This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2012. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead section should summarize the rest of the article. There should probably be a sentence describing the different models (FFM, 7, 2) with a brief synopsis of each. Is the two factor model related to this - Two-factor models of personality? If so, there could be a link to that page in the two factor section. Gobōnobo + c 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You should add some sourced criticism to the article to keep it balanced. It seems to be coming along nicely...if you have any questions feel free to ask. Smallman12q ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In the lede, dimensions (a key word used in the title of the article is piped to Degrees of freedom (statistics)? Can someone explain what is meant by this? (The name of the article is Dimensional models of personality disorders - can this be translated to Degrees of freedom models of personality disorders?
Since this article is about the Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders, shouldn't the article be renamed to reflect this? MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggest name change to Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders since is what almost all of the article is about. MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
"the work group has recommended a significant reformulation of the approach to the assessment and diagnosis of personality psychopathology, including the proposal of a revised general category of personality disorder, and the provision for clinicians to rate dimensions of personality traits, a limited set of personality types, and the overall severity of personality dysfunction. Accordingly, the structure of this section of the Web site is necessarily somewhat different from those of the other disorders." [1]
Changes to the Reformulation of Personality Disorders for DSM-5 (Updated January 21, 2011)
A hybrid dimensional-categorical model for personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis has been proposed for DSM-5 field testing. Since its original posting on the APA’s DSM-5 Web site in February of 2010, the model has been simplified and streamlined in response to comments received and to critiques in the published literature.
In its current iteration, ratings from three assessments combine to comprise the essential criteria for a personality disorder:
(1) A rating of mild impairment or greater on the Levels of Personality Functioning (criterion A),
(2) A rating of
(a) a “good match” or “very good match” to a Personality Disorder Type or
(b) “quite a bit” or “extremely” descriptive on one or more of six Personality Trait Domains (criterion B).
(3) Diagnosis also requires relative stability of (1) and (2) across time and situations, and excludes culturally normative personality features and those due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition. [1]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The conflict of interest for this article exists because a requirement of the course is to submit an article for WP:DYK. Wikipedia is NOT compulsory but this creates a situation where such editing and certain activities are required. Thus, it creates an inherent conflict. Unless the editors are no longer required to participate in this article as part of their coursework, then there is COI editing going on because it isn't about the topic but about meeting course requirements which makes Wikipedia the secondary interest for the editor. -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have re-included the conflict of interest tag back in the article. Please do not remove it again unless this article is no longer being used to assess student work. I would be content with its removal if I could have a copy of the course syllabus, course objectives and clear instructions on how student will be assessed for their work on this article where the assessment makes clear the primary goal is to be in compliance with Wikipedia editing guidelines and improve Wikipedia. There was no consensus to remove the tag. Ambassadors and others involved with the class are likely engaging in WP:MEATPUPPETRY so please stop. -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Hi Allexe11, nice expansion on the FFM section! I think it actually helped me better understand McCrae et al.'s (2005) article about cataloging personality-related problems. I copy-edited the first paragraph in your Usage section; I just fixed minor grammatical things and broke up the longer sentences. A few suggestions:
Over all, nice work! Linp11 ( talk) 20:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I added some more wikilinks to pages. Since I'm not very familiar with this topic, I added a wikilink to a lot of things I didn't completely understand and assumed that others wouldn't understand either. I think it's well written.
Paris (2007) might be another great source to get information about criticisms of FFM for the diagnosis of BPD. That might be too narrow for this article, but it might be a good place for an example in your article.
I also thought the Lead is well written and helped me understand the rest of the article better.
Desasu11 (
talk)
16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Merging with Trait theory would commingle two related, but distinct topics. Merging with Two-factor_models_of_personality#Other_Factor_pairs would amount to an artificial admixture of two divergent fields, viz., psychopathology and personality types.
On the other hand, incorporating a discussion of dimensional models of personality disorders into the personality disorders article seems a much more harmonious integration. Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dimensional models of personality disorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 25 April 2012. The result of the discussion was Keep. |
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Wake Forest University supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.
