allied te disteminaed boa 5 B 2 ¥ BENG ie rove ssoaann mean apt Representing Schizotypal Thinking With Dimensional Traits: A Case for the Five Factor Schizotypal Inventory Erin L. Moorman and Douglas B. Samuel Purdue University Building on suppor forthe five. factor model (FFM) of personality disorder, the Five Factor Schizotypal Inventory (FES) was developed to assess maladaptive tis rlevant to schizotypal personality disorder While the development ofthe FFSL supports a continuity between schizotypal inking and perception (STAP) and the FPM domain of Opens to Experience, other studies sbow inconsistent figs concerning the stength of this relationship. The current study evaluates these relationships by invest tating specific components of short-form of the FFSI (¢2. the FFSI-SP) and 2 cthor measures of ‘maladaptive traits withthe lower ardcr components within commonly employed measures of Opeaness to Experience. Nomological network similarities were evaluated for the elation ofthese scales with series of concepualy relevant variables including inelligenes, creativity, and positive schizotypy in a sample of 403 underprauates,inctuing 102 that were presereened fr elevated symptoms of schizotypal personality disorder (PD), Those analyses eevealed stone relations arose the 3 meastes of tats relevant STAP, supporting th validity ofthe FFSE-SE. Most nolaly, 2 specific scales Muli mensional Personality Questionaire (MPQ) Absorption and Openness wo Fantasy appeared 0 Dest ‘ape the core variance aros hese measures. Furthermore, «nuanced paler of relations SuBgesed that specitie components of STAP Ce. oddity and fantasy pronenes) matched closely wth components ‘oF Openness to Experience, The sills provide adional sop for view ha schizotypal thinking can be well captured by personality dimensions tal run continuously across norm aad pathological lvls Public Significance Statement ‘This study advanes the hypoess that aspets of schizotypy, incding ed eles and beavis, se indeed linked slong the same dimeasion as Openaess to Expesicace fom ponoral personality. “This suponts the ia tat personality disemdors can be understood as miadaptive expressions of normal personality nis and provides more evidence supporing lure changes tothe definition of personality disorders. ‘Kewonts: personaly disorder, sehizotypy. Openness to Experience, FFM Supplemental materia: bp. do.or/10.1037/pas0000857 supp Dimensional models of personality pathology appear to he the future of PD diagnosis. These models assume that PD differs from normality by degree rather than kind, and call for PD to be Eultor’s Note. R. Michael Baghy, Associate Fite, was solely respon sible forthe handling ofthis atte. Erin L. Mooman and Douglas B. Samuel, Departeat of Psychological Sciences, Pure University Erin L. Moorman i now atthe Division of Behavioral Medicine and Clinical Psychology, Ciacinnati Children's Hospital Medical Cote, Ci inal. Ohio, “This esearch was completed as part of te Research Focused Honors Program within the Department of Paychocal Sciences at Pardue Uni- versity and vas partially funded by the Purdve Univesity Psychological Sciences Undergraduate Reseach Fund, ‘Corspondonce concerning this arte shoul be addessd lo Dough B. ‘Samuel, Deparment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue Univesity, 703 Eas ‘Thi set, West Lalayete, IN 47906, E-mail chsamiel@pundueeds diagnosed, at least partially, based on maladaptive trait dimen- sions. For example, within this framework, the traditional con: ‘uct of borderline PD is defined by maladaptively high levels of [Neuroticism, such as emotional lability, angry hosiiy. vulnera- bility, and urgency while narcissistic PD is conceptualized by clevated aspects of antagonism, such as grandiosity, manipulative ress, and decetfulness (Samuel etal, 2012). A large literature ‘over the past two decades has supported the dimensional concep: twalization, broadly, and the use of the FFM, specifically, to conceptualize PD (Widiger & Trull, 2007) ‘A number of measures have been developed to more clearly articulate the maladaptive variants of FFM traits (Widiger, Lynam, Miller, & Oltmanns, 2012). One such measure is the FFSI (Ed- mundson, Lynam, Mille, Gore, and Widiger, 2011). Edmundson tal, 2011) used the FFM facets as outlined by Costa and McCrae (1992) as a framework to create this measure of tats relevant to schizotypal PD (STPD). It includes nine subscales corresponding to facets across the domains of Openness to Experience, Extraver sion, Neuroticism, and Agrecableness. Specifically, itis comprised fof thee subscales assessing facets reflecting. Low Extraversionallied te disteminaed boa 5 B 2 ¥ 20 MOORMAN AND SAMUEL (Social Anhdonia, Social Isolation and Withdrawal, and Physical Anhedonia), two subscales from Neueoticism (Social Anxiousnoss and Social Discomfort), one subscale evaluating low Agreeable- tess (Intexpersonal Suspiciousness) and three subscales reflecting ‘muladaptively high Openness to Experience (Aberrant Percep- tions, Odd and Eccentric, and Aberrant Ideas). The FFSE bis demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity with other ‘measures of the FFM as well as incremental validity beyond existing measures of schizotypy (Crego & Widiger, 2016; Bd- ‘mundson etal, 2011). ‘The development of the PFSI is noteworthy as specific eampo- ‘nents of STPD have been the least consistently supported aspect of the FFM of PD (Piedmont, Sherman, & Sherman, 2012: Widiger & Trull, 2007). Evidence has convincingly demonstrated that schizotypy is heterogeneous construct. At the broadest level, it can be sorted into negative and positive schizotypy (Kapil Barrantes-Vidal, & Silvia, 2008), although finer distinetions have. also been offered. Chmielewski and Watson (2008) specified the five latent dimensions of Social Anhedonia, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Social Anxiety, Mistrust, and Eccentricty/Oddity. ‘There hs been robust support for links between Social Anhedonis and low Extraversion, Social Anxiousness with elevated Neuroti- cism and low Extraversion, as well as Suspiciousness with ele- ‘vated Neuroticism and low Agrecableness (eg., Samuel & Widi- ser, 2008). Nonetheless, the Oddty/Bccentricity as well as the Unusual Belisfs and Experiences have been less consistently linked with the FEM (Chmielewski & Watson, 2008). We note here that in the present paper we use the term STAP to encompass the unusual beliefs and perceptual experiences, and oddeccentric lbchaviors that are part of STPD. Thus, & central question for the Field is the ability of dimensional traits to aecount for STAP. ‘Within the FFM, these characteristis are understood 38 mala tive levels of Openness to Experience. Many studies have investigated the link between STAP and Openness to Experience but findings have varied considerably (Chiiclewski, Bagby, Marken, Ring, & Ryder. 