





























56

Graduate Student Journal of  Psychology 
2018, Vol. 17

Copyright 2018 by the Department of  Counseling and Clinical Psychology 
Teachers College, Columbia University

Self-Other Agreement in the Assessment of  Personality 
Pathology: Do We Always Know Ourselves Best?

Kimberly Tom, B.S.
Teachers College, Columbia University

Leonard J. Simms, Ph.D.
The State University of  New York, University at Buffalo

Assessment of  personality pathology can vary greatly depending on who is doing the assessment. Agreement 
between self- and informant-reports can be influenced by deviating patterns of  thoughts and behaviors which 
are characteristic of  those with personality pathology. In the current study we investigated whether presence 
of  personality pathology was associated with the level of  agreement between self- and informant-reports 
using a sample of  83 current or recent psychiatric patients, each accompanied by a close other. Target and 
informant participants reported presence of  personality pathology using a measure for personality disorder 
criteria and a measure for maladaptive personality traits. Personality disorder criteria scores and PID-5 trait 
scores were correlated with level of  agreement on different measures to assess whether personality pathology 
was associated with self-other agreement. Five-Factor model traits were also included as criteria in the analysis. 
Results were partially consistent with previous findings. Higher informant-reported personality pathology was 
associated with lower agreement for a measure of  Five-Factor model traits. However, higher target-reported 
personality pathology was actually associated with increased agreement for Five-Factor model traits. Higher 
pathology as rated by the self  and informant were both associated with increased agreement on PD criteria 
and maladaptive traits. Higher target-rated personality pathology was also associated with higher agreement 
on acquaintanceship. In conclusion, insight about one’s own personality pathology is related to self-other 
agreement, and the strength and direction of  this relationship can differ depending on the type of  informa-
tion that is being judged.

Is Personality Pathology Associated 
with Self-Other Agreement?

Personality disorders (PDs) are characterized 
by enduring and inflexible patterns of  thinking and 
behavior involving interpersonal functioning, cognition, 
affectivity, and impulse control, that can lead to distress 
or impairment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). 
Such dysfunction may lead others to view someone with 
a personality disorder differently than how this person 
would view themselves. These differences may call into 
question the utility of  personality judgments made by 

the self  or an informant. Thus, practitioners who do 
not get multiple viewpoints may be missing important 
information about their clients; particularly those with 
limited insight.

Numerous studies have investigated personality 
assessment from the self  and other perspectives (e.g., 
Carlson, Vazire, & Oltmanns, 2013; Human, Biesanz, 
Finseth, Pierce, & Le 2014; Vazire, 2010; Vazire & 
Mehl, 2008) and have found many variables that influ-
ence accuracy (e.g., the visibility of  different traits, how 
well the informant knows the person they are judging, 
the self ’s consistency of  behavior). Given the marked 
interpersonal problems and inconsistency of  thoughts 
and behaviors typically associated with PDs, a plausible 
yet relatively untested hypothesis is that when judging 
an individual with more personality pathology, agree-
ment between the self  and an informant on a particular 

Override (Hidden running head text):
Tom, Simms
Self-Other Agreement in Personality Pathology 
Assessment

This study was supported by a research grant to L. J. Simms from 
the National Institute of  Mental Health (No. R01MH080086).

Correspondence should be addressed to Kimberly Tom at 
kt2672@tc.columbia.edu.



57

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT IN PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

measure would be lower than those with less personality 
pathology. However, few studies have observed whether 
personality pathology is associated with differences in 
self-other agreement. If  personality pathology does 
have a relationship to self-other agreement, then learn-
ing more about those relationships would be useful in 
a clinical setting. For example, larger discrepancies in 
between self- and informant-reports could be a diag-
nostic criterion for personality pathology. The current 
study will investigate whether the presence of  person-
ality pathology is associated with self-other agreement 
on measures of  personality and personality pathology.

Self- and Informant-Reports
Differences Between Self- and Informant-

Reports. To understand how personality pathology 
may influence self-other agreement, it is important 
to first understand how self- and informant-reports 
inherently differ. Self-report has been considered the 
standard for personality assessment measures. However, 
self-reports may be inaccurate for a variety of  reasons, 
including distorted self-views (John & Robins, 1994), 
self-serving bias (Greenwald, 1980; Holzbach, 1978; 
John & Robins, 1993; Paulhus & John, 1998; Robins & 
Beer, 2001), and the fish-and-water effect (i.e. the idea 
that overt patterns of  behavior are highly observable to 
others, but not the self; Kolar, Funder, & Colvin, 1996). 
Self-reports demonstrate more accuracy than informant- 
reports when reporting on inner emotional experience 
(Spain, Eaton, & Funder 2000). Early research has 
suggested informant-reports are more accurate than 
self-reports in predicting behavior (Hofstee, 1994), 
and the better an informant knows the target, the 
more accurate their judgments become (Connolly, 
Kavanagh, & Viswesvaran, 2007; Connelly & Ones 
2010; Kurtz & Sherker, 2003; South, Oltmanns, Johnson, 
& Turkheimer, 2011; Tackett, 2011). Newer research 
has reached consensus that self- and informant-reports 
offer similar accuracy for predicting behavior (Ready, 
Watson, & Clark, 2002; Vazire & Mehl, 2008). Although 
self- and informant-reports show similar levels of  valid-
ity, each offers a unique perspective on a given target’s 
personality (Carlson et al., 2013; Clifton, Turkheimer, & 
Oltmanns, 2004; Funder, 1995; Oltmanns & Turkheimer, 
2009; Vazire, 2010).

Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry Model. 
According to the Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry 

Model (Vazire, 2010), discrepancies between self  and 
informants are mediated by the type of  information 
available to the judge. For example, informants do 
not have access to inner emotional experiences of  the 
self, and sometimes the self  is not consciously aware 
of  behaviors that are visible to informants. For an 
individual with personality pathology, factors such as 
identity disturbance or affectivity issues could mediate 
assessment of  personality. Convergence between self-
reports and informant-reports might then be a function 
of  these diverging assessments.

Realistic Accuracy Model. Unlike the Self-Other 
Knowledge Asymmetry Model, the Realistic Accuracy 
Model (Funder, 1995) considers more than just the 
type of  information available to a judge. Differences 
between self- and informant-reports were described 
in the “accuracy paradigm,” which denoted a shift of  
focus from error of  personality judgments to accu-
racy of  personality judgments (Funder, 1995; Funder 
& Dobroth, 1987). The information available to each 
judge does not necessarily result in only error, in that 
each judge is interpreting the given information in a 
unique way. Each judge is trying to make an accurate 
judgment, even though what is truly accurate cannot be 
definitively known.One could reasonably conclude that 
if  a target and informant are agreeing more on some 
criterion, that those two judgments are likely both more 
accurate than if  they diverged. Such divergence may be 
more prevalent in those with personality pathology, and 
creates an interesting question in relation to the study 
of  accuracy.

Accuracy of  Self- and Informant-Reports. 
Studies concerned with the accuracy of  self- and infor-
mant-reports have tried to determine whose judgments 
were more accurate for different criteria. The self  tends 
to be more accurate in rating traits low in observability, 
and informants are more accurate on evaluative (e.g., 
intelligence) traits when predicting behavior (Connelly 
& Ones, 2010; Vazire, 2010). Carlson et al. (2013) found 
similar results when evaluating self  and informant accu-
racy for PDs. They concluded that the self  was more 
accurate for less visible PDs (e.g. Avoidant, Dependent, 
and Obsessive-compulsive PD), informants were 
more accurate for more visible/antagonistic PDs (e.g. 
Antisocial and Histrionic PD), and neither was more 
accurate for thought disorder and less visible/antago-
nistic PDs (e.g. Paranoid and Borderline PD). Carlson 



58

TOM, SIMMS

et al. used a non-clinical sample, so these findings may 
not generalize to those with PDs. Additionally, accu-
racy analyses were calculated using a composite of  self, 
informant, and clinician judgments. When evaluating 
the accuracy of  people’s judgments by drawing statistical 
connections between other judgments, conceptualiza-
tion of  accuracy in this context should be called into 
question.

People with personality pathology tend to report 
personality traits of  others in a different way than those 
without personality pathology, and are also described by 
others differently, compared to those with less personal-
ity pathology (Tandler, Mosch, Wolf, & Borkenau, 2015). 
These findings reinforce the idea that people with PDs 
see the world differently (Human & Biesanz, 2011), 
because judgments are based on some internal aware-
ness of  normativity (Biesanz, 2010), which can result 
in lower accuracy of  assessment. Ready, Clark, Watson, 
and Westerhouse (2000) found that individuals whose 
own personalities were more associated with their own 
ratings of  others had lower self-other agreement. This 
implies people sometimes use the self  as a guide for 
judging others. If  the target of  judgment has a person-
ality disorder, they may be judged more inaccurately 
because an informant may be filling in gaps in knowl-
edge with assumptions based on themselves.

Judging Undesirable Traits. A number of  studies 
implicate lower self-other agreement for undesirable 
traits. Clifton et al. (2004) investigated self- and infor-
mant-reports on personality pathology traits and found 
low to moderate agreement. These findings are in line 
with research suggesting better agreement with more 
pro-social traits such as extraversion, agreeableness, 
conscientiousness, and being generally well-adjusted 
(Colvin, 1993; Connolly et al., 2007). However, South 
et al. (2011) did find self-spouse agreement on patho-
logical personality traits to be better than what has been 
found with regular self-other agreement samples. The 
authors conclude that people tend towards positive 
presentation of  the self  with people they do not know 
very well, and so an informant must know someone far 
better in order to accurately judge socially undesirable 
traits as opposed normal range personality traits.

Individuals with personality pathology are less 
well-adjusted given the marked interpersonal prob-
lems and identity disturbance characteristics associated 
with personality pathology. Therefore, the self  and 

informants may vary more when reporting personal-
ity assessments. Self-reports and informant-reports 
have unique variance (Connolly et al., 2007), but well 
adjusted-individuals who are easier to judge show less 
variance (Furr, Dougherty, Marsh, & Mathias, 2007), 
perhaps because their actions are more consistent with 
their personality (Human et al., 2014). Leising, Rehbein, 
and Sporberg (2006) found that individuals actually 
downplay their most extreme behaviors, which may be 
particularly relevant with PDs, which are seen as extreme 
presentations of  normal traits (Lynam & Widiger, 2001; 
Miller, Lynam, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001).

Is Personality Pathology Associated 
with Self-Other Agreement?

The literature has suggested that personality pathol-
ogy moderates self-other agreement, but such studies 
are limited. Furr et al. (2007) investigated the role of  
personality pathology in self-other agreement by look-
ing at the difference between two groups: adolescents 
with conduct disorder and a normal control group. The 
study concluded that personality pathology moderated 
self-other agreement. The control group had higher 
overall self-other agreement on Five-Factor model 
personality traits than the conduct disorder group. 
Lower agreement and unique variability in the conduct 
disorder group’s self- and informant-ratings suggests 
personality pathology leads to distinct differences in 
self-views and informant-views. However, Furr et al. 
also found that presence of  conduct disorder had higher 
agreement for traits more relevant to conduct disorder 
(e.g. Extraversion and Neuroticism). Generalizing these 
results to PDs, overall lower agreement in those with 
PDs could indicate self- and informant-assessments of  
people with personality pathology is less valid, or flawed, 
simply because certain traits become harder to assess. 
One possible explanation would be that even if  highly 
visible traits produce some agreement, less overt traits 
are obscured by inconsistent thoughts and behaviors 
of  the target.