Above message substituted from {{WAP assignment}}
on 14:18, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
The lead section should summarize the rest of the article. There should probably be a sentence describing the different models (FFM, 7, 2) with a brief synopsis of each. Is the two factor model related to this - Two-factor models of personality? If so, there could be a link to that page in the two factor section. Gobōnobo + c 22:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You should add some sourced criticism to the article to keep it balanced. It seems to be coming along nicely...if you have any questions feel free to ask. Smallman12q ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In the lede, dimensions (a key word used in the title of the article is piped to Degrees of freedom (statistics)? Can someone explain what is meant by this? (The name of the article is Dimensional models of personality disorders - can this be translated to Degrees of freedom models of personality disorders?
Since this article is about the Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders, shouldn't the article be renamed to reflect this? MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Suggest name change to Big Five Dimensional models of personality disorders since is what almost all of the article is about. MathewTownsend ( talk) 14:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
"the work group has recommended a significant reformulation of the approach to the assessment and diagnosis of personality psychopathology, including the proposal of a revised general category of personality disorder, and the provision for clinicians to rate dimensions of personality traits, a limited set of personality types, and the overall severity of personality dysfunction. Accordingly, the structure of this section of the Web site is necessarily somewhat different from those of the other disorders." [1]
Changes to the Reformulation of Personality Disorders for DSM-5 (Updated January 21, 2011)
A hybrid dimensional-categorical model for personality and personality disorder assessment and diagnosis has been proposed for DSM-5 field testing. Since its original posting on the APA’s DSM-5 Web site in February of 2010, the model has been simplified and streamlined in response to comments received and to critiques in the published literature.
In its current iteration, ratings from three assessments combine to comprise the essential criteria for a personality disorder:
(1) A rating of mild impairment or greater on the Levels of Personality Functioning (criterion A),
(2) A rating of
(a) a “good match” or “very good match” to a Personality Disorder Type or
(b) “quite a bit” or “extremely” descriptive on one or more of six Personality Trait Domains (criterion B).
(3) Diagnosis also requires relative stability of (1) and (2) across time and situations, and excludes culturally normative personality features and those due to the direct physiological effects of a substance or a general medical condition. [1]
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
MathewTownsend ( talk) 16:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
The conflict of interest for this article exists because a requirement of the course is to submit an article for WP:DYK. Wikipedia is NOT compulsory but this creates a situation where such editing and certain activities are required. Thus, it creates an inherent conflict. Unless the editors are no longer required to participate in this article as part of their coursework, then there is COI editing going on because it isn't about the topic but about meeting course requirements which makes Wikipedia the secondary interest for the editor. -- LauraHale ( talk) 11:57, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I have re-included the conflict of interest tag back in the article. Please do not remove it again unless this article is no longer being used to assess student work. I would be content with its removal if I could have a copy of the course syllabus, course objectives and clear instructions on how student will be assessed for their work on this article where the assessment makes clear the primary goal is to be in compliance with Wikipedia editing guidelines and improve Wikipedia. There was no consensus to remove the tag. Ambassadors and others involved with the class are likely engaging in WP:MEATPUPPETRY so please stop. -- LauraHale ( talk) 00:15, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
Hi Allexe11, nice expansion on the FFM section! I think it actually helped me better understand McCrae et al.'s (2005) article about cataloging personality-related problems. I copy-edited the first paragraph in your Usage section; I just fixed minor grammatical things and broke up the longer sentences. A few suggestions:
Over all, nice work! Linp11 ( talk) 20:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
I added some more wikilinks to pages. Since I'm not very familiar with this topic, I added a wikilink to a lot of things I didn't completely understand and assumed that others wouldn't understand either. I think it's well written.
Paris (2007) might be another great source to get information about criticisms of FFM for the diagnosis of BPD. That might be too narrow for this article, but it might be a good place for an example in your article.
I also thought the Lead is well written and helped me understand the rest of the article better.
Desasu11 (
talk)
16:26, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Merging with Trait theory would commingle two related, but distinct topics. Merging with Two-factor_models_of_personality#Other_Factor_pairs would amount to an artificial admixture of two divergent fields, viz., psychopathology and personality types.
On the other hand, incorporating a discussion of dimensional models of personality disorders into the personality disorders article seems a much more harmonious integration. Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:19, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Dimensional models of personality disorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:46, 13 December 2016 (UTC)