board (protocol #17-0728-P4S).

Study 1

The aim of Study 1 was to identify scales and items that assess the maladaptive trait

domains of the ICD-11. Analyses in Study 1 were largely exploratory but there were also evident

hypotheses that: (1) FFMPD scales of negative affectivity would correlate positively with ICD-

11 negative affectivity, (2) FFMPD detachment scales would correlate with ICD-11 detachment,

(3) FFMPD antagonism scales would correlate with ICD-11 dissocial, (4) FFMPD compulsivity

scales would correlate positively with ICD-11 anankastia (and negatively with ICD-11

disinhibition, and (5) FFMPD scales for disinhibition would correlate positively with ICD-11

disinhibition (and negatively with ICD-11 anankastia).

Procedure

Items were administered via Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to a sample of

498 potential participants from the United States who were currently or had been in mental

health treatment. Each participant was paid $2.00 for completing the measures. 121 persons were

excluded from the dataset due to noncontent-based responding (described below). Missing data

were imputed with the expectation maximization (EM) procedure (Enders, 2006). Median

completion rate of the measures was 40 minutes.

Participants
FFiCD 8

The final sample size was N = 377 (Mage = 36.6 years, SD = 12.0 years, 66% female).

Thirty-six percent were currently in mental health treatment, 12% in the past one month, 25% in

the past one year, 14% in the past five years, 6% in the past ten years, and 6% outside the past

ten years. Fifty-two percent were currently taking psychiatric medications, and 83% had taken

psychotropic medications in the past. Participants reported receiving mental health treatment for

a variety of conditions: Depression (82%), anxiety (68%), personality disorder (8%), substance

abuse (7%), alcohol abuse (7%), psychosis (3%), and 11% other, which participants provided in

an additional text box, including: alcohol use disorder, anorexia nervosa, attention-deficit

hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), autism, anorexia nervosa, bipolar disorder, bulimia, childhood

problems, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, physical health conditions,

post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), schizophrenia, sexual abuse, suicide attempt, suicidal

ideation, and traumatic brain injury. Participants reported seeing psychiatrists (58%),

psychologists (50%), social workers (18%), family therapists (18%), and 9% other, including:

behavioral health providers, clinical nurses, counselors, endocrinologists, neuropsychologists,

oncologists, primary care physicians, and group therapy. Marital status consisted of 37%

married, 39% single, 9% divorced, 13% cohabiting, and 1% widowed. Hispanic or Latino

ethnicity was endorsed by 8% of the sample. Racial backgrounds endorsed were 83% white, 11%

black or African American, 7% Asian, 5% American Indian or Alaska Native, and 1% Native

Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. Multiple racial backgrounds were endorsed by 24 participants.

Measures

Five-Factor Model Personality Disorder Scales (Widiger et al., 2012). Several

FFMPD scales corresponding with the five ICD-11 maladaptive trait domains were administered.

Scales were selected based on correspondence with prior descriptions of the proposed trait
FFiCD 9

domains (Tyrer, Reed, & Crawford, 2015). Low conscientiousness was assessed by 67 items

from seven FFMPD scales: FFHI Disorderly, FFBI Rash, EPA Rashness, FFDI Ineptitude, FFDI

Negligence, EPA Disobliged, and EPA Impersistence. High conscientiousness was assessed by

60 items from six FFMPD scales: FFOCI Perfectionism, FFOCI Fastidiousness, FFOCI

Punctiliousness, FFOCI Workaholism, FFOCI Ruminative Deliberation, and FFOCI Risk

Aversiveness. Antagonism was assessed by 106 items from 11 FFMPD scales: FFBI

Oppositional, FFBI Distrust, EPA Distrust, EPA Callousness, EPA Manipulation, EPA

Arrogance, FFHI Melodramatic Emotionality, FFSI Interpersonal Suspiciousness, FFNI Lack of

Empathy, FFNI Exploitativeness, and FFNI Arrogance. Introversion was assessed by 70 items

from eight FFMPD scales: FFSI Social Anhedonia, FFSI Social Isolation & Withdrawal, FFSI

Physical Anhedonia, FFOCI Detached Coldness, EPA Coldness, FFAvA Joylessness, FFAvA

Social Dread, and FFAvA Shrinking. Neuroticism was assessed by 94 items from 10 FMPD

scales: FFSI Social Anxiousness, FFAvA Evaluation Apprehension, FFAvA Overcome, FFDI

Separation Insecurity, FFBI Fragility, FFBI Helplessness, FFBI Dysregulated Anger, FFBI

Affective Dysregulation, FFNI Need for Admiration, and FFHI Rapidly Shifting Emotions. The

FFMPD scales are rated on 5-point Likert scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

PiCD (Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018). The PiCD is a 60-item self-report measure of the

dimensional trait model for the ICD-11. Five scales containing twelve items each are rated from

1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) to assess five maladaptive trait domains: Detachment

(coefficient  = .87; MIC r = .35) Dissociality (coefficient  = .87; MIC r = .35), Anankastia

(coefficient  = .85; MIC r = .32), Negative Affectivity (coefficient  = .89; MIC r = .41), and

Disinhibition (coefficient  = .89; MIC r = .41).

FFiCD 10

Five-Factor Model. Three measures of the FFM were administered, including the

International Personality Item Pool-NEO-120 (Maples, et al., 2014), the Five Factor Form (FFF;

Rojas & Widiger, 2014), and the Five Factor Model Rating Form (FFMRF; Mullins-Sweatt,

Jamerson, Samuel, Olson, & Widiger, 2006). Each item on each measure was rated on a 1 to 5

point scale, albeit the anchors for the five points varied across the three measures (e.g., IPIP was

rated from 1 [strongly disagree] to 5 [strongly agree] whereas the FFF from 1 [Maladaptive

Low], 2 [Low], 3 [Neutral], 4 [High], and 5 [Maladaptive High]). Each of these measures

obtained internal consistency. For example, for the FFF, internal consistency ranged from  =

.63 (Agreeableness; MIC r = .23) to .79 (Neuroticism; MIC r = .39), with a median  of .76 and

MIC r of .34. The results from the three FFM measures were standardized and summed to create

five composite FFM domain scores.

Noncontent-based responding scale. Five items were included throughout the

questionnaire battery to gauge attention. Example items include, “I have used a computer in the

past two years,” and “I am President of the United States.” Items were rated from 1 to 5 and

scored such that higher scores indicated non-content based responding. Participants with a score

of 12+ were eliminated from the dataset.