In a study using a clinical sample with multiple infor-
mants, Mosterman and Hendriks (2011) concluded that 
higher self-other disagreement on the Five-Factor Model 
Inventory was correlated with higher self-rated shyness, 
introversion, hostility, and depression. They also claimed 
individuals meeting more DSM-IV Axis II (PD) crite-
ria exhibited more self-other disagreement. This last 



59

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT IN PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

finding was somewhat unreliable because their conclu-
sion was drawn from a simple paired-sample t-test for 
participants with some personality problems and those 
without. Only six of  those 52 participants with person-
ality problems met criteria for a personality disorder.

In a round-robin style design, Tandler et al. (2015) 
assessed interpersonal perception in groups of  four 
acquaintances. Assessment of  interpersonal perception 
extends beyond the scope of  the current context, but 
aspects pertaining to self-other agreement are closely 
related to the current study. Individuals rated themselves 
and their group members on Five-Factor model traits. 
Each participant also completed a self-report on person-
ality pathology. Tandler et al. explored multiple types of  
self-other agreement, but the type synonymous with 
the current study was expression-based distinctive self-other 
agreement. This analysis involved predicting agreement 
coefficients from PD scores. They concluded that 
personality pathology moderated agreement, where 
those endorsing more PD symptoms had lower 
self-other agreement for a Five-Factor model based 
assessment. The current study will replicate and extend 
these findings by correlating self-other agreement with 
both self- and informant-reported PD scores for Five-
Factor model traits, maladaptive traits, PD criteria, and 
personal acquaintanceship. Additionally, participants of  
the study by Tandler et al. were university students, and 
results may not generalize to psychiatric populations.

Self-other agreement on personality traits does 
not differ in magnitude or variability when comparing 
clinical to nonclinical samples (Ready & Clark, 2002), 
suggesting that other types of  pathology do not moder-
ate self-other agreement, at least to the degree that 
personality pathology might. However, Ready and Clark 
also found no difference in self-other ratings between 
clinical and nonclinical samples on interpersonal prob-
lems, which contradicts research presenting general 
lower self-other agreement on PD measures (Klonsky, 
Oltmanns, & Turkheimer, 2002).

Summary and Current Study
Information that is uniquely available to the self  

or informants should influence the respective reports 
in distinctive ways (Carlson et al., 2013; Kenrick & 
Stringfield, 1980; Spain et al., 2000; Vazire, 2010). The 
current study aims to find whether agreement on 
particular traits is associated with self-reported and 

informant-reported level of  personality pathology on 
a measure of  PD. The results of  previous research 
suggest that higher personality pathology is associ-
ated with lower agreement on Five-Factor model traits. 
Previous studies did not test higher personality pathol-
ogy as rated by an informant, and also only investigated 
agreement on Five-Factor model traits.

We hypothesized that, consistent with previous find-
ings, more personality pathology as reported by the self, 
and as reported by the informant, would be associated 
with lower self-other agreement for a Five-Factor model 
measure. Neuroticism, a salient trait in PDs, was previ-
ously found to have increased agreement in a conduct 
disorder group compared to a non-conduct disorder 
group (Furr et al., 2007). Individuals with personal-
ity pathology may be more likely to display neurotic 
behaviors or discuss neurotic thoughts with close others. 
Given this past finding, expectations for the maladap-
tive traits and PD criteria and their association with 
agreement were exploratory. It is possible that more 
personality pathology would predict some agreement 
for the maladaptive traits and PD criteria.

Method

Participants
Data for the current study were previously collected 

as part of  the CAT-PD project (Computerized Adaptive 
Test of  Personality Disorder; Simms, Goldberg, Roberts, 
Watson, Weite, & Rotterman, 2011), designed to develop 
and validate a comprehensive model of  personality 
disorder traits. The current sample consists of  83 dyads 
from the original study. 89.2% of  the dyads had known 
each other for at least one year. 44.6% of  the dyads 
had known each other for at least 13–14 years. Ages 
of  the targets ranged from 17 to 65 years. Ages of  the 
informants ranged from 18 to 84 years.

Procedure
Current or recent clinical patients were recruited 

via postings in Western New York mental health clin-
ics. Participants who responded to the posting were 
screened for eligibility. Qualified individuals were then 
asked if  they could also bring in a close friend or family 
member to participate in the study. Only four of  the 
measures from that larger dataset were used in the 
current study. For each assessment, the target participant 



60

TOM, SIMMS

(the self) answered questions about themselves on a vari-
ety of  measures (e.g., I see myself  as someone who is 
talkative.) For the informants, the same measures were 
administered, except phrasing was slightly modified to 
address the target participant (e.g., I see the person I 
came with today as someone who is talkative.), except 
for one measure, in which an informant form already 
existed. Each participant received monetary compensa-
tion for their time.

Measures
Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality 

Disorders (SCID-II). The SCID-II (First, Spitzer, Gibbon, 
& Williams, 1995) is a semi-structure interview admin-
istered by a clinician to diagnose DSM-IV axis II PDs 
(American Psychiatric Association, 2000). The interview 
is done after an individual has answered a question-
naire based on PD criteria. The clinician follows up on 
these questionnaire items to determine which criteria 
for disorders are met. Internal consistencies ranged 
by disorder (α = .58–.85 for targets, α = .65–.84 for 
informants).

Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality 
Questionnaire (SCID-II PQ). The SCID-II PQ is 
comprised of  119 yes or no questions (“Do you often 
worry about being criticized or rejected in social situ-
ations?”) based on DSM-IV axis II (PD) (American 
Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria. The SCID-II PQ 
is the questionnaire portion of  the SCID-II interview 
(First et al., 1995). Internal consistency ranged by disor-
der (α = .64–.89 for targets, .60–.88 for informants).

