Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Development and Initial Validation of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality Brief Other-Description Rating Form (SNAP-BORF)

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The full-length Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality - 2nd Edition (SNAP-2, Clark et al. 2014) and various derivative versions were developed as measures of normal- and pathological-range personality traits. We report herein on the development and initial validation of the SNAP Brief Other-Description Rating Form (SNAP-BORF), an abbreviated version of the SNAP Other-Description Rating Form (ORF; Harlan and Clark Assessment, 6, 131–145, 1999). Our goal was to create a more efficient SNAP informant short form by making items more succinct rather than by eliminating items. SNAP-ORF word count was reduced by 68%, and the 1.5-page SNAP-BORF can be completed in approximately 10 min, one-third to one-half the time required to complete the SNAP-ORF. Mean-level differences between the SNAP-ORF and SNAP-BORF scales were negligible for all scales except propriety. Using exploratory factor analysis, we found the SNAP-BORF had a three-factor structure (NA vs. Low PA, Disinhibition vs. Constraint, and Antagonism) broadly consistent with extant literature. The SNAP-BORF showed good convergent/ discriminant validity with respect to the SNAP-family measures as well as measures of normal personality and symptoms of depression, anxiety, and worry. Results indicated that the SNAP-BORF is a useful measure when a very brief informant assessment of adaptive and maladaptive personality is needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The difference between the SNAP and SNAP-2 is only in the diagnostic and validity scales. The temperament and personality trait scales of the instruments are identical. Because the SNAP-ORF assesses only the temperament and personality traits, we do not distinguish between the two “parent” measures, except where necessary, and hereafter refer to the full measure simply as the SNAP.

References

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorder (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A. T., Epstein, N., Brown, G., & Steer, R. A. (1988). An inventory for measuring clinical anxiety: Psychometric properties. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56, 893–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.56.6.893.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A.T. & Steer, R.A. (1993a). Manual for the Beck Depression Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

  • Beck, A.T. & Steer, R.A. (1993b). Manual for the Beck Anxiety Inventory. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

  • Beer, A., Watson, D., & McDade-Montez, E. (2013). Self–other agreement and assumed similarity in neuroticism, extraversion, and trait affect: Distinguishing the effects of form and content. Assessment, 20(6), 723–737. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113500521.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bornstein, R. F. (1993). The dependent personality. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 111–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Calabrese, W. R., Rudick, M. M., Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2012). Development and validation of big four personality scales for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality—Second edition (SNAP-2). Psychological Assessment, 24(3), 751–763. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026915.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait- multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., & Hemsley, S. (2009). Outcome rating scale and session rating scale in psychological practice: Clinical utility of ultra-brief measures. Clinical Psychologist, 13, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13284200802676391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chmielewski, M., & Watson, D. (2009). What is being assessed and why it matters: The impact of transient error on trait research. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 186–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015618.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Churchill, G. A., Jr., & Peter, J. P. (1984). Research design effects on the reliability of rating scales: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 21, 360–375. https://doi.org/10.2307/3151463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A. (1993). SNAP (schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A. (2005). Stability and change in personality pathology: Revelations of three longitudinal studies. Invited commentary, Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.5.524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (2014). Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive Personality-2 (SNAP-2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., Vanderbleek, E., Shapiro, J., Nuzum, H., Allen, X., Daly, E., Kingsbury, T., Oiler, M., & Ro, E. (2015). The brave new world of personality disorder-trait specified: Effects of additional definitions on prevalence and comorbidity. Psychopathology Review, 2(1), 52–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). Tripartite model of anxiety and depression: Psychometric evidence and taxonomic implications. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 316–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2008). Temperament: An organizing paradigm for trait psychology. In O. P. John, R. W., Robins, & L. A. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, 3 rd ed., (pp. 265–286). New York: Guilford Press.

