Empirical evidence for a four factor framework of personality disorder organization: multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III personality disorder scales across Belgian and Danish data samples.
The factor structure of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006) personality disorder scales was analyzed using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis on data obtained from a Danish (N = 2030) and a Belgian (N = 1210) sample. Two-, three-, and four factor models, a priori specified using structures found by Dyce, O'Connor, Parkins, and Janzen (1997), were fitted to the data. The best fitting model was a four factor structure (RMSEA = .066, GFI = .98, CFI = .93) with partially invariant factor loadings. The robustness of this four-factor model clearly supports the efforts to organize future personality disorder description in a four-factor framework by corroborating four domains that were predominant in dimensional models (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005): Factor 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively corresponded to emotional dysregulation versus stability, antagonism versus compliance, extraversion versus introversion, and constraint versus impulsivity.
Dysfunction in affect regulation is a prominent feature that grossly impairs behavioural and interpersonal domains of experience and underlies a great deal of the psychopathology in borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, no study has yet been published that evaluates the psychometric properties of the translated Danish version of self-report measures sensitive to the different aspects and dimensions of dysfunction in affect regulation prevalent in BPD.
This study comprised a group of women diagnosed with BPD (n = 29) and a comparison group of healthy subjects (n = 29) who reported psychopathology and levels of affective instability, aggression, impulsivity and alexithymia by self-report measures.
Our results demonstrated that women with BPD have significant psychopathology and report significantly higher levels of dysfunction in separate components of affect regulation by self-report measures than the comparison group of healthy subjects. Our results also provided partial support for the psychometric appropriateness and clinical relevance of the translated Danish version of affect regulation measures.
The normative reference range indicated by our results makes the measures useful as a practical assessment tool.