Big Five Inventory (BFI). The BFI (John, Donahue, 
& Kentle, 1991) is a 44-item questionnaire that begins 
with the first half  of  a statement: “I see myself  as 
someone who . . .  ” Items include ends of  statements 
such as “is talkative” or “is depressed, blue” rated on 
a scale of  1 (Disagree Strongly) to 5 (Agree Strongly). 
Items corresponded to Five-Factor model personality 
traits (Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, 
Neuroticism, and Openness). The BFI traits had 
adequate internal consistency (α = .74–.75 for targets, 
α = .72–.89 for informants).

Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The PID-5 
(Krueger, Derringer, Markon, & Skodol, 2012) consists 
of  220 items corresponding to pathological personality 
traits. Statements such as “I do a lot of  things that others 

consider risky” are rated on a four-point scale of  0 (Very 
False or Often False) to 3 (Very True or Often True). 
Internal consistencies for almost all 25 traits were high 
(α = .68–.95 for targets).

Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Informant Form (PID-5-
IRF). The PID-5-IRF (Markon, Quilty, Bagby, & 
Krueger, 2013) consists of  218 items corresponding 
to maladaptive personality traits as rated by an infor-
mant, for a target. Statements such as “He or She does 
a lot of  things that others consider risky” are rated on 
a four-point scale of  0 (Very False or Often False) to 3 
(Very True or Often True). Internal consistencies for 
all traits were good (α = .74–.96) except for Unusual 
Beliefs and Experiences (α = .52).

Results

Profile agreement for each measure was calculated 
as the Pearson correlation between self  and informant 
scale scores within those measures. For the BFI, if  an 
individual had self-rated items of  the BFI for Openness, 
Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and 
Neuroticism, summing the items for each trait provided 
a total score for each trait. This series of  numbers was 
then correlated with the same trait total scores provided 
by an informant for a given dyad. Profile agreement was 
calculated using PD criterion counts from the SCID-II 
PQ, trait scores from the PID-5 and PID-5-IRF, and 
trait scores from the BFI, so that each measure had an 
overall inter-dyad agreement correlation coefficient for 
every target-informant pair.

The inter-dyad agreement correlations for each 
measure then were correlated with self-reported scores 
on various criteria (Table 3). The SCID-II PD scores 
were counts of  actual PD criteria met by the individual 
as determined by SCID-II PQ responses, followed-up 
by a semi-structured interview performed by a clinician. 
Scores on traits of  the PID-5 and the BFI were simply 
the total of  scale scores for those traits on their respec-
tive measures. The same calculations were repeated with 
informant-reported scores and the inter-dyad agreement 
correlations (Table 4). Though typically only adminis-
tered to targets, scores on the SCID-II for informants 
were determined by semi-structured interviews of  the 
informants about the targets.



61

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT IN PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Descriptive Statistics
Results showed that levels of  inter-dyad agreement 

and self- and informant-ratings had good variability and 
range. The mean level of  inter-dyad agreement correla-
tions for all measures were reasonably high, even with 
some dyads producing negative inter-dyad agreement 
correlations. The PID-5 had the highest mean level 
of  agreement (M = .48) and the SCID-II PQ had the 
lowest (M = .35). Readers may email the authors for 
additional information on means, standard deviations, 
minimums, maximums of  criteria rated by the self  and 
their informants.

Intercorrelations
Table 2 presents intercorrelations of  the four 

measures utilized for inter-dyad agreement correlations. 
Only two intercorrelations were significantly associated. 
Higher inter-dyad agreement on the BFI traits was asso-
ciated with higher agreement on PID-5 trait scores.

Target-Rated Criteria and Agreement
Table 3 displays the correlation matrix for crite-

ria rated by targets, correlated with the four inter-dyad 
agreement variables described above. The general 
pattern indicated that higher target-rated personal-
ity pathology was associated with higher self-other 
agreement. Surprisingly, no SCID-II rated PD criteria 
were significantly associated with SCID-II PQ agree-
ment. Ratings for several PID-5 traits (Anxiousness, 
Distractibility, Eccentricity, Emotional Liability, Hostility, 
Perseveration, and Suspiciousness) were positively 
correlated with agreement on the SCID-II PQ. One 
BFI trait (Neuroticism) was positively associated with 
SCID-II PQ agreement.

For agreement on the PID-5, the self-reported 
rating of  only one PD (Obsessive-Compulsive) resulted 
in a positive association. The PID-5 traits, Anxiousness, 
Emotional Liability, Hostility, and Risking Taking, 
were positively associated with PID-5 agreement. 
Neuroticism was also positively correlated with agree-
ment on the PID-5.

Increased inter-dyad agreement on the BFI was 
positively associated with target-rated Dependent PD, 
Eccentricity, and Unusual Beliefs and Experiences. No 
other target-rated criteria were significantly associated 
with BFI agreement.

Informant-Rated Criteria and Agreement
Results for informant-rated criteria (Table 4) 

showed a different pattern compared to the results 
for target-ratings. Informant-ratings for Paranoid, 
Narcissistic, and Borderline PD criteria had moderate 
correlations with SCID-II PQ agreement. Almost half  
of  the informant-ratings for PID-5 traits were positively 
associated with agreement on the SCID-II PQ. For BFI 
rated traits, Agreeableness and Conscientiousness were 
negatively correlated with SCID-II PQ agreement, and 
Neuroticism was positively associated with SCID-II 
PQ agreement. Only one informant-rating was asso-
ciated with PID-5 agreement; the PID-5 trait Rigid 
Perfectionism.