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). An other perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration of observers' accuracy and predictive validity. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 1092–1122. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021212.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Costa, P. T. Jr. & McCrae, R.R. (1985). NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

  • Costa, P. T. Jr & McCrae, R.R. (1989). The NEO-PI/NEO FFI manual supplement. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

  • Eaton, N. R., Krueger, R. F., South, S. C., Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2011). Contrasting prototypes and dimensions in the classification of personality pathology: Evidence that dimensions, but not prototypes, are robust. Psychological Medicine, 41, 1151–1163. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291710001650.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, J. E. (1983). Factor comparability as a means of determining the number of factors and their rotation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 18(2), 197–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Everett, J. E., & Entrekin, L. V. (1980). Factor comparability and the advantages of multiple group factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 15(2), 165–180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eysenck, H. J. (1967). The biological basis of personality. Thomas: Springfield, Ill.

  • Finn, S. E. (1986). Structural stability of the MMPI in adult males. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54(5), 703–707.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Funder, D. C. (2012). Accurate personality judgment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 21, 177–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721412445309.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Furnham, A., Strait, L., & Hughes, D. J. (2012). Modern health worries and personality. Personality and Mental Health, 6, 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galione, J. N., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2013). Identifying personality pathology associated with major depressive episodes: Incremental validity of informant reports. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2013.825624.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Gamez, W., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B. N. (2007). Abnormal personality and the mood and anxiety disorders: Implications for structural models of anxiety and depression. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 21, 526–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.08.003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gurven, M., von Rueden, C., Massenkoff, M., Kaplan, H., & Lero Vie, M. (2013). How universal is the big five? Testing the five-factor model of personality variation among forager–farmers in the Bolivian amazon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 354–370. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030841.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hamby, T., & Ickes, W. (2015). Do the readability and average item length of personality scales affect their reliability?: Some meta-analytic answers. Journal of Individual Differences, 36, 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harlan, E., & Clark, L. A. (1999). Short forms of the schedule for non-adaptive and adaptive personality (SNAP) for self- and collateral ratings: Development, reliability, and validity. Assessment, 6, 131–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harman, H. H. (1960). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310361240.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kaurin, A., Sauerberger, K. S., & Funder, D. C. (2018). Associations between informant ratings of personality disorder traits, self-reports of personality, and directly observed behavior. Journal of Personality, 86, 1078–1101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klonsky, E. D., Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2002). Informant-reports of personality disorder: Relation to self-reports and future research directions. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 9, 300–311. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/9.3.300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koerner, N., Mejia, T., & Kusec, A. (2017). What’s in a name? Intolerance of uncertainty, other uncertainty-relevant constructs, and their differential relations to worry and generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, 46, 141–161. https://doi.org/10.1080/16506073.2016.1211172.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kotelnikova, Y., Clark, L. A., Vernon, P. A., & Hayden, E. P. (2015). Development and validation of the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality brief self-description rating form (SNAP-BSRF). Assessment, 22, 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114534959.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, R. F., & Tackett, J. L. (2005). Progress and innovation: Personality disorders and the vanguard of psychopathology research. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 540–546. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2005.19.5.540.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Linde, J. A. (2002). Validation of the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality-youth version (SNAP-Y): Self and parent ratings of adolescent personality (Order No. AAI3034123). Available from PsycINFO. (619969153; 2002–95012-180).

  • Linde, J. A., Stringer, D., Simms, L. J., & Clark, L. A. (2013). The schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality for youth (SNAP-Y): A new measure for assessing adolescent personality and personality pathology. Assessment, 20, 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113489847.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malatras, J. W., & Israel, A. C. (2013). The influence of family stability on self-control and adjustment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(7), 661–670. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21935.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D. (2005). Delineating the structure of normal and abnormal personality: An integrative hierarchical approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 139–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.88.1.139.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Lüdtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., & Trautwein, U. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Application to students' evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling, 16, 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.5.509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, T. J., Miller, M. L., Metzger, R. L., & Borkovec, T. D. (1990). Development and validation of the Penn State worry questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 28, 487–495.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., McCain, J. L., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Widiger, T. A., & Campbell, W. K. (2016). Thinking structurally about narcissism: An examination of the five-factor narcissism inventory and its components. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_177.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mineka, S., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1998). Comorbidity of anxiety and unipolar mood disorders. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 377–412. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (2003). Measuring personality and psychopathology. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Research methods in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 377–405). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

  • Morey, L. C., Warner, M. B., Shea, M. T., Gunderson, J. G., Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C., . . . & McGlashan, T. H. (2003). The representation of four personality disorders by the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality dimensional model of personality. Psychological Assessment, 15(3), 326–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, T. A., & Clark, L. A. (2010). Passive-submissive and active-emotional trait dependency: Evidence for a two-factor model. Journal of Personality, 78, 1325–1352.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Nuzum, H., Ready, R. E., & Clark, L. A. (2019, in press). Self- versus other-ratings of personality: A structural comparison. Psychological Assessment.