2014; Piedmont et al, 2012). For example, Miller and Tal (2007) established a significant relationship whereas Chmiclewski and colleagues 2014) found a strong correlation only after “unique specific variance within Openness to experience and intellect” were taken into consideration. Still other studies suggested that the oddity! peculiarty—but not the cognitivefperceptual—aspoets of schizo {ypy fit within Openness to Experience (Ashton, Lec, de Vries Hendriekse, & Born, 2012). A variety of potential explanations hhave been offered for the inconsistent results, hut most focus on hhow the constructs are conceptualized and assessed across com- monly employed measures. These issues inelude differences across ‘markers of the Openness to Experience domain (Hagler & Widi- ‘ger, 2001), discrepant relations among the facets and aspects of Openness to Experience (Chmielewski et al, 2014; DeYoung. Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012), as well as across assessments of STAP (Piedmont etal, 2012). Given the variation across existing measures, the current study goes beyond the prior literature 10 ‘compare multiple alternative measures of each construct includ inga shortened form of the PFSI-to determine how closely linked are the consticts of Openness to Experience and STAP. Within, this framework, the FFSI-SF is uniquely positioned as it includes scales designed explicitly t0 assess maladaptive Openness {0 Ex perience and capture STAP. Alternative Conceptualizations of STAP InadAiion to the FFSESF, the Personality Inventory for DSM-S (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) and the Computerized Adaptive Test for Personality Disorder (CAT-PD: Simms, Goldberg, Watson, Roberts & Welte,2013) are ‘wo recently developed measures that include maladaptive tits relevant to STAP, The PID-5 was developed through the DSM-S process and helped to delineate the dimensional trait model in the DSM Section Il. The PID-S includes 25 scales that sort into five higher-order domains labeled Negative Affecivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism (Krueger et al 2012). The CAT-PD emerged from a National Institute of Mental Health-funded project that emplayed an iterative Item-Response ‘Theory-based approach to develop a maladaptive personality trait ‘measure. Although its independent structure has not yet been Formally examined, the CAT-PD has been conceptually sored into five higher order domains that have been labeled Negative Emo: tionality, Detachment, Antagonism, (Dis)consteaint, and Psyehoti- cism (Simms et al, 2013). Within both measures, the relevant domain for capturing STAP is labeled Psychotiism, which in cludes traits such as eccentricity, fantasy proneness, unusual be~ lief, peculiarity, and perceptual dysregulation. A central point of ‘comparison inthis study was the degree to which the assessment ‘of STAP within the FESL-SF, the PID-S, and the CAT-PD over lapped with each other as well as with Openness to Experience. Four of the domains from the PID-S/CAT-PD have repeatedly converged strongly with the FEM, as evidenced by correlations of ‘50 and higher between the domains. In contrast, the link between ‘Openness to Experience and Psychoticism has been variable across. ‘Studies, with correlation coeiciens elser to 15 (Chmiclewski et Al, 2014; Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock, & Bagby, 2013; ‘Watson, Stasik, Ro, & Clark, 2013), Within joint structural anal xyses, Openness to Experience and Psyehoticism generally have loaded on the same factor (Gore & Widiger, 2013; Griffin & ‘Samuel, 2014; Thomas etal, 2013). Nonetheless, even in studies ‘where Openness to Experience and Psychoticism shared a factor, the alignment remained considerably weaker than the other do- ‘mains (De Fruyt etal. 2013; Wright & Simms, 2014), Variation Among Components of Openness to Experience [As noted above, one major source of this inconsistent correla tion with STAP appears to be meaningful variation within the lower-level traits that comprise the Openness to Experience do- main, In addition to the facet of Fantasy, which typically displays the strongest link (Suzuki, Samuel, Pablen, & Krueger, 2015), studies have shown that Openness to Ideas and Aesthetics also appear to share greater variance with PID-S Paychoticism (Chmiclewski et al., 2014; Suzuki, Griffin, & Samuel, 2017). However, one limitation of that literature isthe focus solely on the ‘observed correlations between scores on Openness to Experience and measures of STAP. Suruki etal. 2017) took a step beyond correlations and investigated the similarity between the nomolog- ical networks of tats from the PID-S and NEO PLR. Scores from those two measures were correlated with a number of criterion Yariables tha relate to general personality such as social function- ing, dating frequency, speeding tickets, and artistic involvementte disteminaed boa This aril is imended sole forthe personal use ofthe individual user and sn DIMENSIONAL TRAITS FOR SCHIZOTYPAL THINKING 2 (ie. Paunonen & Ashton, 2001), Construct validity effect size estimates known as ralerting coefTicients (Westen & Rosentha 2003) were then calculated to index the degree of similarity between the relevant domains. Bach ralerting value is a corres tion between two components: (a) the measure and the variables correlated with that measure, and (b) the actual obtained pattem of correlations, Original values were Fisherized prior to correlation to correct for the aonnormality of correlation coefficients. Although there was minimal similarity between the networks for Openness to Experience and Psychoticsm, Suzuki and colleagues (2017) roted that this masked important differences amiong lower-level components. For example, the Openness to Experience facets of Fantasy and Aesthetics achieved strong similarity coefficients with the PID-S Peychoticism facets (particularly Bocentcit) Fjrinecw = (67 with Openness to Fantasy), while oer facets such as Openness Feelings actully achieved modest negative similarity values (ea, —46 with Bocenircity), mn addition the facets of the NEO PE-R, Suruki and colleagues also probed an alternative division of the domain, DeYoung. (Quilty and Peterson (2007) suggested that cach FFM domain can be sorted into two intermediate Ievel aspects. For the fifth domi, these are labeled Intellect and Openness (or culture), These aspects have been confirmed by independent research groups with Intellect referring to “openness 10 new intellectual engagements,” and Openness characterized by “openness to aesthetic, cultural, and self-transformation experiences” (Woo et al., 2014). Likewise, DeYoung and colleagues (2007) identified