Results

It was evident from the scale-level correlations that multiple FFMPD scales from each

domain had similar patterns of correlations with the PiCD and FFM trait domains. This was in

large part because several of the FFMPD scales provide assessments of the same specific facet

(e.g., Evaluation Apprehension and Social Anxiousness both assess variants of anxiousness).

Items were then selected from highly correlated FFMPD scales (such as FFMPD Evaluation

Apprehension and Social Anxiousness) and combined to form broader scales—in this case, a
FFiCD 11

broader “Anxiousness” scale within negative affectivity that includes components of both

evaluation apprehension and social anxiousness.

A balanced number of items were selected from each scale (e.g., several items per

FFMPD scale), depending on the number of FFMPD scales that were being used to select items

for a specific facet. Most often, convergent correlations were above .50 (e.g., strong effect size;

Cohen, 1992) and discriminant correlations were moderate or small. Some items from FFMPD

scales were selected for new facet scales in different domains—these two instances are noted by

footnotes in the following five sections.

Negative affectivity.

Items were selected to form five broader facets of negative affectivity: anxiousness,

distrust, anger, emotional lability, and vulnerability. Items for this domain were selected based

on high convergent correlations with PiCD NA and FFM N and low discriminant correlations

with the other domains of the PiCD and the FFM. Items for anxiousness were selected from

FFMPD Evaluation Apprehension, Social Anxiousness, and Separation Insecurity. Items for

distrust were selected from FFMPD Distrust (the EPA version), Distrust (the FFBI version), and

Interpersonal Suspiciousness1. Items for anger were selected from FFMPD Dysregulated Anger.

Items for emotional lability were selected from FFMPD Affective Dysregulation and Rapidly

Shifting Emotions. Items for vulnerability were selected from FFMPD Fragility, Overcome,

Helplessness, and Need for Admiration.

Detachment.

Items were selected to form four broader facets of detachment: aloofness, social isolation,

anhedonia, and unassertiveness. Items for this domain were selected based on high convergent

1
The Distrust FFMPD scales were originally for antagonism, but in this case correlated more strongly with negative
affectivity.
FFiCD 12

correlations with PiCD DT and FFM introversion and low discriminant correlations with the

other domains. Items for aloofness were selected from FFMPD Detached Coldness, Coldness,

and Joylessness; social withdrawal from FFMPD Social Isolation and Withdrawal and Social

Dread; anhedonia from FFMPD Social Anhedonia and Physical Anhedonia; unassertiveness

from FFMPD Shrinking.

Anankastia.

Items were selected to form two broader facets of anankastia: perfectionism and risk

aversiveness. Items for this domain were selected based on high convergent correlations with

PiCD AK and FFM C and low discriminant correlations with the other domains of the PiCD and

the FFM. Items for perfectionism were selected from FFMPD Punctiliousness, Fastidiousness,

and Perfectionism. Items for risk aversiveness were selected from FFMPD Risk Aversiveness 2.

Dissociality.

Items were selected to form four broader facets of dissociality: aggressiveness, lack of

empathy, arrogance, and manipulativeness. Items for this domain were selected based on high

convergent correlations with PiCD DL and FFM A (negatively) and low discriminant

correlations with the other domains of the PiCD and the FFM. Items for aggressiveness were

selected from FFMPD Oppositional. Items for lack of empathy were selected from FFMPD Lack

of Empathy and Callousness. Items for arrogance were selected from FFMPD Arrogance (the

EPA version) and Arrogance (the FFNI version). Items for manipulativeness were selected from

FFMPD Manipulation and Exploitativeness.

Disinhibition.

2
The Risk Aversiveness FFMPD scale was originally for (low) extraversion, but in this case correlated more
strongly with anankastia.
FFiCD 13

Items were selected to form five broader facets of disinhibition: distractibility, rashness,

disobliged, ineptitude, and irresponsibility. Items for this domain were selected based on high

convergent correlations with PiCD DN and FFM C (negatively) and low discriminant

correlations with the other domains of the PiCD and the FFM. Items for distractibility were

selected from FFMPD Negligence and Impersistence. Items for recklessness were selected from

FFMPD Rashness (the EPA version) and Rash (the FFBI version). Items for disobliged were

selected from FFMPD Disobliged. Items for ineptitude were selected from FFMPD Ineptitude.

Items for irresponsibility were selected from FFMPD Negligence and Impersistence.

Study 2

The aim of Study 2 was to broaden the potential assessment of the facets being developed

for the current measure, to organize a nuance-level structure underneath facets, and to select final

items for the new instrument. Additional FFMPD scales were used to expand assessment of

anger and mistrust (in the negative affectivity domain), unassertiveness (in the detachment

domain), manipulativeness, self-centeredness, arrogance, and oppositionality (from the

dissociality domain), impulsiveness (from the disinhibition domain), and risk aversion (from the

anankastia domain). Further, FFMPD scales were added to select items to create a

“depressiveness” facet within negative affectivity, an “aggression” facet within dissociality, and

a “thrill-seeking” facet within disinhibition. The assessment of anankastia was significantly

expanded by adding multiple FFOCI scales to create “rigidity,” “constricted,” “dogmatism,” and

“doggedness” components. The items from an additional total of 23 FFMPD scales were added

to Study 2, along with the items chosen in Study 1. Item selection in Study 2 followed the same

method as in Study 1. However, in Study 2, items were also organized into nuance scales.
FFiCD 14

Nuances are 2/3-item scales underneath each facet. Each facet included 2-4 nuance scales (3

facets do not have nuances: Distrust, Unassertiveness, and Thrill-Seeking).

Study 2 MTurk data collection was affected by the participation of “farmers.”

Participants were required to have been within the United States; Farmers are participants from

countries that use fake geolocations within the United States to complete studies that are

supposed to only be completed by participants within the United States. This is problematic

because farmer English proficiency appears to be low, which hurts the quality of the data (i.e.,

lower internal consistency estimates for personality scales; see Dennis, Goodson, and Pearson

[2018] for a review, empirical study, and solution for this problem—which we implemented in

Study 3 and describe at that point). Farmers did not affect the quality of the final data that we

used, but they did affect the sample size because we eliminated more cases due to elevations on

the noncontent-based responding scale (which was perhaps, in this case, caused by low English

proficiency). Thus, the sample size for Study 2 is smaller.

