Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T02:00:35.872Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Dysfunctional cognitions in personality pathology: the structure and validity of the Personality Belief Questionnaire

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 September 2011

J. C. Fournier ,
R. J. DeRubeis  and
A. T. Beck
J. C. Fournier*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
R. J. DeRubeis
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
A. T. Beck
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA
*
*Address for correspondence: J. C. Fournier, Ph.D., University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, 3811 O'Hara St., Pittsburgh, PA 15213, USA. (Email: fournierjc@upmc.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background

This study examines the structure of the Personality Belief Questionnaire (PBQ), a self-report instrument designed to assess dysfunctional beliefs associated with personality pathology, as proposed by the cognitive theory of personality dysfunction.

Method

The PBQ was examined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with responses from 438 depressed out-patients, and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) with responses from 683 treatment-seeking psychiatric out-patients. All participants were assessed for personality disorder (PD) using a standard clinical interview. The validity of the resulting factor structure was assessed in the combined sample (n=1121) by examining PBQ scores for patients with and without PD diagnoses.

Results

Exploratory and confirmatory analyses converged to indicate that the PBQ is best described by seven empirically identified factors: six assess dysfunctional beliefs associated with forms of personality pathology recognized in DSM-IV. Validity analyses revealed that those diagnosed with a PD evidenced a higher average score on all factors, relative to those without these disorders. Subsets of patients diagnosed with specific DSM-IV PDs scored higher, on average, on the factor associated with their respective diagnosis, relative to all other factors.

Conclusions

The pattern of results has implications for the conceptualization of personality pathology. To our knowledge, no formal diagnostic or assessment system has yet systematically incorporated the role of dysfunctional beliefs into its description of personality pathology. The identification of dysfunctional beliefs may not only aid in case conceptualization but also may provide unique targets for psychological treatment. Recommendations for future personality pathology assessment systems are provided.