Intellect as perceived imteltigence and intellectual engagement with semantic and ab- Stract information whereas the Openness aspect was characterized bby engagement with perceptual or sensory information, principally ‘lating to aesthetic interests and Fantasy proneness. These distinc ‘ions appear particularly meaningful to STAP as DeYoung et al. (2012) argued thatthe two aspeets form a paradoxical simplex such that Openness is positively related schizotypy whereas Intellect is negatively linked. This suggestion was supported by the results from Suzuki etal. 2017), which found that the Openness aspect obtained a Frigg Value of 63 with Psychoticisn, while the value for the Intellect spect was —18, Variation Among Components of STAP. In addition to a focus on the components of Openness to Experience, the current study also explored a variety of concep- {ualizations of STAP, No single measure isa perfect representation ‘of a construct so it is important to investigate multiple alternatives and determine their relation with Openness to Experience. Given the distinct differences across measures and lowerorder features of Openness to Experience, fuller picwre of STAP's relationship with Openness to Experience could be provided by extmining alternative trat-based assessments such as the CAT-PD, PID-! and particulary the FFSI-SF, as it explicitly assestes both schizo- {ypy and Openness to Experience. Each of these measures includes differentiable components of STAP, yet litle research has exam- ined the specific links between these components and facets! aspects of Openness to Experience. "The current study extends Suruki and colleagues (2017) by adopting a nomological network methodology to investigate the Similarity between a varity of faceted scales assessing STAP and. Openness to Experience, In addition t0 evaluating eorrlations mong these seals, we compared their correlations with a series of criterion variables linked to Openness to Experience such as c ativity, intelligence, and SATIACT scores, as sell a6 related constructs such as Experiential Permeability (Piedmont et al. 2012) and positive schizotypy (Kwapil et al. 2008). Drawing from previous research, we made several hypotheses First, based on Crego and Widiger (2016), we hypothesized that among measures of STAP, the facets of the FFSLSF would achieve the strongest relations with measures of Openness to Experience yet would also exhibit strong links with other markers ‘of STAP. Sccond, we hypothesized that among measures of Open- ness to Experience the facets of Fantasy/lmagination, Aesthetics! Artistic Interests, and Ideas/intellect would be most closely related te positive schizotypy across all measures. Third, we predicted that mong the PID-5 and CAT-PD scales, the scores for PID-S Fe Centricity, CAT-PD Fantasy Proneness and Pecularty would be most similar to Openness to Experience, while remaining scales assessing unusual beliefs and unusual experiences. would be largely unrelated. Finally based on DeYoung et al.’s (2012) par adoxical simplex hypothesis, we also expected the Openness as pect to relate more strongly with schizotypy and creativity, while the Intellect aspect would relate to intelligence more closely Ulimately we sought to contextualize modern traitthased mea sures to hetter understand the optimal conceptuiization and as sessment of STAP in tat models. Ths includes articulating points ‘of communion and departure with the domain of Openness to Experience. ‘Method Participants Powr-hundred seventy-four individvals participated in this study in exchange for eredit in a Purdue University introductory psy- chology course. These respondents were first screened for exces ive missing data oF incomplete protocols and 43 were removed. {An additional 26 were removed de to invalid response pattorns (ea, long stings of one partculaeansiver). This left a Final sample ‘of 403 participants (170 females, 233 males) ranging in age from 17 10 37 years (My. = 193, SDyye = 1.9.72% White, 19% Asian, 1% Black, 2% other). Ths final sample included 102 undergrad wuates who were prescreened for elevated schizotypy symptoms (en 25) using the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 Schizotypy scale (Bagby & Farvolden, 2008). This ensured that ‘our sample included a broad representation of schizotypal tenden- cies. Of these, 304 undergraduates completed 12 inventories on an online platform. A total of 99 undergraduate students completed the same online inventories as well as an additional behavioral ‘measure of creativity in the lab. All study procedures were ap- ‘proved by the insiutional review board. Measures Supplementary materials available online provide descriptive statistics forall the scales utilized, General Openness to Experience. Openness to Experience ‘was assessed using a variety of scales that were drawn from the Intemational Personality Hem Poo! (IPIP). These were the Open- ness to Experience scales from the Abridged Big Five Circumplexte disteminaed boa This aril is imended sole forthe personal use ofthe individual user and sn 22 MOORMAN AND SAMUEL (ABSC; Hofsice, DeRaad, & Goldberg, 1992), Big Five Aspect ‘Scales (BEAS; DeYoung etal, 2007), and the IPIP representation of the NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (IPIP-NEO; Goldberg. etal, 2006). The ABSC is a model of the FFM that specifies ine lowerorder facets per domain by arraying each as a combination of the primary domain and a high or low standing on each of the other four domains. The BFAS is a 20-item measure that assesses the Openness and Intellect aspects specified by DeYoung and colleagues (2007). The IPIP-NEO assesses the six facets per do- main specified by Costa and MeCrae’s (1992) NEO PLR. Because all thice of these measures tse items from the IPIP, there as significant overlap among items. Thus, we inchided the mquisite items only once to void redundancy. For this reason, we made efforts to separate the presentation ofthe Findings related to these overlap- ping scales (€2, we do not report a comrelation among the BFAS and AABSC scales). Finally, participants completed the 34 items from the MPQ Absorption Scale (Tables 1), Schizotypy and maladaptive Openness to Experience. Two measures Were used 10 assess components of schizotypy. The Wisconsin Schizotypy Scales consist of Perceptual Aberration, ‘Magical Ideation, Physical Anhedoni and Revised Social Anhe- ddonia scales (Koapl etal. 2008). Lasly, the FFSI-SF was com- pleted by the participants (Edmundson et al, 2011) to assess schizotypal personality traits with respect to the FFM of person- ality. The BFSI-SF is a version of the FFSI that was shortened to ‘use only four items per each of nine scales. As with other FEM PD measures (¢g., Griffin et al, 2016), the FFSI was shortened using item-response theory methods to select the four best-performing items from the 10-item seales on the parent measure. Participants also completed the Experiential Permeability Inventory (EPI; Pied mont, Sheeman, & Sherman, 2012), which includes 55 items snd Table | Measures and Facets Organized by Construct measures high and low maladaptive variants of Openness «0 Ex- perience (Piedmont etal, 2012). Paychoticism. The PID-S (Krueger eal, 2012) measures 25 traits that are organized into ive domains: Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Psychoticism, Antagonism, and Disinhibition (Krueger et a.,2012). Fortis study we included only the 33 items that assess traits that are apart ofthe Psychoticism domain. The 25 items from the CAT-PD (Simms et al 2011) that assess the scales of Peculiaity, Fantasy Proneness, Unusual Beliefs, and Unusual Experiences were also included. Creativity. Creativity was assessed forall participants using the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI: Hocevar, 1980). The CBI consists of 77 items addressing specifi creative activities and achievements in areas of fine ars, crafts, literature, musie, per= forming aris, and mathematcs-scienee. Ninety-nine students also ‘completed the Abbreviated Torrance Test for Adults (ATTA: Goff, 2002), which consists of two figural tasks (eg. drawing an inter esting and unusual picture incorporating a given shape) and one verbal creativity task (ie, generating alist of possible implications of a scenario). Scores for Fluency, Originality, Elaboration, and Flexibility were obtained and analyzed. The ATTA responses were railed by 5 trained research personnel (interrater reliability coeffi- cient for profiles = 90). Intellectual performance. Given the relevance of intelligence to the Openness to Experience demain, we included multiple indicators of this constrict. Participants completed the Wonderlic Personne! Test Short Form (Wonderic, 1902). The Wonderlic i a commercialized and widely used measure of intellectual ability Participants have 7 minutes to complete as many items as possible. Additionally, we obiained participant academic records from the university registrar including major, year in sehool, cumulative ‘Maladsptive measures of General measures openness Mesures of maladaptive ryehoicisn| terexpeionce ‘pennesschizon py Creativity Intetigance PIDs TPIP.NEO FESLS Openness (9 Eaperionee ATTA Creavity Index Wonderie Ezcntricity Fantasy (01) Aborant Perceptions car High school GPA Pateptual Dysrgulation ‘eta (02) ‘Odi and Eccentric ACT toil scone ‘Ungsal Relies and Experiences Feelings (03) ‘Aborant Teas SAT total score cAT-PD Actions (04) Fantasy Proneness eas (05) Pr Posies Vales (08) Schizoyny Unusual Relies and Experiences ABSC Libertarians Unusual Experiences Tattlect Authoirian Ingenuity Supeciciat Reflection wss. Competence Pereoptual Abeeaton Quickness Magical ldeaton DPyscal Ankodoaia Revised Social Atiegois Tnaginaton Depin Bras) ‘Openness lect PQ) sorption Noe. PID-S = Personality Inventory for the DSA: CAT Computerized Adaptive Test of Personality Disorder: IPIP-NEO Pesonality lems Pool Representation ofthe NEO PER; ABSC = Abskged Big Five Csumplex; BFAS = Big Five Aspect Scales; FSL-SF = Five Face Schizstypy Invertory-Short Form: MPQ = Multidimensional Person Sehvanypy Seales; ATTA iy Questionnaire: EPL Abbreviated Tostance Tes for Adults; CBI = Creative Behavior Inventor xporcatil Permeability Invenory: WSS = WisconsinDIMENSIONAL TRAITS FOR SCHIZOTYPAL THINKING college GPA, semester college GPA, high school GPA, SAT scores and ACT scores. The ACT and SAT measure verbal and #ai|8 ‘mathematical reasoning skill and demonstrate strong Joadings on E, “g" in the previous literature path coefficients 92 and 90, re _ spectively Coyle & Pillow, 2008)-and are therefore good ind 2B lan alors of general intelligence £2 Enoeire Perepions Anhedona Se 51 5 Inventory All eorlations >13 were significant a.01 eve Results, aE ‘As a first step, we correlated the subscales from the measures g2 ssesing schizotypy. Table presents the corelations among the scales from the FFSLSF, the WSS, and EPI schizotypy scale in #83] 2. order to provide a benchmark for the performance of the FFSI-SF Za7| S585 Sasa messure of shiroypy. ES E fal ecans ©] STAP Relating With Openness to Experience gna ze ‘Table 3 displays the correlations among the scales assessing q = 3 STAP trom the FFSPSF, PID'S, and CAT-PD, As would be 5Ea| oe 23 expected, these all correlated strongly, with most correlations Zas| SEARS z 5 5 above $0, Those assessing similar constructs (e.., FFSI-SF Odd- Eg : 2 ity, PID-S Eccentricity, and CAT-PD Peculiarity) correlated very 2 highly (~-80)- In otal, this table indicates hat all of these scale 3 are assessing similar consracs, although some were more disp negnege z fate. One scale that routinely deviated from ters was CAT-PD i Unusual Relics. Although it correlated .61 with PID-S Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, the magnitude of relations with other scales wore as low as .23 (FFSI-SF Oddity) Infact, this scale, a5 well as CAT-PD Unusial Experiences was the only scale that ‘obained intercorrelations with other STAP scales that were lower 16 82 ST % 3 61 6 2 than 9. a eenen ‘Tables 4 and 5 present correlations of the STAP scales with 32. AaaaS markers of Opennes to Experience. The vatation in he effet size 2 across markets and scales within the same domain fs notable. All oi scales oblained strong correlations with MPQ absorption, ranging 25) sazgaagsace from 38 (FFSLSF Oddity) to 61 (PID-S Unusual Beliefs and 2 ‘Wisconsin Schiotypy Scales; EPL Experiences) suggesting a particularly strong link. The relations with the BFAS aspects were as expected with a moderate core- lation with the Openness aspect (median r = 23) and a null relation with BFAS Intellect (median r = —02). Within the IPIP-NEO, by far the strongest associations with STAP were for ss 46 St This aril mended sole forthe personal use ofthe individual user and sn ‘oward larger magnitude for O5 (Ideas). Table 5 presents correla tions with the nine facets of the ABSC and it again demonstrated that certain facets—specifially Introspection, Imagination, and Depth—oblained the strongest relation with STAP. Looking across the rows of Tables 4 and 5, it was apparent that certain STAP scales that overlapped with Openness to Experience ‘more strongly than others. Notably, the relations with Openness 10 Experience were strongest for scales assessing peculirityloddity Gis., FPSLSP Oddity, PID-S Becentricity, CAT-PD Peculiarty) and fantasy proneness. In contrast, the scales assessing unustal beliefs and aberrant perceptions correlated notably lower. This was, particularly true for scores from the CAT-PD Unusual Beliefs and CAT-PD Unusual Experiences as both of these scales negatively the first facet, labeled Imagination or Openness to Fantasy. Con- aage Sem with he shred ao the CAT-PD fact of Faas) Prone nes colt 6 wih this IPIP-NEO fat suporing th nk between the CAT-PD and Openness 10 sparc, The oer A Insts of PIP-NEO were modesty rested to STAP, wth 9 end §f] saasasaangace Aredia FESLSP = Fie Factor Schizoypy Invetory-Shont Form WWS werage convergent r= 18 Schizotypy sees Correlations Among STAP Measures WSS Sccial Antedor Table 2 WSS PhysThis aril simtended soley forthe personal use te disteminaed boa indvieal user and is 24 MOORMAN AND SAMUEL Table 3 Correlations Among STAP From FESISE, PID-5, and CAPD HISLSE -FISLSF —FISLSF pbs careD ‘Aberrant Odkland Aberrant PID-S—_ Perceptual «IDS CAT-PDCAT-PD Unusual STAP scales Perceptions Foventic “Ideas. ecentrcity Dysepulaion URE Fantasy Peculiarity Reliefs FESLSF Oud and Bcenirc 70 FESISE Aterunt ldsas ist x2 PIDS Foventiiy 39 x0 n ID'S Perceptual Dysrepulaion 63 4 2 n PIDS Unustal Beis and Experiences 0 » ss 1 a CAT-PD Fanasy Proneness Si 4 52 62 4 5s CAT-PD Pecalinity 30 a ‘a #0 st 31 ww) CAT-PD Unustal Beliefs a8 2 36 30 32 sl 8 2 CAT-PD Unusual Experiences 33 3 46 0 fo ne) 35 ” Nowe. of Personality Disorders: UBE correlated with the stronger indicators of Intellect (e.g, BFAS Intellect, IPIP-NEO 05). This suggests that CAT-PD Unusual Beliefs and CAT-PD Unusual Experiences not ony share the least, variance with other indicators of STAP, but also share the leat variance with Openness to Experience. What litle they do share with the Openness to Experience domain tends to he an inverse relationship with traits emphasizing the Intellect aspect. ‘Comparing the Nomological Network Around Openness to Experience ‘Table 6 presents the correlations between selected personality seales and a number of markers that are conceptually oF empiri cally expected to relate to Openness to Experience, including experiential permeability, markers of positive schizotypy. behay= ioral creativity, self-reported creativity, imellectual ability, ACT/ SAT scores, and high school GPA. These first 10 columns report tho correlations between these criteria and the scales of STAP from the FESESE, CAT-PD, and PID-S. The latter six columns report the relations between these variables and selected markers fof Openness to Experience including MPQ Absorption, BEAS Table + [FESI-SF ~ Five Factor SchizotypyTaventory Shon Forms PID-S — Pesoaaity ventory forthe DSM-5:CAT PD = Computerized Adapive Tet Daustal Beliefs and Expereness. All correlations significant at p< 01. ‘Openness and Intellect, the Openness to Experience domain seores from the IPIP-NEO and the ABSC, a well asthe IPIP-NEO O1 (Fantasy) facet. Overall, the pattern of relations in this table was in ine with hypotheses. Some personality scales related quite strongly with the ‘outeomes—particularly those that were self-reported —while the ‘magnitude for others were much lower. For example, creativity ‘measured by the CBI yielded consistent post all the personality measures, suggesting creativity and imagination appear to he a shared correlate of all the measures we employed. [As might be expected, the behaviorally assessed ATTA Creativity Index achieved much lower correlations with the measures of ‘Openness to Experience and STAP, with the largest links with BFAS Openness (r = . 14) and BFAS Intellect (7 = ~.18). Sim ilarly, scores for intellectual ability from the Wonderlic, high school GPA, and SAT/ACT scores showed limited ties to the personality measures. However, an exception was the BEAS as pect of Intellect, which achieved the strongest correlation with feach of the academic indicators, ranging from 14 (GPA) to 29 (act). ve correlations with Schizotypal Thinking and Perception Traits With Openness to Experience Measures MPO BFAS—BFAS._IPIP.NEO.IPIP-NEO.IPIP-NEO.IPIPNEO.IPIP-NEO_IPIP-NEO. STAP sees Absoepion Openness Intellect Ol 2 oO ot 05 08 PESLSP Aberrant Perceptions a2 os oy 4 a" 8 FFISISF Odd and Fecenteic a a a ar ie PESLSP Aberrant Ideas 36 1 at 20" IDS Eccontcity a 20" ir 30" nD Perceptual Dyce, 2 12 5 oo pip URE a is 05 4 (CAT-PD Fanasy Proneness 0" 2 17 a ar CAT PD Peculiaty an 21" 1s cs 19 CAT-PD Unusual Belets ” -» oO <0 as CAT PD Unueal Expenensss| ee oo ass Note. FFSLSE = Five Factor Schizoipal tnvenlory Shor Form: PID-5 = Personality Inventory for the DSW-5: Perceptual Dysee. — Percept Dpstegulation; UBE ~ Unusual Beles and Experiences; CAT-PD = Computerized Adapsive Test International Personality ‘Coreation is spicata the 0 level (wold), Personally Questionnaire: BFAS ~ Big Five Aspoct Sea Correlation is significant athe 05 eve (wot. IPIP-NEO Personality Disorders; MPQ ~ Multisimensional ams Poo! Representation of the NEO PLR.te disteminaed boa indvieal user and is This aril simtended soley forthe personal use DIMENSIONAL TRAITS FOR SCHIZOTYPAL THINKING 25 Table 5 STAP Traits With ABSC Openness Facets AUC ABSC ARSC ABSC_— ARSC ASC ASC ASC. AMS STAP scales Tntllcct Ingenuity Reflection Competence Quickness Ivespection Creativity Imagination Deh FFISISF Abernt Perceptions —03, oo es - 16 PESLSP Oud und Ecce 00802 — 08 ~ ae FISISF Aberrant kisas on ‘or = 06, - 2e PID Eocene 07 13 os Ng KyeUostog AUOSUAMIPL — OA ‘seUauad pat Stora ensou = ac sapusic Syeuosag 7084 annepy pacuonndwe> = Ly "e74SC a9} Homano SupeooNr = CI “we US GoruaNe KURICANES AOI Al = AS ISL PON we on SUN IS a ns ‘a ee osestavic sw wo ww fo ow be oo os rg vs 6 58 coe oF we se eater ee "ont Sv ww wk sR & @ slo Svat wt rr a te ar said we Se gs rr Dee SF Se tou BIO ON S oe ee oe ee 1s re ee oem Goo vssamadp seca "SvaR SVaKh DIN PINMUN.” LV CLV). CALVO Sai tseaag Id MND Per "oN await sv anno ‘Saud isu Ish "ISit Siyoifaa woanpnor opony BUnranv a ce, tng uous wap jous23g ‘4 ON a J0 U0 IW Oa 2342403 pot Sona tens = 3c) jaune Joa] anncepy pacuamnduo.y pS 1 ANY = ASSAM w= wee w- iw mod Lov fo BDH o- yan ep oy 3 ae r “wo “o~ “o~ wo Re as ‘wee “to 50 wey ft a SR we os ores 1 To Soahg aanade joy wowdioay sean ‘sng aaa ap] sunny angen SOUR DOHA Ha foantnat or isamde 1 509i aie sta riya Sam Pm sursay pa PEO ONY Douauiadiy 01 ssoannd) pumosy WOMG2y, [POIBOPOWON 91h peo poreucss 29 1205 pue 36m fenppU 330 os UDSIod xn 2 AOS POPLINE ST SLte disteminaed boa indvieal user and is This aril simtended soley forthe personal use DIMENSIONAL TRAITS FOR SCHIZOTYPAL THINKING 21 hypothesized link between STAP ancl Openness to Expericnce as ‘been among the least consistent, The strength of this relation appears to vary considerably depending the measure of Openness to Experience employed, with notable differences across lower onder aspects and facets of this domain (c.g., Suzuki etal, 2017). Relatively less attention has been pad (0 the variations across components of schizotypy. particularly the variety of new mea- sures designed to assess these features via dimensional traits. A key development in this area has been the FFSI-SF, which is designed to decompose and measure schizotypal tats via FFM facets. In this way, the FFSSF is well-positioned to examine the link betwoon existing measures of Openness to Experience and STAP. (One key advance in the present paper relative to prior work then is the use of the FFSL-SF. as well as two other recently developed instruments: the PID-S anid the CAT-PD, to assess variants of STAP from a traitbased paradigm. In addition, the use of a wide variety of facet-level measures of Openness to Experience pro- vided a nuanced look at these relationships and extended prior research, What was clear from the findings is that this level of nuance is erucial for elucidating the links, a patterns of specificity ‘emerged more strongly between certain components than for oth crs. A second key advance of the present paper was the use of & rnomological network approach to determine the correlations of these measures with a host of criteria that are conceptually rele Vant. Ths approach extended the work of Suzuki etal. (2017), who utilized a similue approsch, but lamented the paucity of vasiables that were relevant to Openness to Experience in that study. This approach allowed not only an examination of the intercorrlations among personality measures, but indexed the degree to which they share a nomological network. Differences Across Measures and Components, of STAP Building upon recent evidence from Crego and Widiger (2016) the prescnt study indicated thatthe specific components of STAP had differential relations with existing measures of Openness to Experience. Specifically, the FFSLSF (Odd and Fecentri), PID-S (Eccentricity), and CAT-PD (Pecularty) all contain scales assess- ing odd/eccentic aspects of schizotypy and each of these cor lated atleast modestly (>.10) with all IPIP-NEO facets of Open ness o Experience as well as the several substantial correlations with facets from the ABSC. This replicates and extends the find- ings of Crego & Widiger (2016) to indieate that this particular ‘component of schizotypy is a correlate of Openness to Experience broadly, and i particularly strongly linked with the O1 facet ofthe IPIP-NEO, which is labeled Imagination or Fantasy Further, our study was the fist to include the CAT-PD's rep- resentation of schizotypal traits. The CAT-PD is the only measure fo include a scale explicily assessing Fantasy Proneness and this scale obtained medium correlations with several Openness to Experience scales and a particularly strong link with the IPIP-NEO OF facet (F = .60, racing = 90). Thus, although the correlations around .30 are stl lower in magnitude than for some other PDitrat Tinks (e-g.. Watson et al, 2013), the results show a clear and ‘compeling Tink between schizotypy and Openness to Experience. Moreover i illustrates the inherent complexity of these domains in {that certain components of each are quite strongly Tinked t© one another, but others are relatively unrelated This finer division of STAP also revealed areas where the Tink with Openness to Experience scales was less strong. Crego and ‘Widiger (2016) indicated that the PID-S seales of Unusual Beliefs and Exporiences as well as Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregula- tion were more disparate from other components of schizotypy (including the FFSI-SF scales) and measures Openness to Expe- rience. Specifically, they reported a very high correlation (r = £82) of FFSESF Odd and Becentric with PID-S Eccentricity, but a somewhat lower correspondence between FFSLSP Aberrant Per ceptions and PID-S Cognitive and Perceptual Dystegulaion (64), land FFSL-SF Aberrant Ideas with PID-S Unustal Beliefs and Experiences (.62). Our results mirrored these nearly exactly, with correlations of .80,.63, and 58, respectively Furthermore, Crego and Widiger (2016) foun! this difference was magnified by the relation with Openness to Experience, as FFSESF Aberrant Perceptions (.33) and Aberrant Meas (48) shared much greater variance with IPIP-NEO O1 than did PID-5 Cognitive and Perceptual Dysregulation (15) and Unusual Beliefs and Experiences (11). Surprisingly, our study showed a somewhat different patern a the correlations of those two PID-S scales with IPIP-NEO O1 were .36 and .34, respectively. The only method: ological difference was that Crego & Widigcr (2016) utilized the full IPIP-NEO (i, 10 items) to assess IPIP-NEO O1. whereas we ‘employed a short-form that included only four items. Nonetheless, given both versions correlate equally highly with the NEO PI-R Yersion (Maples, Guan, Carter, & Mille, 2014) there is no reason to suspect this should alter—Ket alone double—these correlations cary, future rescarch should clarify the relation ofthese PID-5 scales with Openness 10 Fantasy/Imagination. Interestingly, although the present results suggested the FFSL-SF ‘and PID-S had relatively similar relations with Openness to Ex- perience, we found that the CAT-PD’s assessment of Unusual [Beli and Unusual Experiences did show meaningfully different relations with the FFSLSF and Openness to Experience. Similar to ‘what occurred for the PID-S scales in Crego and Widiger (2016), ‘we found that these two CAT-PD scales abtained more modest correlations with FFSL-SE Aberrant Perceptions (3) and FFSI-SF Aberrant Ideas (36), than was obtained between CAT-PD Pecu- liarity and FESI-SF Odd and Becentic (74). Similarly, the re tions of CAT-PD Unusual Beliefs and CAT-PD Unusual Experi- cences with Openness to Experience was neafly nonexistent across multiple markers. Alnough the rassige €0eMTicients in Table 7 generally reveal less similarity between Openness to Experience forthe markers of Percepiul Aberrations and Unusual Beier relative to those assessing oddity/eecentricity—this was particu- larly pronounced for the (wo CAT-PD scales. They obtained the lowest profile similarity coefficients with all the measures of Openness to Experience traits and the match with BFAS Intellect ‘wae substantially negative. Broadly, we conclude that across all measures, the Aberrant Perceptions and Unusual Beliefs are the aspects of schizotypy ‘most weakly associated with Openness to Experience, These fin: ings are partially consistent with those from Ashton ct al. 2012), ‘which also found that oddityleccentrcity was diseriminable from ‘other components of schizotypy and was significantly and sub- Sanially related (0 the Openness to Experience. In contrast with the present results, though, Ashton et al. (2012) suggested thete disteminaed boa indvieal user and is This aril simtended soley forthe personal use 28 MOORMAN AND SAMUEL remainder of schizotypy was distinct from general personality. In part, this reflects their choice to include markers of dissociation And obsessive-compulsive disorder to define schizotypy. The pres- cent study confined STAP to the unusual beliefs and perceptual distortions that are typically considered part of schizotypy. Thus, it is crucial to recognize that those components, as assessed by the FESL-SF and PID-5 are linked to Openness to Experience, just ‘more modestly and specifically than oddlty/eccenticity Differences Across Measures and Components of | Openness to Experience (ur findings also echoed prior research in demonstrating the ‘magnitude of differences across measures as well as across spe- cific components of Openness to Experience. In this regard, (wo _general personality scales stood out from the others with regard to their greater similarity coefficients with other measutes of Open- ress 0 Experience as well as STAP. Notably, MPQ Absorption and the OF facet of Imagination/Fantasy on the IPIP-NEO achieved the strongest inks with STAP. Absorption has again proven to be a model construct for demonstrating that STAP represent a maladaptive extension of general personality. Impor- ‘antly, in this regard the MPQ, which was developed as general personality trait and has support as a marker of Openness 10 Experience (DeYoung et al. 2012), corelated as highly with EPL Schizolypy as any scale from the FFSI-SF, PID-S, and CAT-PD. Alltough, not quite as strongly as Absorption, the IPIP-NEO facet fof Fanlasy/lmagination also supports the dimensional view. The (01 facet is clearly the component of the NEO-based model that is most strongly linked with measures of schizotypy and provides additional support forthe commonality and continuity between the fifth factors of the general and sbnormal personality. In addition to the O1 facet, the use of these measures provided 4 meaningful extension of DeYoung ct al, (2012) as it again ‘Supported the usefulness of distinguishing between the portion of ‘this domain that captures variance relevant w Intellect and Open- ness, The aspect of Openness displayed an overarching. afiiation with indicators of STAP. In contrast, dhe Intellect aspect was Inversely related to schizotypy, but was the strongest predictor of 1Q, standardized test scores, and academic achievement. These findings are consistent with the paradoxical simplex. hypothesis offered by DeYoung and colleagues (2012) Implications and Future Directions (One implication is that the FEST-SF and 1wo other measures of traits relevant to STAP were compared against each other and ‘numberof other scales, providing a chance to contrast coverage of the schizotypal space among trait inventorics. In this regard it is ‘notable thatthe short form of the FFSI performed atleast as well a the PID-S and CAT-PD, despite using more than half as many items. There was a great deal of agreement in the content across the three measures, although it was not always intuitive to find a lear one-to-one correspondence. ‘A potential strength of the CAT-PD is its inclusion of a scale specifically oriented toward Fantasy Proneness. Although, FESI-SP Aberrant Ptceptions was specifically designed as a variant ofthe OL Facet (Openness to Fantasy), it correlated 32 with that IPIP-NEO Facet in the present study. Tis value was substantially lower than the correlation of 60 between CAT-PD Fantasy Proneness and that same IPIP-NEO facet. Nonetheless, CAT-PD Fantasy Proneness also ob- tained questionable discriminant validity as it comelated nearly iden= tically with cach scale from the FFSI and the PID-S. As with any set of faceted scales, it will ultimately be crucial for each of the scales — particularly Fantasy Proncness—to be vetted i tems oftheir unique predictive ability relative to the shared domain construct and the specifi variance of the other facet scales (Ziegler & Bickstrim, 2016) (ne difficulty in aligning these sales across the instruments is that the PID-S includes a scale labeled Unusual Beliefs and Ex- periences while the CAT-PD includes separate scales assessing Unusual Beliefs and Unusual Experiences. These two CAT-PD scales correlated very highly with each other (r = £79) and sexi CoetTcient OF 99 suggesting they had identical nomolog- ieal networks. Simms ot al, (2013) took a number of steps to ‘combine similar constructs in the development of the CAT-PD, yet these remained separated. As such, there may be a compelling ‘reason for both to remain, but the present analyses do suggest they should be combined. It is also worth noting that those two scales ‘were the most dissimilar from the other scales in terms of nomo- logical network, yielding questions about their conteat. Nonethe: less, they did obtain particularly strong correlations with the Wis cconsin Schizotypy Scales, suggesting that their variance was related to the construct of intrest, This brings up an important question about where personality tendencies transition into frank psychosis episodes, along the shared spectrum, As evidence continues to emerge for dimensions that underlie psychopathology broadly, tension will be to distin ish between relatively durable traits and more episodic instances of psychopathology. For example, Bagby, Uliaszek, Gralnick, and 'ALDajani (2017) illustrated the spectrum view of depression by suggesting that depressive personality, dysthymic disorder, and ‘major depression can be arrayed along a spectrum. In this model, Baghy and colleagues (2017) indicate that these conditions fit along a common spectrum but differ in terms of the chronicity ‘versus acuity of sympioms, This isue has boon less well-studied for schizotypy, but it stands to reason that despite a common spectrum running from levels regarded as Openness to Experience tw sehizorypy to levels characterized by frank psychos, that there ‘will inevitably be transitions between more chronic tendencies and cute symptoms (eg, hallucinations). This issue has already been raised for the item content for the PID-5 Psychoticism, which has questionable discriminant validity suggesting it may be picking up on nonspecific cognitive com- plaints (¢., my thoughts do not make sense to others). Addition ally, others have suggested that some items (cg. seeing things that others do not) may cross a order into frank psychosis (Crego, Gore, Roja, & Widiger, 2015). Similar questions are perhaps even ‘more relevant to the CAT-PD) ax its items do inclide explicit references to delusions (eg, seeing into the future) and halluc nations (eg, hearing voices when alone). Cleary this is a complex {question andthe extensive literature on schizotypy and schizophre- tia is highly relevant to any answer (eg. Barrantes-Vidal, Grant, ‘& Kssapil, 2015), Nonetheless, we suggest that items that reflect ‘impaired reality esting are indicative of psychosis. For that reason, such items might be inappropriate for a self-report measure of personality pathology and may help to understand why their en5 B 2 ¥ te disteminaed boa DIMENSIONAL TRAITS FOR SCHIZOTYPAL THINKING 29 dorsement is less dieetly related to measures of general person ality. (Of course the issue of transitions from psychosis-proneness into psychosis isa longstanding concern in the field (Strauss, 1969) and others have concluded there is compelling continuity across this spectrum (Johns & van Os, 2001) In either event, clearly more work is newled 0 determine how and why individuals respond to those types of selFreport items and ensure that measures of per sonality pathology be restricted to relatively endiring patterns of thinking, feeling, and relatedness, A limitation of the present study was the use of the FESI-SE. Although this measure obtained correlations that were consistent with what has been obtained with the long form, highlighting its utility asa brief assessment of SAP, itis highly likely that some convergent comelations were suppressed slightly by the shorter scales. Given a primary facus ofthe study was on the correlations of the FESISE with other trait scales and external measures, it would have been ideal to use the full scale. Further, although a stength oF the present method was the use of several performance-based assessments including. behavioral ‘measure of creativity, an objective measure of 1Q, as well as a number of ecological variables (eg., SATVACT), the traits of interest were purely assessed by self-report questionnaires. It Would be wise for future studies to assess these consituets using other methods or sources, This is paticulely tue for constucts Tike psychoticism, which have been questioned for their diserim imant validity. One potential explanation for this weaker discrim- imant validity might, in fact, elect participants’ endorsement of items for reasons other than that intended by scale authors. Usi- lizing other methods, such 3s collecting ratings from treating clinicians who would be well-positioned t provide ratings of STAP, would be highly valuable for advancing this literature (Samuel, Suzuki, & Griffin, 2016), Finally, although we did take steps to ensure data quality (ie. removing 71 participants with incomplete or questionable responses), we did not use formal validity scales oF attention checks. Conclusions In sum, the present study explored the degree to which scales from dimensional models of personality pathology captured the cognitive and perceptual aspocts of schizotypy. There was broad agreement across the scales from the FFSI-SP, PID-S, and CAT- PD, although two from the latter (Unusual Beliefs and Unusual Experiences) appeared less related to the others. Further, zero- order correlations as well as nomological network analyses further confirmed that those scales have meaningTul, yet nuaneed, rele ‘ions with markers of Openness to Experience. Specifically, there were several scales—notably MPQ Absorption, but also the Fan- tasy/Imagination facet from the IPIP-NEO—that seemed to tap the core of shared variance across the measures employed. Building upon prior work. we suggest future work on detailing the fifth domain focus onthe specific components, as this will most clearly move the work forward References Aston, M. C. Lee, K. de Vries, RE, Hendtikse, J, & Born, MP, (2012), The Maladsptive Persoeality Traits of the Personality Inventory for Dsm-5 (Pid) in Relation 1 tbe Hexaco Personality Factors and SchizolypyDissociation, Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 681~ 60 Bagby, RM, & Farvolden, P. (2004), The Porsonlity Diagnostic ‘Questionnai-4 (PDQ), nM. J Hisearoh,D. L. Segal & M. Hessen (Fas), Comprehensive handbook of pychologicalassesament (Vol. 2 pp. 22-138). Hoboken, NI: Wiley Bagby. RM. Uliasz, A. A, Gralnck,T. M., & AL-Dsjani, N. 2017) ‘Axis T disorders. In T._A. Wider (Ed). Oxtond handbook of the {ve factor model (pp. 479-506). New York, NY: Oxford University Pres. Baranes-Vidal, N, Geant, P, & Kwapil, T. R, (2015). The role of schizotypy inthe study of the etiology of schizophrenia spectrum dis- ‘onder. Schizophvenia Bulletin, 41, SAOS-S416, htpsidedoi.org/10 109¥/schoalsbu!91 CChmiclowski, M, Bagby, R.M., Markon, K. Ring, A J, & Ryle, A.G. (2014). Openness to experience, intellect, schizotypal porsonality ‘isorder, ans psyehoicism: Resolving the controversy. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 483-499, helix doh.org/10.1521 pull 2014 28.128 CChmiclowsk, M.,& Watson, D. 2008) The heterogeneous suture of ‘schizotypal personality disoader Non lovel factors ofthe Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire and their associations with obsessive compulsive disonter symptoms, dissociative tendencies, and normal personality. Journal of Abnormal Paychology, 117, 64-376, bps hoi or/10. 10ST -8A3X.1172.364 (Costa, PT. Jt & McCrae, RR. (1992), Professional manual: Revised ‘NEO Personaliy Inventory aad NEO Five-Factor laventors. O02, PL: PAR. Coyle. R, & Pillow, D. R, 2008), SAT and ACT predict college GPA fie removing 2 nelligence, 36, 19-729. hp do op. 10165 ntl 2008.05.001 rego, C, Gore, W. Lay Rojsy S. Le, & Wikiger, T. A. (2013). The ‘iscriminant (and conversent) validity ofthe Persoalty Inventory for. DSM-S. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6 321-335, mpd. orp0.1037/per0000118 (Ceego,C.& Widiger, T. A. 2016) The conceptalization and assessment ‘of schizotypal tits: comparison ofthe FFSI and PID'S Journal of Personality Disorders. Advance online publication. hip. dot. oe/10 182Lpedi_2016_30 270 De Fray, F, De Cleseg, B, De Bolle, M, Wille, B, Markon, K. & Kreger, RF. (2013), General and maladaptive tails in a five Factor feamowork fe DSM-S ina university student sample, Asestment, 20, 295-307. phd do orp/10.1177/10731911 1347808 DeYoung, C. G., Graviopene, R. G., & Pelerson, J, B. (2012), om ‘madaess to genius: The Opeanesvnillect tit domain 26a paradoxical Simplex. Journal of Research in Personality, 46, 678 Wipsix.doh srg 10.1016. 2011.12.008 De¥ounp, C.., Quilty, LC. de Peterson J.B. (2007). Between facts and domains: 10 aspets of the Big Five. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 880-896, hp dion 10.1037/0022-3514 93.5880 dmmundsoa, M., Lyra, D, R. Mille. J. D, Gove, W. Ld Widiger, "T. A. QI). A fivetator measure of schizotypal personaly ai. Asessment, 18, 21-384, bps dof 10.11 7/1073 191111408228 Goll, K. (2002). Abbreviated Torvance Test for Adults, Benseaile, IL Scholastic Testing Services. Goldherp, LR, Johasoa, J. A., Fher, H.W. Hogan, R. Ashton, M.C. ‘Cloninges,C.R. & Gough, HG. (2006) The Inernational Pesonalty Item Pool ana the future of public-domain personality measures, Journal