Consistent with previous studies, more personal-
ity pathology was associated with lower agreement for 
Five-Factor model traits. Higher scores of  informant-
rated Histrionic PD criteria was associated with lower 
agreement on the BFI. Six informant-rated PID-5 

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics

M SD Min Max

Agreement correlations
SCID-II PQ 0.35 0.36 -0.89 0.97
PID-5 0.48 0.26 -0.24 0.89
BFI 0.41 0.47 -0.98 0.96

Notes. N = 57–77. BFI = Big Five Inventory; PID-5 = Personality 
Inventory for DSM-5; PD = personality disorder; SCID-II 
PQ = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis-II, 
Screening Questionnaire.

Table 2
Dyad agreement intercorrelations

1 2 3

1. SCID-II PQ
2. PID-5 .12
3. BFI .12 .38**

Notes. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. BFI = Big 
Five Inventory; PAM = Personal Acquaintance Measure; 
PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5; SCID-II 
PQ = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis-II, 
Screening Questionnaire.



62

TOM, SIMMS

traits were negatively correlated with BFI agree-
ment (Callousness, Deceitfulness, Distractibility, 
Grandiosity, Hostility, and Irresponsibility). BFI traits 
Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness 
were positively associated with BFI agreement.

Discussion

In previous research, individuals only self-
reported personality pathology, and self-other 
agreement was only calculated for Five-Factor 
model traits. Overall, the results of  these studies 
found lower agreement for normal range personal-
ity traits (Furr et al., 2007; Mosterman and Hendriks, 
2011; Tandler et al., 2015). In general, individuals 
self-reporting more personality pathology tended 
to agree more with a close other on maladaptive 
personality traits (PID-5), PD symptoms (SCID-II 
PQ), , and normal range personality traits (BFI). 
In the current study, contrary to expectations, 
higher personality pathology correlated with higher 
agreement on normal range personality traits. One 
explanation for this unexpected result with self-
ratings of  personality pathology is that participants 
of  the current study had received some form of  
mental health treatment currently or in the past 
two years. Mental health treatment often focuses 
on increasing self-reflection and insight. Those indi-
viduals who were able to recognize their own higher 
levels of  personality pathology, perhaps were then 
better at assessing their own normal range personal-
ity traits and personal relationships.

In general, we had expected to find the same 
pattern of  results with both self- and informant-
reports of  personality pathology, but this was 
not the case. The negative relationship between 
informant-ratings of  personality pathology and 
inter-dyad agreement correlations was similar to 
previous studies utilizing self-ratings. We specu-
late that these findings were more consistent with 
previous research for a couple of  reasons. First, 
individuals whose informants rated them as higher 
in personality pathology may not necessarily rate 
themselves high in personality pathology for reasons 
such as self-serving biases or lack of  insight. These 
informant ratings may actually be reflecting those 
individuals who are not aware of  their personality 

Table 3
Relations between dyad agreement and target reports of PD 
criteria, traits, and acquaintanceship

 SCID-II PQ 
agreement

PID-5 
agreement

BFI 
agreement

PD criteria
Avoidant .02 .03 .18
Dependent -.16 .05 .27*
Obsessive-Compulsive .03 .35** .24
Paranoid .10 .14 .07
Schizotypal -.07 .13 .12
Schizoid -.08 -.07 -.03
Histrionic .10 .04 .16
Narcissistic .17 .18 .22
Borderline .17 .22 .15
Antisocial .10 .04 .10

PID-5 traits
Anhedonia .15 .07 .13
Anxiousness .29* .30* .14
Attention Seeking .20 .16 .12
Callousness .14 .10 .12
Deceitfulness .04 .07 .05
Depressivity .18 .19 .05
Distractibility .24* .20 .20
Eccentricity .29* .07 .31*
Emotional Lability .33** .29* .22
Grandiosity .16 -.15 .03
Hostility .27* .35* .17
Impulsivity .10 .17 .07
Intimacy .13 -.18 -.10
Irresponsibility .10 -.04 -.01
Manipulativeness .22 .08 .04
Perceptual 
Dysregulation .21 .00 .20
Perseveration .34** .14 .18
Restricted Affectivity .12 -.05 .12
Rigid Perfectionism .18 .17 .07
Risk Taking .21 .29* .08
Separation Insecurity .15 .23 .15
Submissiveness .14 .06 .01
Suspiciousness .27* .09 .06
Unusual Beliefs and 
Experiences .14 -.17 .28*
Withdrawal .14 -.04 .04

BFI traits
Agreeableness -.14 -.12 -.03
Conscientiousness -.07 .11 .09
Extraversion .01 .13 .12
Openness .10 .13 .24
Neuroticism .25* .35* .20

Notes. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. BFI = Big Five Inventory; 
PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5; PD = personality disorder; 
SCID-II PQ = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis-II, 
Screening Questionnaire.



63

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT IN PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

pathology. In contrast, it seems reasonable that the 
target individuals who had recognized their own 
personality pathology would generally have more 
inter-dyad agreement with their partners.

Individuals whose informants reported higher 
personality pathology also agreed more with their 
targets about PD symptoms. This was similar to 
the results for self-rated personality pathology. 
This again went contrary to expectations, because 
we tend to predict that individuals with more 
personality pathology would be oblivious to their 
maladaptive traits. However, these results appear 
to indicate personality pathology is quite salient 
and visible to both targets and informants. Even 
though maladaptive traits and symptoms are harder 
to judge and would normally have lower general 
agreement (Clifton et al., 2004), in the current 
study, individuals with more personality pathology 
exhibited higher inter-dyad agreement on these 
undesirable criteria compared to individuals with 
less personality pathology.

Notably, only one informant rated criterion 
correlated with higher agreement on maladap-
tive traits. This was an odd result, given that many 
informant-reported criterion for personality pathol-
ogy had significant associations. Where higher 
self-reported personality pathology had resulted 
in higher agreement on both PD criteria and the 
maladaptive traits, the informant analysis had more 
significant associations for the PD criteria measure, 
but lacked significant correlations for maladaptive 
traits. We were unable to think of  an explanation 
for this finding.

BFI Traits and Self-Other Agreement
Although the primary focus of  this study was 

to investigate level of  personality pathology and 
its relationship to self-other agreement, we also 
included self- and informant-rated BFI traits in 
the analysis. Similar to previous findings (Furr 
et al. 2007), Neuroticism had actually correlated 
positively with inter-dyad agreement correlations 
of  the PD criteria measure for both the target- and 
informant-analysis. For the target-analysis, higher 
Neuroticism was also associated with higher agree-
ment on the maladaptive trait measure.

Table 4
Relations between dyad agreement and informant reports of PD 
criteria, traits, and acquaintanceship

 SCID-II PQ 
agreement

PID-5 
agreement

BFI 
agreement

PD criteria
Avoidant .13 .07 -.05
Dependent .19 -.09 -.15
Obsessive-Compulsive .15 .02 -.06
Paranoid .30** .05 -.24
Schizotypal .17 .13 -.16
Schizoid .15 .03 .00
Histrionic .05 -.15 -.29*
Narcissistic .34** .01 -.20
Borderline .41*** .07 -.20
Antisocial .13 -.12 -.24

PID-5 traits
Anhedonia .25* -.04 -.21
Anxiousness .28* .21 -.19
Attention Seeking .23 .05 -.13
Callousness .29* -.10 -.29*
Deceitfulness .16 -.16 -.33*
Depressivity .36** .07 -.07
Distractibility .32** .13 -.29*
Eccentricity .16 .07 -.20
Emotional Lability .36** -.15 -.20
Grandiosity .18 -.06 -.30*
Hostility .29* -.12 -.32*
Impulsivity .30* -.10 -.25
Intimacy .14 -.07 -.12
Irresponsibility .19 -.23 -.28*
Manipulativeness .23 -.11 -.19
Perceptual 
Dysregulation .25* .03 -.24
Perseveration .30** .03 -.14
Restricted Affectivity .12 -.10 -.17
Rigid Perfectionism .21 .30* .00
Risk Taking .19 .11 -.17
Separation Insecurity .38** .00 -.09
Submissiveness .21 -.05 .08
Suspiciousness .24* .00 -.23
Unusual Beliefs and 
Experiences .17 -.04 -.15
Withdrawal .22 -.00 -.20

BFI traits
Agreeableness -.29* -.03 .42**
Conscientiousness -.36** .10 .30*
Extraversion -.13 -.06 -.13
Openness .03 .10 .46**
Neuroticism .43** .12 -.18

Notes. *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001. BFI = Big Five Inventory; 
PID-5 = Personality Inventory for DSM-5; PD = personality disorder; 
SCID-II PQ = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, Axis-II, 
Screening Questionnaire.



64

TOM, SIMMS

The other four of  the Five-Factor model traits 
did not have any other significant correlations for 
the target-analysis. However, for the informant analy-
sis, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness 
exhibited some reversed patterns compared to 
the maladaptive traits. Higher Agreeableness and 
Openness meant lower inter-dyad agreement on PD 
criteria. Maladaptive criteria are supposed to be more 
difficult to judge in those without personality pathol-
ogy (Clifton et al., 2004). Individuals rated as higher 
in Agreeableness and Contentiousness may also be 
individuals who have less personality pathology, and 
therefore would have worse self-other agreement on PD 
criteria. Those whose informants rated them as higher 
in Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Openness, 
were positively associated with higher inter-dyad agree-
ment on the normal range trait measure. These results 
were in line with previous findings that pro-social traits 
are easier to judge in well-adjusted individuals (Colvin, 
1993; Connolly et al., 2007).

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions
The use of  both self- and informant-ratings was a 

major strength to the study. Self-reports only showed 
a fraction of  the whole picture of  the relationship 
between level of  personality pathology and self-other 
agreement. Informant-reports of  personality pathol-
ogy yielded more significant correlations and unique 
patterns of  correlations in relation to inter-dyad agree-
ment. The Realistic Accuracy Model and the Self-Other 
Asymmetries Model alluded to differences in reception 
and interpretation of  information by a judge on a given 
target. The differences in the pattern of  results for the 
correlation matrices of  the self- and informant-ratings 
reveals the importance of  questioning accuracy, and 
that convergence for judgments of  others may not be 
obtainable for someone higher in personality pathology. 
From the findings of  the current study, this statement 
is of  course only true for normal range traits. Indeed, 
self- and informant-judgments of  maladaptive criteria 
did reach better consensus.

One limitation to the current study would be using 
Pearson’s correlations to calculate self-other agree-
ment. The literature has used various other methods for 
calculating self-other agreement. Pearson’s correlation 
is considered a simpler, yet valid way of  measuring self-
other agreement (McCrae, 2008). However, a Pearson’s 

correlation would not capture self-other agreement 
well if  an informant consistently rated a target as many 
points above, or below, the target ratings. The same limi-
tation has the potential to control for rating tendencies 
among pairs. For example, if  one an informant consis-
tently rated one point lower than the target for every 
item on a measure, the self-other agreement correlation 
would remain unchanged.

The current study had a relatively small sample size 
that varied depending on different measures. This was a 
result of  the large size of  the initial dataset; additionally, 
the measures used in the current study were often miss-
ing data. During data collection, which lasted around 
four hours, sections were often skipped in the interest 
of  saving time. The missing data was detrimental in the 
analysis due to lowered power. The sample size for BFI 
inter-dyad agreement was the lowest, at N = 57. Several 
correlations had approached significance but did not 
cross that threshold.

Another major limitation to the current study was 
the use of  self- and informant-ratings for calculat-
ing inter-dyad agreement correlations, and using the 
same ratings as criteria to correlate with the inter-dyad 
agreement correlations. This method was used for the 
PID-5and BFI. However, ratings of  the self  and infor-
mants for PD criteria used the SCID-II, which involved 
an interview with a clinician, and scores were strictly PD 
symptoms from the DSM-IV as determined by the clini-
cian. The SCID-II’s inter-dyad agreement counterpart 
was the SCID-II PQ, which utilized a questionnaire 
that did not involve an interview. The analysis was done 
this way presuming that the SCID-II PQ would better 
reflect the judgments on the self  and the informants. 
Additionally, we inferred that the SCID-II at face value, 
provided a more valid judgment for the presence of  
PD symptoms.

In the current study, we did not assess inter-dyad 
agreement of  individual traits. We only calculated profile 
agreement on whole measures. This may have limited 
the significance of  the results for BFI agreement, since 
this measure included prosocial traits and a maladaptive 
trait. In general, more significant relationships could 
be revealed in future studies by expanding the analysis 
to include agreement on individual traits. This was not 
done in the current study as to not exponentially multi-
ply the volume of  analysis.



65

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT IN PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

A study using a non-clinical sample will be the next 
step in this line of  research. Due to the unexpected 
finding that higher self-ratings of  personality pathology 
resulted in higher agreement on a measure of  normal 
range traits, using a non-clinical sample may produce 
results more consistent with previous results in the 
literature. It would be interesting to investigate whether 
a non-clinical sample would yield self- and informant-
results in the same pattern as the current study.

Conclusion

In this study, we found self- and informant-reports 
of  personality pathology had a positive correlation 
with self-other agreement of  maladaptive criteria. 
Self-reports of  higher personality pathology scores 
unexpectedly correlated with higher agreement for 
normal range traits. Informant-reports of  personality 
pathology, consistent with the literature, yielded a nega-
tive correlation with self-other agreement on normal 
range traits. Self- and informant-reports are unique 
and are likely both picking up on valuable information, 
as opposed to varying degrees of  error depending on 
circumstances surrounding those judgments. The next 
steps would be to expand the analysis to include inter-
dyad agreement correlations of  traits and PD criteria 
and to investigate this research question in a non-clinical 
sample using the same methods.

The ways in which self-other agreement varies based 
on the rater and the information being rated reminds 
us of  the subjectivity of  self- and informant-reports. 
These differences highlight the value and importance of  
obtaining multiple viewpoints when assessing popula-
tions that may have limited insight.

References

Biesanz, J. C. (2010). The social accuracy model of  
interpersonal perception: Assessing individual 
differences in perceptive and expressive accuracy. 
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45(5), 853–885. doi:
10.1080/00273171.2010.519262

Carlson, E. N., Vazire, S., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2013). 
Self-other knowledge asymmetries in personality 
pathology. Journal of  Personality, 81(2), 155–170. 
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2012.00794.x

Clifton, A., Turkheimer, E., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2004). 
Contrasting perspectives on personality problems: 
descriptions from the self  and others. Personality and 
Individual Differences, 36(7), 1499–1514. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2003.06.002

Colvin, C. R. (1993). ‘Judgable’ people: Personality, 
behavior, and competing explanations. Journal 
of  Personality and Social Psychology, 64(5), 861–873. 
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.5.861

Connelly, B. S., & Ones, D. S. (2010). Another 
perspective on personality: Meta-analytic integration 
of  observers’ accuracy and predictive validity. 
Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1092–1122. doi:10.1037/
a002121210.1037/a0021212.supp

Connolly, J. J., Kavanagh, E. J., & Viswesvaran, C. (2007). 
The Convergent Validity between Self  and Observer 
Ratings of  Personality: A meta-analytic review. 
International Journal of  Selection and Assessment, 15(1), 
110–117. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2389.2007.00371.x

Funder, D. C. (1993). Judgments as data for personality 
and developmental psychology: Error versus 
accuracy. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. 
Tomlinson-Keasey, K. Widaman, D. C. Funder, R. D. 
Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey, & K. Widaman (Eds.), 
Studying lives through time: Personality and development. 
(pp. 121–146). Washington, DC, US: American 
Psychological Association.

Funder, D. C. (1995). On the accuracy of  personality 
judgment: A realistic approach. Psychological Review, 
102(4), 652–670. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.102.4.652

Funder, D. C., & Dobroth, K. M. (1987). Differences 
between traits: Properties associated with interjudge 
agreement. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 
52(2), 409–418. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.2.409

Furr, R. M., Dougherty, D. M., Marsh, D. M., & Mathias, 
C. W. (2007). Personality judgment and personality 
pathology: Self-other agreement in adolescents 
with conduct disorder. Journal of  Personality, 75(3), 
629–662. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2007.00451.x

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., & Williams, 
J. W. (1995). The Structured Clinical Interview 
for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders (SCID-II): 
I. Description. Journal of  Personality Disorders, 9(2), 
83–91. doi:10.1521/pedi.1995.9.2.83

Greenwald, A. G. (1980). The totalitarian ego: Fabrication 
and revision of  personal history. American Psychologist, 
35(7), 603–618. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.35.7.603



66

TOM, SIMMS

Hofstee, W. K. B. (1994). Who should own the definition 
of  personality? European Journal of  Personality, 8(3), 
149–162. doi:10.1002/per.2410080302

Holzbach, R. L. (1978). Rater bias in performance 
ratings: Superior, self-, and peer ratings. 
Journal of  Applied Psychology, 63(5), 579–588. 
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.579

Human, L. J., & Biesanz, J. C. (2011). Through the looking 
glass clearly: Accuracy and assumed similarity in 
well-adjusted individuals’ first impressions. Journal 
of  Personality and Social Psychology, 100(2), 349–364. 
doi:10.1037/a0021850

Human, L. J., Biesanz, J. C., Finseth, S. M., Pierce, 
B., & Le, M. (2014). To thine own self  be true: 
Psychological adjustment promotes judgeability 
via personality–behavior congruence. Journal of  
Personality and Social Psychology, 106(2), 286–303. 
doi:10.1037/a0034860

John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The 
big five inventory—versions 4a and 54.

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1993). Determinants of  
Interjudge Agreement on Personality Traits: The Big 
Five Domains, Observability, Evaluativeness, and the 
Unique Perspective of  the Self. Journal of  Personality, 
61(4), 521–551. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1993.
tb00781.x

John, O. P., & Robins, R. W. (1994). Accuracy and bias 
in self-perception: Individual differences in self-
enhancement and the role of  narcissism. Journal 
of  Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1), 206–219. 
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.206

Kenrick, D. T., & Stringfield, D. O. (1980). Personality 
traits and the eye of  the beholder: Crossing some 
traditional philosophical boundaries in the search for 
consistency in all of  the people. Psychological Review, 
87(1), 88–104. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.1.88

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(3), 300–311. 
doi:10.1093/clipsy/9.3.300

Kolar, D. W., Funder, D. C., & Colvin, C. R. (1996). 
Comparing the accuracy of  personality 
judgments by the self  and knowledgeable 
others. Journal of  Personality, 64(2), 311–337. 
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00513.x

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., 
& Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of  a 
maladaptive personality trait model and inventory 
for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42(9), 1879–1890. 
doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674

Kurtz, J. E., & Sherker, J. L. (2003). Relationship 
quality, trait similarity, and self-other agreement on 
personality ratings in college roommates. Journal 
of  personality, 71(1), 21–48. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.
t01-1-00005

Leising, D., Rehbein, D., & Sporberg, D. (2006). Does 
a fish see the water in which it swims? A study of  
the ability to correctly judge one’s own interpersonal 
behavior. Journal of  Social and Clinical Psychology, 25(9), 
963–974. doi:10.1521/jscp.2006.25.9.963

Lynam, D. R., & Widiger, T. A. (2001). Using the Five-
Factor Model to represent the DSM-IV personality 
disorders: An expert consensus approach. 
Journal of  Abnormal Psychology, 110(3), 401–412. 
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.110.3.401

McCrae, R. R. (2008). A note on some measures of  
profile agreement. Journal of  Personality Assessment, 
90(2), 105–109. doi:10.1080/00223890701845104

Markon, K. E., Quilty, L. C., Bagby, R. M., & Krueger, 
R. F. (2013). The development and psychometric 
properties of  an informant-report form of  the 
Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Assessment, 
20(3), 370–383. doi:10.1177/1073191113486513

Miller, J. D., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, 
C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants 
of  common personality dimensions: can the Five-
Factor Model adequately represent psychopathy?. 
Journal of  personality, 69(2), 253–276.

Mosterman, R. M., & Hendriks, A. A. J. (2011). Self–
other disagreement in personality assessment: 
Significance and prognostic value. Clinical Psychology 
& Psychotherapy, 18(2), 159–171. doi:10.1002/cpp.708

Oltmanns, T. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2009). Person 
perception and personality pathology. Current 
Directions in Psychological Science, 18(1), 32–36. 
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01601.x

Paulhus, D. L., & John, O. P. (1998). Egoistic and 
moralistic biases in self-perception: The interplay 
of  self-deceptive styles with basic traits and 
motives. Journal of  Personality, 66(6), 1025–1060. 
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00041



67

SELF-OTHER AGREEMENT IN PERSONALITY PATHOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Ready, R. E., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Correspondence 
of  psychiatric patient and informant ratings of  
personality traits, temperament, and interpersonal 
problems. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 39–49. 
doi:10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.39

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(2), 208–224. doi:10.1006/
jrpe.1999.2280

Ready, R. E., Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (2002). Psychiatric 
patient- and informant-reported personality: 
Predicting concurrent and future behavior. Assessment, 
9(4), 361–372. doi:10.1177/1073191102238157

Robins, R. W., & Beer, J. S. (2001). Positive illusions 
about the self: short-term benefits and long-term 
costs. Journal of  personality and social psychology, 80(2), 
340. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.340

Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., 
Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H. (2011). Computerized 
adaptive assessment of  personality disorder: 
Introducing the CAT–PD project. Journal of  
Personality Assessment, 93(4), 380–389. doi:10.1080/
00223891.2011.577475

South, S. C., Oltmanns, T. F., Johnson, J., & 
Turkheimer, E. (2011). Level of  agreement 
between self  and spouse in the assessment of  
personality pathology. Assessment, 18(2), 217–226. 
doi:10.1177/1073191110394772

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(5), 837–867. 
doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00118

Tackett, J. (2011). Parent informants for child personality: 
Agreement, discrepancies, and clinical utility. Journal 
of  Personality Assessment, 93(6), 539–544. doi:10.108
0/00223891.2011.608763

Tandler, N., Mosch, A., Wolf, A., & Borkenau, P. 
(2015). Effects of  Personality Disorders on Self-
Other Agreement and Favorableness in Personality 
Descriptions. Journal of  Personality Disorders, 1–18. 
doi:10.1521/pedi_2015_29_213

Vazire, S. (2010). Who knows what about a person? 
The self–other knowledge asymmetry (SOKA) 
model. Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 
281–300. doi:10.1037/a0017908

Vazire, S., & Mehl, M. R. (2008). Knowing me, knowing 
you: The accuracy and unique predictive validity 
of  self-ratings and other-ratings of  daily behavior. 
Journal of  Personality and Social Psychology, 95(5), 1202–
1216. doi:10.1037/a0013314