  • O'Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer's MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instrumentation, and Computers, 32, 396–402.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O'Connor, B. P. (2005). A search for consensus on the dimensional structure of personality disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 323–345. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2006). Perceptions of self and others regarding pathological personality traits. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pincus, A. L., & Gurtman, M. B. (1995). The three faces of interpersonal dependency structural analysis of self-report dependency measures. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 69, 744–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pincus, A. L., & Wilson, K. R. (2001). Interpersonal variability in dependent personality. Journal of Personality, 69, 223–251.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. E., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Correspondence of psychiatric patient and informant ranges of personality traits, temperament, and interpersonal problems. Psychological Assessment, 14, 39–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ready, R. E., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Westerhouse, K. (2000). Self- and peer-related personality: Agreement, trait ratability, and the “self-based heuristic”. Journal of Research in Personality, 34, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1999.2280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00142.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ro, E., Stringer, D., & Clark, L. A. (2012). The schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality: A useful tool for diagnosis and classification of personality disorder. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199735013.013.0004.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, D. B. (2011). Assessing personality in the DSM–5: The utility of bipolar constructs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 390–397. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.577476.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationsh0069ps between the five-factor model and the DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet-level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2002.09.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Schoenleber, M., Chow, P. I., & Berenbaum, H. (2014). Self-conscious emotions in worry and generalized anxiety disorder. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(3), 299–314. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjc.12047.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Skodol, A. E. (2012). Personality disorders in DSM-5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 317–344. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032511-143131.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Spain, J. S., Eaton, L. G., & Funder, D. C. (2000). Perspectives on personality: The relative accuracy of self versus others for the prediction of emotion and behavior. Journal of Personality, 68, 837–867. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00118.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the multidimensional personality questionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and testing: Vol. II. Personality measurement and assessment (pp. 261–292). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Troister, T., D'Agata, M. T., & Holden, R. R. (2015). Suicide risk screening: Comparing the Beck depression inventory-II, Beck hopelessness scale, and Psychache scale in undergraduates. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1500–1506. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000126.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Van den Broek, J., Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Dierckx, E., De Clercq, B., & Hofmans, J. (2014). Hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits in older adults: Join factor analysis of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: II. Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. Journal of Personality, 76(6), 1485–1522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., Livesley, W. J., & Clark, L. A. (2009). An integrative dimensional classification of personality disorder. Psychological Assessment, 21(3), 243–255. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016606.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Westerhouse, K. C. (2002). Development and validation of the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality: Collateral report version (SNAP-CRV). Unpublished Dissertation.

  • Wink, P. (1991). Two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.4.590.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Western University, London, ON, Canada

    Yuliya Kotelnikova & Elizabeth P. Hayden

  2. Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, 390 Corbett Family Hall, Notre Dame, IN, 46556, USA

    Yuliya Kotelnikova & Lee Anna Clark

Authors
  1. Yuliya Kotelnikova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lee Anna Clark
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth P. Hayden
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuliya Kotelnikova.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Lee Anna Clark is the author and copyright owner of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality-2nd Edition (SNAP-2) and all derivative measures. Fees for commercial and funded, non-commercial usage licenses support student research; unfunded, non-commercial research and clinical usage licenses are free of charge. Yuliya Kotelnikova and Elizabeth P. Hayden declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Experiment Participants

All procedures were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Ethical Approval

The study protocol was approved by the internal institutional research ethics committee.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all primary participants and their informants who participated in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 43 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kotelnikova, Y., Clark, L.A. & Hayden, E.P. Development and Initial Validation of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality Brief Other-Description Rating Form (SNAP-BORF). J Psychopathol Behav Assess 41, 470–484 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09729-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-019-09729-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation