Leslie C Morey

Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States

Are you Leslie C Morey?

Claim your profile

Publications (162)578.12 Total impact

  • Justin K Meyer, Sang-Hwang Hong, Leslie C Morey
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Past research has established strong psychometric properties of several indicators of response distortion on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). However, to date, it has been unclear whether the response distortion indicators of the adolescent version of the PAI (PAI-A) operate in an equally valid manner. The current study sought to examine several response distortion indicators on the PAI-A to determine their relative efficacy at the detection of distorted responding, including both positive distortion and negative distortion. Protocols of 98 college students asked to either overreport or underreport were compared with 98 age-matched individuals sampled from the clinical standardization sample and the community standardization sample, respectively. Comparisons between groups were accomplished through the examination of effect sizes and receiver operating characteristic curves. All indicators demonstrated the ability to distinguish between actual and feigned responding, including several newly developed indicators. This study provides support for the ability of distortion indicators developed for the PAI to also function appropriately on the PAI-A.
    Assessment 09/2014; · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To examine the relationship of borderline personality disorder (BPD) to mood disorders by using data from the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study on the reciprocal interactions of BPD with both depressive and bipolar disorders over the course of 10 years.
    The Journal of clinical psychiatry. 06/2014;
  • Leslie C Morey, Andrew E Skodol, John M Oldham
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study compared the perceived clinical utility of DSM-IV-TR personality disorder diagnoses (retained in DSM-5) with the alternative model presented in DSM-5 Section III, using a national sample of clinicians applying both systems to their own patients. A sample of 337 mental health clinicians (26% psychiatrists, 63% psychologists, and 11% other professional disciplines) provided a complete assessment of all personality disorder features listed in DSM-IV-TR and DSM-5 Section III. After applying each diagnostic model, clinicians evaluated the clinical utility of that model with respect to communication with patients and with other professionals, comprehensiveness, descriptiveness, ease of use, and utility for treatment planning. These perceptions were compared across DSM-IV-TR and the 3 components of the DSM-5 Section III model, and between psychiatrists and nonpsychiatrists. Although DSM-IV-TR was seen as easy to use and useful for professional communication, in every other respect the DSM-5 Section III model was viewed as being equally or more clinically useful than DSM-IV-TR. In particular, the DSM-5 dimensional trait model was seen as more useful than DSM-IV-TR in 5 of 6 comparisons-by psychiatrists as well as other professionals. Although concerns were expressed about the clinical utility of the DSM-5 personality disorder system during its development, these criticisms were offered without data on the proposed system. The results of this study demonstrate that aside from the current familiarity of the DSM-IV-TR approach, it offers little advantage in perceived clinical utility over the DSM-5 Section III system, whereas the latter is viewed as being more useful in several respects. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of abnormal psychology. 05/2014; 123(2):398-405.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Although score reliability is a sample-dependent characteristic, researchers often only report reliability estimates from previous studies as justification for employing particular questionnaires in their research. The present study followed reliability generalization procedures to determine the mean score reliability of the Eating Disorder Inventory and its most commonly employed subscales (Drive for Thinness, Bulimia, and Body Dissatisfaction) and the Eating Attitudes Test as a way to better identify those characteristics that might impact score reliability. Published studies that used these measures were coded based on their reporting of reliability information and additional study characteristics that might influence score reliability. Score reliability estimates were included in 26.15% of studies using the EDI and 36.28% of studies using the EAT. Mean Cronbach's alphas for the EDI (total score = .91; subscales = .75 to .89), EAT-40 (total score = .81) and EAT-26 (total score = .86; subscales = .56 to .80) suggested variability in estimated internal consistency. Whereas some EDI subscales exhibited higher score reliability in clinical eating disorder samples than in nonclinical samples, other subscales did not exhibit these differences. Score reliability information for the EAT was primarily reported for nonclinical samples, making it difficult to characterize the effect of type of sample on these measures. However, there was a tendency for mean score reliability to be higher in the adult (vs. adolescent) samples and in female (vs. male) samples. Overall, this study highlights the importance of assessing and reporting internal consistency during every test administration because reliability is affected by characteristics of the participants being examined.
    Journal of Eating Disorders 01/2014; 2:6.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An alternative model for the diagnosis of personality disorders (PDs), based on assessments of impairments in personality functioning and of pathological personality traits, was intended for the official classification in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition (DSM-5), but was instead placed in Section III, "Emerging Measures and Models." This article attempts to describe forces in play during the development of DSM-5 that may have contributed to this outcome, from the perspectives of the Chair of the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG) and three of its members. These include a failed imperative to shift away from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders-Fourth Edition (DSM-IV) categories toward a dimensional perspective on psychopathology, dynamics within the American Psychiatric Association DSM-5 Task Force and PPDWG and the roles and impact of individuals and groups in the PD community. From these considerations, we present some suggestions for how the field might move forward in the future. A new opportunity exists to use the proposed alternative model as a foundation for research. In the immediate future, with the existence of two different models of PDs in DSM-5, studies can be done comparing the models to each other and to other models with respect to reliability and antecedent, concurrent, and predictive validity. If the Section III model continues to perform as early studies suggest, it may migrate into Section II of a planned DSM-5.1. This valuable research, already underway, will shape future editions of the DSM, by providing data to articulate a clearer vision, with broader representation of reliable and valid models. Going forward, personal investments must be put aside for the benefit of the greater good. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 10/2013; 4(4):342-9. · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Presents a rejoinder to comments by Silk (see record 2013-45025-005) and Zimmerman (see record 2013-45025-006) on the original article by Skodol et al. (see record 2013-45025-004) regarding personality disorders in the DSM-5. Here, Skodol et al. comment that many of the early decisions made by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) PPDWG and within the Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group (PPDWG) noted in Silk's commentary should be viewed in light of the original goals of the DSM-5, which included a break from past practices of "tinkering" with categorical criteria. In the end, a compromise hybrid dimensional-categorical model-the favored option of most personality disorder (PD) experts-was developed and was published in DSM-5 Section III. The "alternative model" preserves continuity with current clinical practice while also addressing numerous shortcomings of the exclusively categorical approach to PDs. The personality functioning and pathological trait components of the revised general criteria and the criteria for the six specific disorders and PD-TS are based on extensive data on the core features of PDs and the trait representation of personality pathology. The final model's thresholds for diagnosis, its criteria composition, and its decision rules are based for the first time on empirical data, unlike the diagnostic thresholds and decision rules for DSM-IV (now also in DSM-5 Section II), which for the most part are unsubstantiated. Thus, Zimmerman's comments to the contrary, the Section III alternative model has a greater empirical basis than much of what is in Section II and holds more promise for the future. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 10/2013; 4(4):354. · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Researchers examining personality typologies of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have consistently identified 3 groups: low pathology, internalizing, and externalizing. These groups have been found to predict functional severity and psychiatric comorbidity. In this study, we employed Latent Profile Analysis to compare this previously established typology, grounded in temperament traits (negative emotionality; positive emotionality; constraint), to a novel typology rooted in interpersonal traits (dominance; warmth) in a sample of individuals with PTSD (n = 155). Using Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP) traits to create latent profiles, the 3-group temperament model was replicated. Using Interpersonal Circumplex (IPC) traits to create latent profiles, we identified a 4-group solution with groups varying in interpersonal style. These models were nonredundant, indicating that the depiction of personality variability in PTSD depends on how personality is assessed. Whereas the temperament model was more effective for distinguishing individuals based on distress and comorbid disorders, the interpersonal model was more effective for predicting the chronicity of PTSD over the 10 year course of the study. We discuss the potential for integrating these complementary temperament and interpersonal typologies in the clinical assessment of PTSD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Psychological Assessment 09/2013; · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Leslie C Morey, Donna S Bender, Andrew E Skodol
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors sought to determine whether a 5-point global rating of personality dysfunction on the Level of Personality Functioning Scale proposed as a severity index for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), would be related to DSM-IV personality disorder diagnosis as well as to other key clinical judgments. Data were collected from a national sample of 337 mental health clinicians who provided complete diagnostic information relevant to DSM-IV and proposed DSM-5 personality disorder diagnoses, as well as demographic information and other clinical judgments, on one of their patients. Of the 337 patients described, 248 met criteria for 1 of the 10 specific DSM-IV personality disorders. A "moderate" or greater rating of impairment in personality functioning on the Level Scale demonstrated 84.6% sensitivity and 72.7% specificity for identifying patients meeting criteria for a specific DSM-IV personality disorder. The Level of Personality Functioning Scale had significant and substantial validity correlations with other measures of personality pathology and with clinical judgments regarding functioning, risk, prognosis, and optimal treatment intensity. Furthermore, the single-item Level of Personality Functioning rating was viewed as being as clinically useful as the 10 DSM-IV categories for treatment planning and patient description and was a better predictor of clinician ratings of broad psychosocial functioning than were the 10 DSM-IV categories combined. These results confirm hypotheses that the single-item Level of Personality Functioning Scale rating provides an indication of severity of personality pathology that predicts both assignment of personality disorder diagnosis and clinician appraisals of functioning, risk, prognosis, and needed treatment intensity.
    The Journal of nervous and mental disease 09/2013; 201(9):729-35. · 1.77 Impact Factor
  • Jessica Rios, Leslie C Morey
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The validity of various indicators of response distortion on the Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent (PAI-A; Morey, 2007a) and its potential usefulness to detect malingering were evaluated by having 17- and 18-year-old students complete the PAI-A attempting to simulate Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) under coached or noncoached conditions. Scores for these respondents on the Negative Impression and Positive Impression scales, the Malingering Index, and the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF) were compared to those of 17- and 18-year-old patients receiving clinical diagnoses of ADHD. Simulating respondents also completed the Conners Adult ADHD Rating Scale (CAARS) to determine if they could successfully simulate self-reported symptoms of ADHD. A total of 45% of simulating participants obtained CAARS scores reflecting clinically significant symptoms of ADHD. All indicators demonstrated the ability to distinguish between actual patients and feigned responses of successful simulators, with the RDF demonstrating the greatest accuracy in distinguishing these groups.
    Journal of Personality Assessment 08/2013; · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Preliminary explorations of the trait model for personality disorders provided in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) Section III suggest that the factor structure of proposed traits includes 5 higher order factors that resemble other dimensional trait models of personality. These prior investigations have been based on self-reported data obtained from personality questionnaires, as has much of the research literature from which such trait models have evolved. However, the DSM-5 itself involves judgments made by clinicians about their patients. Thus, it is important to examine whether this factor structure identified in recent studies can also be found in clinician rating data. This study examined the hierarchical structure of the 25 proposed DSM-5 traits in patient ratings provided by a sample of 337 mental health professionals. Exploratory factor analysis revealed a hierarchical structure that resembled previously reported trait structures. As with a prior investigation by Wright et al. (2012), the various solutions estimated in the hierarchy of the DSM-5 traits resembled existing models of common mental disorders, temperament, and personality pathology. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Abnormal Psychology 08/2013; 122(3):836-41. · 4.86 Impact Factor
  • Andrew E Skodol, Donna S Bender, Leslie C Morey
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The criteria for personality disorders in Section II of DSM-5 have not changed from those in DSM-IV. Therefore, the diagnosis of Section II narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) will perpetuate all of the well-enumerated shortcomings associated with the diagnosis since DSM-III. In this article, we will briefly review problems associated with Section II NPD and then discuss the evolution of a new model of personality disorder and the place in the model of pathological narcissism and NPD. The new model was intended to be the official approach to the diagnosis of personality pathology in DSM-5, but was ultimately placed as an alternative in Section III for further study. The new model is a categorical-dimensional hybrid based on the assessment of core elements of personality functioning and of pathological personality traits. The specific criteria for NPD were intended to rectify some of the shortcomings of the DSM-IV representation by acknowledging both grandiose and vulnerable aspects, overt and covert presentations, and the dimensionality of narcissism. In addition, criteria were assigned and diagnostic thresholds set based on empirical data. The Section III representation of narcissistic phenomena using dimensions of self and interpersonal functioning and relevant traits offers a significant improvement over Section II NPD. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 07/2013; · 3.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: Research has demonstrated poor agreement between clinician-assigned personality disorder (PD) diagnoses and those generated by self-report questionnaires and semistructured diagnostic interviews. No research has compared prospectively the predictive validity of these methods. We investigated the convergence of these 3 diagnostic methods and tested their relative and incremental validity in predicting independent, multimethod assessments of psychosocial functioning performed prospectively over 5 years. Method: Participants were 320 patients in the Collaborative Longitudinal Personality Disorders Study diagnosed with PDs by therapist, self-report, and semistructured interview at baseline. We examined the relative incremental validity of therapists' naturalistic ratings relative to these other diagnostic methods for predicting psychosocial functioning at 5-year follow-up. Results: Hierarchical linear regression analyses revealed that both the self-report questionnaire and semistructured interview PD diagnoses had significant incremental predictive validity over the PD diagnoses assigned by a treating clinician. Although, in some cases, the clinicians' ratings for individual PDs did have validity for predicting subsequent functioning, they did not generally provide incremental prediction beyond the other methods. These findings remained robust in a series of analyses restricted to a subsample of therapist ratings based on clinical contact of 1 year or greater. Conclusions: These results from a large clinical sample echo previous research documenting limited agreement between clinicians' naturalistic PD diagnoses and those from self-report and semistructured interview methods. They extend prior work by providing the first evidence about the relative predictive validity of these different methods. Our findings challenge the validity of naturalistic PD diagnoses and suggest the use of structured diagnostic instruments. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved).
    Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 05/2013; · 4.85 Impact Factor
  • Leslie C Morey, Andrew E Skodol
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) recommended substantial revisions to the personality disorders (PDs) section of DSM-IV-TR, proposing a hybrid categorical-dimensional model that represented PDs as combinations of core personality dysfunctions and various configurations of maladaptive personality traits. Although the DSM-5 Task Force endorsed the proposal, the Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) did not, placing the Work Group's model in DSM-5 Section III ("Emerging Measures and Models") with other concepts thought to be in need of additional research. This paper documents the impact of using this alternative model in a national sample of 337 patients as described by clinicians familiar with their cases. In particular, the analyses focus on alternative strategies considered by the Work Group for deriving decision rules, or diagnostic thresholds, with which to assign categorical diagnoses. Results demonstrate that diagnostic rules could be derived that yielded appreciable correspondence between DSM-IV-TR and proposed DSM-5 PD diagnoses-correspondence greater than that observed in the transition between DSM-III and DSM-III-R PDs. The approach also represents the most comprehensive attempt to date to provide conceptual and empirical justification for diagnostic thresholds utilized within the DSM PDs. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2013;19:179-193).
    Journal of psychiatric practice. 05/2013; 19(3):179-93.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Section 3 of the DSM-5 will include a pathological personality trait system rooted in the quantitative epistemology of personality and clinical psychology. This system has the potential to enhance the clinical utility of the diagnostic nosology by providing a means for the dimensional assessment of individuals with psychopathology. However, there is limited research on the associations of DSM-5 traits with common mental disorders and related clinical phenomena as measured by currently popular assessment instruments. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the convergence of the DSM-5 trait system with a well-validated broadband clinical instrument, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Bivariate correlations were examined and factor analytic methods were used to examine the degree to which the DSM-5 traits and PAI capture common variance in personality and mental health. In a student sample (N = 1,001), we found broad convergence between the DSM-5 traits and PAI, which could be organized effectively using five factors. The implications of these findings for using traits to address issues related to diagnostic co-occurrence and heterogeneity in routine clinical assessment are discussed.
    Assessment 04/2013; · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Suman Ambwani, Leslie C Morey
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The present study examined relationships among negative affect, borderline personality features, and eating behavior through the experimental manipulation of mood. Undergraduate women (N = 307) completed a baseline mood assessment, viewed a 39-minute sad film either with or without concurrent food presentation, then completed a second mood assessment and questionnaires assessing personality and eating attitudes/behaviors. Women reporting more borderline personality features exhibited greater negative affect across time and were more reactive to the sad film. Food presentation appeared to have a small ameliorative effect on sadness and general negative affect. However, quantity of food consumption was associated with improvements in mood only for women reporting higher levels of borderline personality features. These data suggest that women with borderline personality characteristics may be at elevated risk for developing problems with binge eating, because consuming larger quantities of food appeared to have a tempering effect on their negative mood and feelings of sadness.
    Journal of personality disorders 02/2013; · 3.08 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Leslie C Morey, Christopher J Hopwood
  • Source
    Leslie C Morey, Christopher J Hopwood
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Stability is thought to be one of the major distinguishing features between personality disorders (PDs) and other forms of psychopathology. The development of more reliable PD assessments and the implementation of four major longitudinal studies on PD stability have provided critical data with which to evaluate the stability of PD features. Results from these and other studies reveal significant complexity in the interpretation of PD stability because of several issues that can impact stability estimates. Such estimates will vary as a function of the type of constructs being assessed, the type of stability being considered, the modality and reliability of the assessments being used, and the impacts of sampling. In this article, longitudinal research on PD stability is reviewed in the context of these issues. It is concluded that no single answer can be given to the question, "How stable are PDs?" and that future research and classification need to consider carefully and account for the complexity of this question. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Clinical Psychology Volume 9 is March 26, 2013. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/catalog/pubdates.aspx for revised estimates.
    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology 12/2012; · 12.42 Impact Factor
  • Source
  • Source
  • Leslie C. Morey
    Psychological Injury and Law 12/2012; 5(3-4).

Publication Stats

4k Citations
578.12 Total Impact Points

Institutions

  • 2000–2014
    • Texas A&M University
      • Department of Psychology
      College Station, Texas, United States
  • 2011–2012
    • Alpert Medical School - Brown University
      • Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
      Providence, RI, United States
    • Purdue University
      West Lafayette, Indiana, United States
    • Long Island University
      • Department of Psychology (Post)
      New York City, NY, United States
    • The University of Arizona
      • Department of Psychiatry
      Tucson, AZ, United States
  • 2008–2012
    • Michigan State University
      • Department of Psychology
      East Lansing, MI, United States
    • Massachusetts General Hospital
      • Department of Psychiatry
      Boston, MA, United States
  • 2009–2011
    • Harvard Medical School
      • Department of Psychiatry
      Boston, MA, United States
    • Wesleyan University
      • Department of Psychology
      Middletown, Connecticut, United States
  • 2010
    • University of Miami
      • Department of Educational and Psychological Studies
      Coral Gables, FL, United States
  • 1999–2010
    • Yale University
      • Department of Psychiatry
      New Haven, CT, United States
    • Villanova University
      Norristown, Pennsylvania, United States
  • 2003–2009
    • Brown University
      • Department of Psychiatry and Human Behavior
      Providence, RI, United States
    • McLean Hospital
      Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States
    • University of California, San Diego
      • Department of Psychiatry
      San Diego, CA, United States
  • 2006
    • VA Palo Alto Health Care System
      Palo Alto, California, United States
    • Inflexxion
      Newton, Massachusetts, United States
  • 2005
    • Columbia University
      • Department of Psychiatry
      New York City, NY, United States
  • 2002
    • Yale-New Haven Hospital
      New Haven, Connecticut, United States
  • 1985–2001
    • Vanderbilt University
      • • Department of Psychology
      • • Department of Psychiatry
      Nashville, MI, United States
  • 1989
    • Universit√† di Pisa
      Pisa, Tuscany, Italy
  • 1979
    • University of Florida
      • Department of Psychiatry
      Gainesville, FL, United States