Procedure

Items were administered via MTurk to a sample of 284 potential participants from the

United States who were currently or had been in mental health treatment. Each participant was

paid $2.00 for completing the measures. Median completion rate of the measures was 32

minutes. 136 persons were excluded from the dataset due to noncontent-based responding

(described below).

Participants

The final sample size was N = 148 (Mage = 35.6 years, SD = 12.5 years, 62% female).

Racial and ethnic backgrounds, other demographics, and clinical characteristics were similar to

Study 1 and are included in the supplemental materials.

FFiCD 15

Measures

Five-Factor Model Personality Disorder Items (Widiger et al., 2012) The selected

items described in the results of Study 1 were administered to the Study 2 sample. An additional

23 FFMPD scales were administered to select additional items: From Negative Affectivity: FFNI

Reactive Anger, EPA Anger, FFAvA Despair, FFBI Despondency, FFDI Pessimism, FFAvA

Mortified, FFDI Shamefulness, FFNI Shame, and FFNI Cynicism/Distrust; from detachment:

FFDI Unassertiveness; from compulsivity: FFOCI Doggedness, FFOCI Inflexibility, FFOCI

Dogmatism, FFAvA Rigidity, and FFAvA Risk Averse; from antagonism: EPA Oppositional,

EPA Self-Centeredness, FFBI Manipulation, FFNI Manipulativeness, FFNI Entitlement, and

FFHI Vanity; and from disinhibition: FFHI Impressionistic Thinking and EPA Thrill-Seeking.

The FFMPD scales are rated on 5-point Likert scales from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree).

PiCD (Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018). The PiCD was again administered in Study 2.

Internal consistency estimates were as follows: Detachment (coefficient  = .88; MIC r = .39),

Dissociality (coefficient  = .92; MIC r = .49), Anankastia (coefficient  = .83; MIC r = .30),

Negative Affectivity (coefficient  = .90; MIC r = .43), and Disinhibition (coefficient  = .91;

MIC r = .46).

Five-Factor Model measures. The same three measures of the FFM used in Study 1

were again administered in Study 2. Each of these measures again obtained similar levels of

internal consistency. The results from the three FFM measures were again summed to create five

composite FFM domain scores.

Noncontent-Based Responding Scale

FFiCD 16

The same noncontent-based responding items from Study 1 were administered again.

Participants with a score of 12+ were again eliminated from the dataset (n = 136).

Results

Items were selected for facets according to the same method from Study 1 (i.e., via

convergent and discriminant correlations with corresponding and non-corresponding PiCD and

FFM domain scores). There were new facets developed: depressiveness within negative

affectivity, workaholism and inflexibility within anankastia, and self-centeredness within

dissociality. Some facets were restructured based on correlations between items within the facets,

in an attempt to create more homogeneous, but correlated, nuances beneath facets: Within

anankastia, risk aversiveness was moved to the nuance level beneath the inflexibility facet;

within detachment, aloofness and joylessness were moved to the nuance level beneath the social

and emotional detachment facets, respectively, and anhedonia was divided into social and

physical anhedonia nuances beneath the emotional detachment facet. Within the dissociality

domain, arrogance was moved to the nuance level beneath the self-centeredness facet and

manipulativeness was moved to the nuance level within the lack of empathy facet. Within the

disinhibition domain, disobliged, ineptitude, and distractibility were moved to the nuance level

beneath the irresponsibility facet. A final overview of the number of items from each FFMPD

scale composing each nuance, facet, and domain is presented in Tables 1 and 2.

Nuances were created by selecting items from specific FFMPD scales that converged

more highly with each other than they did with items from other specific FFMPD scales. When

constructing the nuances, attention was given to correlations among items as well as the

language of the items—did the items within the same nuance have face validity? It should be

noted that several FFMPD scales were so highly correlated with each other that items for certain
FFiCD 17

nuances were selected from different FFMPD scales (this can be observed in Tables 1 and 2).

Further, in a few rare instances, items from scales originally assessing one ICD-11 domain were

selected to measure nuances of another ICD-11 domain. This is to be expected, as personality

facets and domains are often intercorrelated (Marsh et al., 2010). Also, three facets did not have

nuances (distrust, unassertiveness, and thrill-seeking).

Study 3

The aim of Study 3 was to validate the FFiCD with the PiCD, PID-5, and FFM.

Procedure

In Study 3, the online survey was designed in TurkPrime (Litman, Robinson, &

Abberbock, 2017). Care was taken to safeguard against farmers (i.e., potential participants from

outside of the US). Dennis et al. (2017) identified several suspicious geolocations that were

being often used by farmers. These geolocations were blocked. Further, TurkPrime Pro Features

were utilized: Multiple responses from the same geolocation were blocked and IP addresses were

blocked from being represented more than one time.

Items were administered via TurkPrime to a sample of 343 potential participants from the

United States who were currently or had been in mental health treatment. Each participant was

paid $4.00 for completing the measures. Median completion rate of the measures was 41

minutes. This time, only 42 persons were excluded from the dataset due to noncontent-based

responding (described below).

Participants

The final sample size was N = 301 (Mage = 36.5 years, SD = 10.7 years, 61% female).

Racial and ethnic backgrounds, other demographics, and clinical characteristics were similar to

Studies 1 and 2 and are included in the supplemental materials.

FFiCD 18

Measures

Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11 (FFiCD). The FFiCD is a 121-item

measure of the five maladaptive trait domains of the ICD-11. It also includes 20 facet scales and

47 more specific nuances organized within the facet scales. Descriptive statistics are provided in

Table S1 of the supplemental materials. The full measure is available for use and is provided in

the supplemental materials.

PiCD (Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018). The PiCD was again administered in Study 3.

Internal consistency estimates were as follows: Detachment (coefficient  = .86; MIC r = .34),

Dissociality (coefficient  = .90; MIC r = .43), Anankastia (coefficient  = .84; MIC r = .31),

Negative Affectivity (coefficient  = .91; MIC r = .44), and Disinhibition (coefficient  = .90;

MIC r = .44).

PID-5 (Krueger et al., 2012). The PID-5 is a 220-item self-report questionnaire that was

developed to assess the five proposed domains of maladaptive personality traits of the alternative

model of personality disorder included in an appendix to the DSM-5 (detachment, antagonism,

disinhibition, negative affectivity, and psychoticism). The items were rated on a scale from 1

(very false or often false) to 4 (very true or often true). Internal consistency of the facets ranged

from  =.77 (MIC = .32; Suspiciousness) to  = .96 (MIC = .65; Eccentricity), with a median of

 =.89 (MIC = .51).