Keywords

Axis IIcognitive theory of personality disorderDSMPersonality Belief Questionnairepersonality disorder
Type
Original Articles
Information
Psychological Medicine , Volume 42 , Issue 4 , April 2012 , pp. 795 - 805
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beck, AT (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: new perspectives. In Treatment of Depression: Old Controversies and New Approaches (ed. Clayton, P. J. and Barrett, J. E.), pp. 265–290. Raven Press: New York.Google Scholar
Beck, AT, Beck, JS (1991). The Personality Belief Questionnaire. The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research: Bala Cynwyd, PA.Google Scholar
Beck, AT, Butler, AC, Brown, GK, Dahlsgaard, KK, Newman, CF, Beck, JS (2001). Dysfunctional beliefs discriminate personality disorders. Behaviour Research and Therapy 39, 1213–1225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beck, AT, Freeman, A (1990). Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders. Guilford Press: New York.Google Scholar
Beck, JS (1998). Complex cognitive therapy treatment for personality disorder patients. Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 62, 170–194.Google ScholarPubMed
Bentler, PM (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin 107, 238–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blatt, SJ, Shahar, G, Zuroff, DC (2001). Anaclitic (sociotropic) and introjective (autonomous) dimensions. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 38, 449–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bornstein, RF (2011). Reconceptualizing personality pathology in DSM-5: limitations in evidence for eliminating dependent personality disorder and other DSM-IV syndromes. Journal of Personality Disorders 25, 235–247.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Butler, AC, Beck, AT, Cohen, LH (2007). The Personality Belief Questionnaire – Short Form: development and preliminary findings. Cognitive Therapy and Research 31, 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, AC, Brown, GK, Beck, AT, Grisham, JR (2002). Assessment of dysfunctional beliefs in borderline personality disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy 40, 1231–1240.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clark, LA (2005). Temperament as a unifying basis for personality and psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology 114, 505–521.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Clarkin, JF, Huprich, SK (2011). Do DSM-5 personality disorder proposals meet criteria for clinical utility? Journal of Personality Disorders 25, 192–205.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa, PT, Patriciu, NS, McCrae, RR (2005). Lessons from longitudinal studies for new approaches to the DSM-V: the FFM and FFT. Journal of Personality Disorders 19, 533–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doyle, TJ, Tsuang, MT, Lyons, MJ (1999). Comorbidity of depressive illnesses and personality disorders. In Comorbidity in Affective Disorders (ed. Tohen, M.), pp. 105–156. Marcel Dekker, Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
First, M, Gibbon, M, Spitzer, R, Williams, J, Benjamin, L (1997). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID-II). American Psychiatric Press, Inc.: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
First, MB, Bell, CC, Cuthbert, BN, Krystal, JH, Malison, R, Offord, DR, Reiss, D, Shea, T, Widiger, TA, Wisner, KL (2002). Personality disorders and relational disorders: a research agenda for addressing crucial gaps in DSM. In A Research Agenda for DSM-V (ed. Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B. and Regier, D. A.), pp. 123–200. American Psychiatric Association Press: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Hamilton, MA (1960). A rating scale for depression. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry 23, 56–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Holgado-Tello, FP, Chacón-Moscoso, S, Barbero-García, I, Vila-Abad, E (2010). Polychoric versus Pearson correlations in exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of ordinal variables. Quality and Quantity 44, 153–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hopwood, CJ, Donnellan, MB (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review 14, 332–346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hu, L-t, Bentler, PM (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling 6, 1–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kendler, K, Kupfer, D, Narrow, W, Phillips, K, Fawcett, J (2009). Guidelines for making changes to DSM-5, revised 21 October 2009 (www.dsm5.org).Google Scholar
Krueger, RF, Eaton, NR, Clark, LA, Watson, D, Markon, KE, Derringer, J, Skodol, A, Livesley, WJ (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders 25, 170–191.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livesley, WJ, Jackson, DN (1992). Guidelines for developing, evaluating, and revising the classification of personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease 180, 609–618.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Livesley, WJ, Jang, KL (2000). Toward an empirically based classification of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders 14, 137–151.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marsh, HW, Hau, K-T, Wen, Z (2004). In search of golden rules: comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler's (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling 11, 320–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Millon, T, Davis, RO (1996). Disorders of Personality: DSM-IV and Beyond. John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: New York.Google Scholar
Mischel, W, Shoda, Y (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review 102, 246–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muthén, LK, Muthén, BO (2009). Mplus: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables. User's Guide. Muthén & Muthén: Los Angeles, CA.Google Scholar
Shedler, J, Beck, A, Fonagy, P, Gabbard, GO, Gunderson, J, Kernberg, O, Michels, R, Westen, D (2010). Personality disorders in DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry 167, 1026–1028.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Skodol, AE, Bender, DS, Morey, LC, Clark, LA, Oldham, JM, Alarcon, RD, Krueger, RF, Verheul, R, Bell, CC, Siever, LJ (2011). Personality disorder types proposed for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders 25, 136–169.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Spitzer, RL, Williams, JBW, Gibbon, M, First, MB (1990). The Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Axis II Disorders (SCID-II). American Psychiatric Press, Inc.: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Steiger, JH, Lind, JM (1980). Statistically based tests for the number of common factors. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Psychometric Society, Iowa City, IA.Google Scholar
Trull, TJ, Goodwin, AH, Schopp, LH, Hillenbrand, TL, Schuster, T (1993). Psychometric properties of a cognitive measure of personality disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment 61, 536–546.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tucker, LR, Lewis, C (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika 38, 1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verheul, R, Widiger, TA (2004). A meta-analysis of the prevalence and usage of the personality disorder not otherwise specified (PDNOS) diagnosis. Journal of Personality Disorders 18, 309–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Westen, D (1995). A clinical-empirical model of personality: life after the Mischelian ice age and the NEO-lithic era. Journal of Personality 63, 495–524.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Westen, D, Shedler, J (2000). A prototype matching approach to diagnosing personality disorders: toward DSM-V. Journal of Personality Disorders 14, 109–126.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, TA, Clark, LA (2000). Toward DSM-V and the classification of psychopathology. Psychological Bulletin 126, 946–963.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Widiger, TA, Simonsen, E (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders 19, 110–130.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yates, A (1987). Multivariate Exploratory Data Analysis: A Perspective on Exploratory Factor Analysis. State University of New York Press: Albany.Google Scholar