FFM measures. The same three measures of the FFM used in Studies 1 and 2 were

again administered in Study 3. Each of these measures again obtained similar levels of internal

consistency. The results from the three FFM measures were again summed to create five

composite FFM domain scores.

Noncontent-Based Responding Scale

FFiCD 19

The same noncontent-based responding items from Studies 1 and 2 were administered

again. Participants with a score of 12+ were again eliminated from the dataset (n = 42).

Results

Descriptive statistics of the FFiCD scales (domain, facet, and nuance-level) are provided

in Table S1. Intercorrelations of the FFiCD, PiCD, PID-5, and FFM domain-level scales are

provided in supplemental Table S2. The highest convergence was obtained, as expected, for the

FFiCD with the PiCD domain scales. There was also substantial convergence of the FFiCD with

the respective PID-5 domain scales, albeit at times not as high as with the PiCD, perhaps

reflecting at least some (minor) differences in how the domains were defined by the respective

work groups (APA, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012; Tyrer et al., 2015; WHO, 2019).

Exploratory factor analyses were run in R statistical software (R Core Team, 2013) with

the psych package (Revelle, 2017). Parallel analysis recommended a 4-factor solution, which is

provided in Table 3. There were clear DL and DT factors. The DN indicators cross-loaded on

NA and AK factors. BIC favored an 8-factor solution, but neither 8-factor or 7-factor solutions

converged. A six-factor solution is presented in supplemental Table S3. In that solution, the

factor structure was similar, but with a more prominent bipolar anankastia/disinhibition factor.

To examine the FFiCD facet-level structure, the same analysis was then conducted,

substituting the FFiCD facets for the FFiCD domains. Parallel analysis recommended four

factors. This solution is presented in Table 4. There were clear NA, DL, and DT factors, along

with a bipolar AK/DN factor. All FFiCD facets loaded on their hypothesized domain factors (as

shown in Tables 1 and 2), with the exceptions of Unassertiveness (which loaded on NA),

Rashness (which cross-loaded on NA and DL), and Thrill-Seeking (which loaded on DL). The

MAP test and BIC indicated a seven-factor solution, which is displayed in Table S4. In the 7-
FFiCD 20

factor solution, there were five factors that clearly represented the five ICD-11 maladaptive trait

domains, plus two extra factors—one that was not clearly interpretable and another that captured

residual anger/aggression. Anankastia and disinhibition facets from their bipolar factor in the 4-

factor solution separated in the 7-factor solution, but the factors correlated r = -.31. Thrill-

Seeking loaded negatively on the anankastia factor in the 7-factor solution, which would be

consistent with expectations. Rashness switched from the negative affectivity factor to the

disinhibition factor, which would also be consistent with expectations. Unassertiveness cross-

loaded on the NA and DN factors, which was again inconsistent with expectations.

Exploratory bifactor analysis was used to examine the structure of the maladaptive

personality scales with the inclusion of a general factor of personality disorder (g-PD; Oltmanns,

Smith, Oltmanns, & Widiger, 2018; Pettersson, Turkheimer, Horn, & Menatti, 2012). A six-

factor EBFA solution fit the data best (fit indices for other solutions displayed in supplemental

Table S5). A model extracting seven factors did not converge. The 6-factor solution is presented

in Table S6. A 5-factor model was consistent with expectations and appeared to provide a similar

but simpler solution and is presented in Table 4. All scales loaded significantly on the g-PD

(FFM C, A negatively), with the exceptions of FFM E and PiCD AK. The remaining four factors

were clear NA, DL, and DT factors, and a bipolar AK/DN factor. Only Unassertiveness and

Thrill-Seeking did not load on their expected domains (Unassertiveness loaded negatively on DL

and Thrill-Seeking did not load significantly on any factor besides the g-PD).

Nuance-level correlations with the PiCD, FFM, and PID-5 are displayed in supplemental

Table S7. The overwhelming majority of the 47 nuances correlated highest with their

corresponding domains (e.g., FFiCD DL nuances with PiCD DL, PID-5 AT, and FFM A-). The

nuances showed strong convergent validity with the FFM, with the exception of the anankastia
FFiCD 21

nuances, which correlated moderately with conscientiousness—however, the FFiCD AK nuances

correlated strongly with PiCD AK. There was some overlap between the dissociality and

disinhibition nuances and domains, as would be expected based on cross-loadings in the domain

and facet-level factor analyses. The FFiCD detachment nuances correlated strongly with PiCD

and PID-5 detachment, but moderately with FFM (low) extraversion.

General Discussion

The upcoming ICD-11 includes a dimensional model of personality disorder with five

maladaptive trait domains. For simplicity, this model does not include facet-level personality

traits, but is instead confined to the domain-level (Tyrer et al., 2011). However, description at the

facet level is necessary for a more specific and individualized description of personality

(Reynolds & Clark, 2001; Samuel & Widiger, 2008; Sprock, 2002). The present study developed

the FFiCD, a facet-level assessment of the ICD-11 dimensional trait model, that may be used

optionally by clinicians and researchers interested in a more precise description of the ICD-11

trait model.

Facet scales may indeed provide a complexity that is not always desired and may at times

be problematic (Tyrer et al., 2011). However, a facet-level assessment can provide useful

information to clinicians about the precise nature of a client’s personality disorder. A patient

high in the domain of negative affectivity may be elevated for a variety of reasons. For example,

a clinician would perhaps focus treatment on developing anger management strategies for a

client who scores highly on the anger facet within negative affectivity—whereas a clinician

would not concentrate on anger management for a patient who presents only with high

vulnerability and anxiousness (other facets within negative affectivity). Assessment of the ICD-

11 personality disorder maladaptive trait domains is currently at the domain level (Oltmanns &
FFiCD 22

Widiger, 2018), consistent with the absence of any specific facet traits within the trait model

(Tyrer et al., 2011, 2015). However, the FFiCD provides an option of assessment at the facet

level that is available for use, albeit not required.

The FFiCD displayed an oblique four-factor structure at both the domain and facet levels

that is theoretically in line with the ICD-11 maladaptive trait model. Distinct negative affectivity,

dissociality, and detachment factors were found. Disinhibition and anankastia formed a bipolar

factor, as expected, although traits of disinhibition also displayed overlap with negative

affectivity in the EFA (Table 4) and dissociality in the EBFA (Table 5). The results indicated

that the FFiCD facets can be understood according to the bipolar theoretical organization of the

ICD-11 structure (Mulder et al., 2016).

The EBFA provided the clearest factor structure in terms of our a priori hypotheses of a

four-factor structure including a bipolar anankastia/disinhibition factor (osf.io/t5mhs). Pettersson

et al. (2012) have argued that a general factor of evaluation bias should first be extracted before

obtaining maladaptive personality trait domains. We followed this procedure, albeit for different

reasons. We interpret the general factor of personality disorder (the general factor in the Table 5

EBFA) as an individual differences continuum of impairment secondarily associated with the

traits—with higher impairment loading positively (Oltmanns et al., 2018; Widiger & Oltmanns,

2017). The weakest loadings on the general factor were obtained by the FFM scales which

concern a lesser degree of impairment relative to the PiCD, PID-5, and/or FFiCD scales. The

common maladaptivity that is shared by indicators of psychopathology can complicate a factor

analysis of psychopathology scales because the scales can be strongly associated for non-

substantive reasons. Maladaptive trait scales will routinely correlate positively with each other

and correlate negatively with adaptive trait scales, irrespective of the content of the scales
FFiCD 23

(Widiger & Crego, 2019). As demonstrated by Pettersson et al., maladaptive traits that are

conceptually opposite to one another can load in the same direction on the general factor (e.g.,

laxness and perfectionism both result in a comparable impairment, but largely for opposite

reasons). In the case of the FFiCD scales, this would hinder the ability to find the anankastia and

disinhibition scales loading in an opposite direction on the same factor, as well as perhaps

contributing to some degree of the cross-loading of other FFiCD scales. The EBFA results in the

present study would indicate that after extracting the maladaptive impairment that is common to

all of the scales, the remaining variance of the FFiCD scales is best characterized by a clear four-

factor structure of negative affectivity, dissociality, detachment, and a bipolar

anankastia/disinhibition factor.

Existing FFMPD scales contributed to the development of 20 unique FFiCD facet scales:

Seven within negative affectivity, three within dissociality, detachment, and anankastia, and four

within disinhibition. For 18 of the 20 facets, the theoretical structure held in exploratory factor

analyses: The FFiCD facets of anxiousness, vulnerability, emotional lability, anger,

depressiveness, shame, and mistrustfulness loaded with corresponding FFM neuroticism, ICD-11

negative affectivity, and DSM-5 negative affectivity. The FFiCD facets of self-centeredness, lack

of empathy, and aggression loaded with corresponding FFM antagonism, ICD-11 dissociality,

and DSM-5 antagonism. The FFiCD facets of social detachment and emotional detachment

loaded with corresponding FFM (low) extraversion, ICD-11 detachment, and DSM-5

detachment. The FFiCD facets of perfectionism, inflexibility, and workaholism loaded with FFM

conscientiousness, ICD-11 anankastia, and oppositely to ICD-11 disinhibition, DSM-5

disinhibition, and the FFiCD disinhibition facets. The facets of rashness, irresponsibility, and
FFiCD 24

disorderliness loaded with corresponding FFM (low) conscientiousness, ICD-11 disinhibition,

and DSM-5 disinhibition, and oppositely to ICD-11 anankastia and the FFiCD anankastia facets.

Of the 20 facets, 18 loaded consistently with theoretical expectations in the analyses.

Two facets did not load as expected: Unassertiveness (theoretically from detachment) loaded

with negative affectivity in the EFA and then opposite to dissociality in the EBFA; however, this

also occurred in the development of the scale (Gore, Presnall, Miller, Lynam, & Widiger, 2012).

Thrill-Seeking did not load with disinhibition facets in the EBFA. Both demonstrated uniqueness

from the other scales (i.e., displayed relatively lower h2 values). The other two detachment facets

(social detachment and emotional detachment) performed as expected in the analyses, strongly

defining clear detachment factors—but FFiCD Unassertiveness may assess a form of neurotic

submissiveness more than a form of detachment. The inconsistent loadings of these scales may

reflect in part that the ICD-11 trait model includes maladaptive assessment of only five poles of

the FFM (instead of all ten). Although these scales have been shown to fit into factor space of

detachment and disinhibition, unassertiveness and thrill-seeking may be best categorized at poles

of domains that are not represented in the present study (perhaps maladaptive high agreeableness

for Unassertiveness and maladaptive high extraversion for Thrill-Seeking). The scales may also

assess personality constructs that are in “interstitial space,” that is, space that is in between

higher-order factors in personality trait organization (Widiger & Crego, 2019), which is observed

through correlations across domains (Thrill-Seeking in particular, because of its numerous cross-

loadings). A combination of these considerations would likely explain their inconsistent loading

patterns in the present study.

In addition to providing more specific description of personality disorder at the facet

level, the present study also developed 47 “nuance” level scales below the facets. These nuances
FFiCD 25

showed convergent and discriminant validity with the FFM, ICD-11, and DSM-5 trait models,

with few exceptions. These findings support the idea that personality can be described at an even

more specific level below facets (Mõttus et al., 2017; Smith et al., 2009).

The development of the FFiCD—a new measure for a new dimensional model—adds to a

growing number of dimensional maladaptive personality measures (Clark, 1993; Krueger et al.,

2012; Livesley et al., 1998; Simms et al., 2011; Widiger et al., 2012). However, the FFiCD is a

relatively unique measure in that it provides a facet-level assessment of the ICD-11 maladaptive

trait model. Bach et al. (2017) have developed a facet level assessment of the ICD-11 trait model

using scales from the PID-5 assessment of the DSM-5 trait model. Both measures are potentially

limited in that they relied on existing scales and/or items. However, the PID-5 assessment of

anankastia might have been more limited in its ability to assess for anankastia, as the PID-5 has

only two potentially relevant scales (i.e., Perseveration and Rigid Perfectionism), whereas quite a

few more were available from the set of FFMPD scales (Widiger et al., 2012). Nevertheless, a

focus of future research would be a direction comparison of the PID-5, PiCD, and FFiCD

assessment of the ICD-11 trait model. It is always advantageous to have multiple alternative

measures of the same construct because it is unlikely that any one particular measure will be

infallible in its assessment.

Limitations

The present study was limited by sole reliance on self-report instruments. Future studies

would add to the validation of the FFiCD by implementing multiple assessment methods.

However, this was an initial validation and to date there are no other methods of FFiCD

assessment. The present study was also limited by its reliance on a US sample with

underrepresentation of non-white racial and ethnic groups. However, the study also included
FFiCD 26

strengths of large samples (especially for studies 1 and 3) and its recruitment of participants who

had histories of mental health treatment.

Future Directions

The FFiCD provides fruitful avenues for future research. As noted earlier, one line of

investigation would be direct comparisons of the FFiCD, PiCD, and PID-5 assessments of the

ICD-11 trait model. Criterion validity studies will also help identify which domains and facets

are particularly salient for different outcomes. This may also be helpful for identifying those

traits that will be the most important to assess when time is limited. Additionally, the

development of an informant-version of the FFiCD will be imperative, as agreement between

self– and informant–ratings for personality is only moderate (Oltmanns & Oltmanns, in press).

Further, informant-reports at times differentially predict life outcomes, indicating that informant-

reports could impact clinical treatment planning. Finally, it may be of importance to develop

validity scales to identify different response styles, especially if the FFiCD is implemented into

clinical assessment settings (Dhillon, Bagby, Kushner, & Burchett, 2017).

Conclusions

Although the ICD-11 personality trait domains do not include facets, prior findings of the

richness that is capable at the facet-level of personality assessment indicates that researchers and

clinicians may wish to have available a facet-level assessment. The present study developed a

121-item, 5-domain, 20-facet, 47-nuance self-report assessment of the ICD-11 personality

disorder maladaptive trait domains. Initial analyses supported a four-factor structure and

indicated that a valid, yet more specific and nuanced, assessment of the ICD-11 personality

disorder maladaptive trait domains may be completed with the FFiCD.

FFiCD 27

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental

disorders. (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Bach, B., Sellbom, M., Kongerslev, M., Simonsen, E., Krueger, R. F., & Mulder, R. (2017).

Deriving ICD‐11 personality disorder domains from DSM-5 traits: initial attempt to

harmonize two diagnostic systems. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 136, 108-117

Clark, L. A. (1993). SNAP, Schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality: Manual for

administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.

Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an

emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227-257.

Coker, L. A., Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2002). Maladaptive personality functioning within

the Big Five and the FFM. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 385-401.

Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2016). Convergent and discriminant validity of alternative

Psychological Assessment, 28, 1561-1575.

Dennis, S. A., Goodson, B. M., & Pearson, C. (August 17, 2018). MTurk workers' use of low-

cost 'virtual private servers' to circumvent screening methods: A research note. Available

at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3233954 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3233954

De Raad, B., & Mlačić, B. (2017). The lexical foundation of the Big Five factor model. In T. A.

Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of the five factor model (pp. 191-216). New York:

Oxford University Press.

Dhillon, S., Bagby, R. M., Kushner, S. C., & Burchett, D. (2017). The impact of underreporting

and overreporting on the validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5): A

simulation analog design investigation. Psychological Assessment, 29, 473-478.

FFiCD 28

Enders, C. K. (2006). A primer on the use of modern missing-data methods in psychosomatic

medicine research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 427-436.

Glover, N., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). The Five-Factor

Narcissism Inventory: A five-factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 94, 500-512.

Gore, W. L., Presnall, J. R., Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). A five-factor

measure of dependent personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 488-499.

Krueger, R. F. (2016). The future is now: Personality disorder and the ICD‐11. Personality and

Mental Health, 10(2), 118-119.

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. F., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial

construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5.

Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.

Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing

data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 49,

433-442.

Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., & Vernon, P. A. (1998). Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits

delineating personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 941-948.

Lynam, D. R., Gaughan, E.T., Miller, J. D., Miller, D. J., Mullins-Sweatt, S., & Widiger, T. A.

(2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and

validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23, 108-

124.
FFiCD 29

Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the five factor model to represent the DSM-IV

personality disorders: An expert consensus approach. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,

110, 401-412.

Maples, J. L., Guan, L., Carter, N. T., & Miller, J. D. (2014). A test of the International

Personality Item Pool representation of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory and

development of a 120-item IPIP-based measure of the five factor model. Psychological

Assessment, 26, 1070-1084.

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J., Trautwein, U., &

Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory

structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491.

Mõttus, R., Kandler, C., Bleidorn, W., Riemann, R., & McCrae, R. R. (2017). Personality traits

below facets: The consensual validity, longitudinal stability, heritability, and utility of

personality nuances. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112, 474-490.

Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Jamerson, J. E., Samuel, S. B., Olson, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2006).

Psychometric properties of an abbreviated instrument for the assessment of the five factor

model. Assessment, 13, 119-137.

O'Connor, B. P. (2005). A search for consensus on the dimensional structure of personality

disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 323-345

Oltmanns, J. R., & Oltmanns, T. F. (in press). Self–other agreement on personality disorder: A

meta-analysis of rank-order agreement effect sizes. The Handbook of Accurate

Personality Judgment: Theory and Empirical Findings. Co-Editors Tera D. Letzring and

Jana S. Spain.
FFiCD 30

Oltmanns, J. R., Smith, G. T., Oltmanns, T. F., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). General factors of

psychopathology, personality, and personality disorder: Across domain

comparisons. Clinical Psychological Science, 6, 581-589.

Oltmanns, J. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2018). A self-report measure for the ICD-11 dimensional trait

model proposal: The Personality Inventory for ICD-11. Psychological Assessment, 30,

154-169. doi: 10.1037/pas0000459

Pettersson, E., Turkheimer, E., Horn, E. E., & Menatti, A. R. (2012). The general factor of

personality and evaluation. European Journal of Personality, 26(3), 292-302.

R Core Team (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing.

Reynolds, S. K., & Clark, L. A. (2001). Predicting dimensions of personality disorder from

domains and facets of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality, 69, 199-222.

Revelle, W. R. (2017). psych: Procedures for personality and psychological research.

Rojas, S. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2014). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Five Factor

Form. Assessment, 2, 143-157.

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T.A. (2004). Clinicians' descriptions of prototypic personality

disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18, 286-308.

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the

five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical

Psychology Review, 28, 1326-1342.

Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical

literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23, 1055-1085.

FFiCD 31

Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H. (2011).

Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT–PD

project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 380-389.

Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Zapolski, T. C. (2009). On the value of homogeneous

constructs for construct validation, theory testing, and the description of

psychopathology. Psychological Assessment, 21, 272-284.

Sprock, J. (2002). A comparative study of the dimensions and facets of the five-factor model in

the diagnosis of cases of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 16, 402-

423.

Tyrer, P. (2012). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: A classification of

personality disorders that has had its day. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 19, 372-

374.

Tyrer, P., Crawford, M., Mulder, R., Blashfield, R., Farnam, A., Fossati, A., ... & Swales, M.

(2011). A classification based on evidence is the first step to clinical utility. Personality

and Mental Health, 5(4), 304-307.

Tyrer, P., Mulder, R., Kim, Y-R., & Crawford, M. J. (in press). The development of the ICD-11

classification of personality disorders: an amalgam of science, pragmatism and politics.

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.

Tyrer, P., Reed, G. M. & Crawford, M. J. (2015). Classification, assessment, prevalence, and

effect of personality disorder. Lancet, 385, 717-726.

Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2019). The bipolarity of normal and abnormal personality structure:

Implications for assessment. Psychological Assessment, 31, 420-431.

FFiCD 32

Widiger, T. A., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2012). Measures to assess

maladaptive variants of the five-factor model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94,

450-455.

Widiger, T. A., & Oltmanns, J. R. (2017). The general factor of psychopathology and

personality. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 182-183.

Widiger, T.A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder:

Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 110-130.

Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder:

shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71-83.

World Health Organization (2019). ICD-11 Beta Draft. retrieved from:

http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/revision/en/
FFiCD 33

Table 1. FFiCD Negative Affectivity and Detachment.

# #
FFMPD scale FFiCD Nuance Items FFiCD facet Items
Negative Affectivity 40
FAVA Evaluation Apprehension Evaluation Apprehension 2 Anxiousness 6
FFDI Separation Insecurity Separation Insecurity 2 Anxiousness
FFSI Social Anxiousness Social Anxiousness 2 Anxiousness
FFBI Fragility/FAVA Overcome/FFBI Helplessness Fragility 3 Vulnerability 5
FFNI Need for Admiration Need for Admiration 2 Vulnerability
FFBI Affective Dysregulation Affective Dysregulation 3 Emotional Lability 6
FFHI Rapidly Shifting Emotions Rapidly Shifting Emotions 3 Emotional Lability
FFBI Dysregulated Anger Dysregulated Anger 2 Anger 6
FFNI Reactive Anger Reactive Anger 2 Anger
EPA Anger Annoyed 2 Anger
FAVA Despair Interpersonal Inadequacy 2 Depressiveness 8
FFBI Despondency Suicidality 2 Depressiveness
FFDI Pessimism Pessimism 2 Depressiveness
FFAvA Despair /FFBI Despondency Worthlessness 2 Depressiveness
FAVA Mortified/FFDI Shamefulness Self-Consciousness 3 Shame 5
FFNI Shame Humiliation 3 Shame
FFSI Interpersonal Suspiciousness/EPA Distrust Distrust 3
Detachment 13
FFSI Social Isolation Social Isolation 2 Social Detachment 4
FFOCI Detached Coldness Coldness 2 Social Detachment
FAVA Joylessness Joylessness 2 Emotional Detachment 6
FFSI Social Anhedonia Social Anhedonia 2 Emotional Detachment
FFSI Physical Anhedonia Physical Anhedonia 2 Emotional Detachment
FFDI Unassertiveness Unassertiveness 3
FFiCD 34

Table 2. FFiCD Anankastia, Dissocial, and Disinhibition.

# #
FFMPD scale FFiCD Nuance Items FFiCD facet Items
Anankastic 22
FFOCI Perfectionism/FFOCI Fastidiousness Fastidiousness 3 Perfectionism 6
FFOCI Punctiliousness Punctiliousness 3 Perfectionism
FFOCI Workaholism Work Preoccupation 3 Workaholism 6
FFOCI Doggedness Doggedness 3 Workaholism
FFOCI Inflexibility/FAVA Rigidity Rigidity 2 Inflexibility 10
FFOCI Ruminative Deliberation Ruminative Deliberation 3 Inflexibility
FFOCI Risk Aversiveness Risk Aversiveness 2 Inflexibility
FFOCI Dogmatism Dogmatism 3 Inflexibility
Dissocial 22
EPA Self-Centeredness Selfishness 2 Self-Centeredness 8
FFNI Entitlement Entitlement 2 Self-Centeredness
FFHI Vanity Vanity 2 Self-Centeredness
EPA Arrogance/FFNI Arrogance Arrogance 2 Self-Centeredness
FFNI Lack of Empathy Lack of Empathy 3 Lack of Empathy 8
FFNI Exploitativeness Exploitativeness 2 Lack of Empathy
FFBI, EPA, and FFNI Manipulativeness Manipulativeness 3 Lack of Empathy
FFBI Oppositionality Physical Aggression 2 Aggression 6
FFBI Oppositionality Verbal Aggression 2 Aggression
EPA Oppositional Passive Aggression 2 Aggression
Disinhibition 24
FFBI Rashness/EPA Rashness Rash Behaviors 3 Rashness 6
FFHI Impressionistic Thinking Rash Thinking 3 Rashness
EPA Impersistence Impersistence 3 Irresponsibility 10
FFDI Negligence Distractibility 3 Irresponsibility
FFDI Ineptitude Ineptitude 2 Irresponsibility
EPA Disobliged Disobliged 2 Irresponsibility
FFHI Disorderly Disorganization 3 Disorderliness 5
FFHI Disorderly Disorganized Speech 2 Disorderliness
EPA Thrill-Seeking Thrill Seeking 3
FFiCD 35

Table 3

Domain-Level 4-Factor EFA of the FFiCD, PiCD, PID-5, and FFM.

NA / AK +
Scale DN DL DT / DN - h2
PID5 N .92 -.02 -.06 .06 .78
PiCD N .86 .02 .11 .16 .86
FFiCD N .86 -.02 .19 .09 .91
FFM N .85 -.19 .11 -.07 .76
FFiCD DN .63 .34 .01 -.32 .85
PID5 DN .52 .43 -.01 -.38 .85
PiCD DL -.03 .96 .01 .07 .87
FFiCD DL -.01 .95 .06 -.01 .91
PiD5 AT .05 .86 -.06 .04 .75
FFM A .24 -.62 -.30 .22 .49
PiCD DN .43 .48 -.04 -.40 .80
PiCD DT .04 .21 .80 .13 .78
FFM E -.01 .41 -.80 .17 .72
FFiCD DT .20 .10 .75 .15 .82
PID5 DT .13 .19 .71 .02 .70
FFiCD AK .23 .13 .13 .82 .74
PiCD AK .11 .01 .11 .82 .70
FFM C -.24 -.08 -.20 .76 .79
Note. FFiCD = Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11, PiCD =
Personality Inventory for ICD-11, PID-5 = Personality Inventory for
DSM-5, FFM = five-factor model, N = neuroticism/negative affectivity,
DL = dissociality, AT = antagonism, DN = disinhibition, A = a
greeableness, C = conscientiousness, AK = anankastia, DT = detachment,
E = extraversion.
FFiCD 36

Table 4. Four-factor Exploratory Factor Analysis of the FFiCD facets with the FFM, PID-5, and
PiCD Domains.
DL / AK + /
Scale NA DN DN - DT h2
FFiCD Vulnerability .90 -.20 .04 .08 .82
PID-5 NA .89 .04 .05 -.08 .75
FFiCD Anxiousness .88 -.19 .11 .08 .80
PiCD NA .85 .08 .14 .08 .85
FFM N .85 -.11 -.08 .07 .76
FFiCD Emotional Lability .79 .19 .00 .01 .76
FFiCD Shamefulness .79 -.08 .18 .12 .73
FFiCD Depressiveness .72 .00 -.03 .21 .71
FFiCD Irresponsibility .64 .23 -.35 .12 .79
FFiCD Unassertiveness .60 -.24 -.04 .23 .51
FFiCD Anger .56 .31 .12 .11 .59
FFiCD Rashness .56 .49 -.18 -.14 .72
FFiCD Disorderliness .55 .29 -.35 -.01 .65
FFiCD Mistrustfulness .48 .33 .16 .20 .58
PiCD DL -.06 .95 .09 .04 .86
FFiCD Lack of Empathy -.07 .90 -.04 .16 .83
FFiCD Self-Centeredness -.03 .88 .07 -.03 .74
PID5 AT -.01 .85 .04 -.02 .70
FFiCD Aggressiveness .06 .84 .01 .04 .74
FFM Agreeableness .25 -.64 .19 -.33 .51
FFiCD Thrill-Seeking .23 .63 -.09 -.18 .54
PiCD DN .42 .55 -.38 -.07 .81
PID5 DN .48 .50 -.36 -.02 .82
PiCD AK .11 -.06 .78 .12 .66
FFiCD Perfectionism .21 .14 .77 .07 .64
FFM C -.27 -.12 .76 -.19 .80
FFiCD Workaholism .05 .28 .75 -.08 .57
FFiCD Inflexibility .31 -.05 .69 .22 .68
FFM E -.10 .43 .19 -.77 .77
PiCD Detachment .11 .21 .13 .76 .78
PID5 Detachment .15 .20 .01 .70 .70
FFiCD Emotional Detachment .06 .36 .06 .68 .69
FFiCD Social Detachment .15 .00 .33 .57 .56
Note. FFiCD = Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11, PiCD = Personality Inventory for ICD-11, PID-5 = Personality
Inventory for DSM-5, FFM = five-factor model, N = neuroticism/negative affectivity, DL = dissociality, DN = disinhibition, A =
agreeableness, C = conscientiousness, AK = anankastia, DT = detachment, E = extraversion.
 FFiCD 37

Table 5. 5-factor EBFA of the FFiCD facets and FFM, PID-5, and PiCD domains

AK + /
g-PD DN - NA DL DT h2
FFM C -.37 .82 -.02 .03 -.15 .82
PiCD AK .17 .76 .07 -.05 .09 .65
FFiCD PRF .36 .69 .01 -.04 .01 .63
FFiCD WRK .27 .69 -.10 .02 -.15 .59
FFiCD FLX .38 .61 .08 -.16 .17 .66
PiCD DN .74 -.56 -.14 -.03 -.17 .91
FFiCD DSR .68 -.50 .02 -.13 -.08 .71
PID5 DN .73 -.48 .08 .11 -.13 .83
FFiCD IRS .74 -.47 .14 -.09 .04 .81
FFiCD RSH .75 -.31 .09 .05 -.23 .73
PID5 NA .67 .01 .64 .04 -.15 .81
FFM N .60 -.09 .62 -.04 .03 .79
PiCD NA .77 .09 .54 .02 .00 .87
FFiCD VLN .61 -.01 .54 -.19 .05 .81
FFiCD ANX .61 .05 .51 -.21 .06 .79
FFiCD EMO .75 -.05 .50 .09 -.07 .78
FFiCD SHM .64 .13 .45 -.13 .08 .72
FFiCD DEP .67 -.08 .40 -.06 .16 .71
FFiCD ANG .71 .09 .35 .19 .02 .60
FFiCD MST .69 .15 .33 .26 .10 .60
FFM A -.31 .10 -.06 -.77 -.24 .69
PID5 AT .55 .04 .01 .63 -.18 .75
FFiCD LOE .62 -.05 -.08 .63 .00 .85
PiCD DL .63 .04 -.14 .58 -.13 .86
FFiCD SC .58 .01 -.15 .50 -.17 .75
FFiCD AGG .66 -.06 -.14 .42 -.10 .73
FFiCD UNA .46 -.12 .20 -.33 .24 .53
FFM E -.11 .11 -.21 .07 -.76 .79
PiCD DT .66 .08 -.19 -.03 .64 .83
PID5 DT .60 .02 .07 .17 .57 .69
FFiCD EDT .66 .02 -.16 .12 .54 .71
FFiCD SDT .44 .30 -.07 -.12 .50 .59
FFiCD TSK .57 -.21 -.12 .16 -.28 .56
Note. FFiCD = Five-Factor Personality Inventory for ICD-11, PiCD =
Personality Inventory for ICD-11, PID-5 = Personality Inventory for
DSM-5, FFM = five-factor model, AK = anankastia, DT = detachment,
DL = dissociality, N = neuroticism/negative affectivity, DN = disinhibition,
A = agreeableness, E = extraversion, C = conscientiousness.

View publication stats