In the article, Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology: II. Further Articulation of a Comprehensive Unified Trait Structure, Watson, Clark and Chmielewski examine the relationship between personality and psychopathology with a view of determining the best means to conceptualize and categorize the two domains. In broad terms, the study examines normal-range personality as well as psychopathology with the main area of study being the structure and assessment of both domains. Specific questions studied within the research include whether psychopathology should be dimensional or categorical in nature and whether the Diagnostic Statics Manual (DSM) diagnosis is valid and reliable. Although the study carried out by Watson, Clark and Chmielewski does not express opposing viewpoints and uses complex language, the research should be accepted on its own merit because it is well supported by empirical studies and gives a good background of the issues discussed.
Before moving any further, it is important to understand the audience to whom this journal is addressed. At a glance, this study appears to be meant for psychopathologists. Although the research deals with assessment and structure of psychopathology and normal range personality, the researchers also address clinical issues such as stability and change –issues that go beyond the surface of psychopathology. In addition, the researchers also examine the personality ranges that are used to classify the various psychopathological issues such as schizophrenia and depression. This implores that the research is addressed to people who are familiar with psychopathology and structures of personality.
At the moment when the research was carried out, there were genuine concerns that the DSM–IV was largely hierarchical hence the need for a trait dimensional scheme that would make psychopathology easier without leaving out some personality traits. Having this background, the researchers were, therefore, justified to carry out a study to examine how personality relates with psychopathology in the DSM and suggest any necessary improvements. Therefore, the research is appropriate, on its own merit, because it addresses an existing problem.
In the study, the researchers find “the Big Four model is incomplete in that it fails to model the characteristics related to the odd or eccentric Cluster A personality disorders adequately” (Watson, Clark and Chmielewski 1545). From an analytical viewpoint, the conclusion reached by the researchers seems justifiable because empirical quantitative models are used in the study. One of the hallmarks of a valid and reliable study is the use of supporting data. In this case, the researchers use “three studies to articulate broader, more comprehensive trait taxonomy” (Watson, Clark and Chmielewski 1546).
Another strength of the study is the fact that the researchers revisit existing structures that deal with normal and pathological personality. This gives the basis for understanding the conceptualization and assessment of psychopathology. As a result, the researchers propose a “comprehensive six-factor hierarchical structure that takes care of the four previous traits plus openness and oddity” (Watson, Clark and Chmielewski 1546). The advantage with the comprehensive structure is that it contains both normal and pathological manifestations of personality.
Nevertheless, it is important to point out that the language used by the researchers is too complex for learners who are not familiar with psychopathology to understand. Although classification and assessment of personality disorders is not expected to be easy, the concepts expounded by the researchers are too technical for people outside the realm of psychology to understand. For example, when the researchers address the question about integration of normal and abnormal trait structures, words such as MPQ, SNAP and NEI-PI-R feature a lot. These contractions not only confuse beginners acquainting themselves with the relationship between personality structures and psychopathology, but also appear too complex for the ordinary person to understand. Therefore, the fact that the journal article is meant for peer review does not justify the use of complicated language.
In addition, the fact that the researchers do not articulate and address opposing viewpoints makes the study appear one-sided. A good study should be well-balanced, with both supporting and opposing viewpoints being explicitly expressed. However, the researchers just push their school of thought without examining other opinions expressed on the subject matter. For example, on the issue of coming up with DSM-V, the researchers do not express contrary opinions. This creates the impression that DSM-V will address all the conceptual and assessment challenges in psychopathology without understanding the extent to which DSM-IV does not address some of these challenges.
In conclusion, this study argues that DSM-IV is not adequate because it does not cover some important dimensional aspects of psychopathology. In this respect, the researches propose an overhaul on DSM-IV in order to allow for a comprehensive hierarchical structure that would subsume openness and oddity. This would allow for conceptualization and assessment of some dimensional aspects of personality disorder that are not included in the hierarchical structure. The use of three empirical studies to support this argument means that the hypothesis is well-grounded, and the conclusions drawn from the study are valid and reliable. However, the language used in the study can be confusing to the people who have no background in psychology and psychopathology. The fact that the study is meant for peer psychologists does not mean that the use of complex wording throughout the study is justified. Moreover, the researchers do not take into account opposing viewpoints, which may justify the continued use of the DSM-IV. For this reason, the study is not well-balanced. Nevertheless, the researchers do make a good case for the use of “expanded quantitative models of psychopathology that would incorporate excluded diagnosis into the normal-range personality traits”. In this respect, the study contributes to the advancement of psychology as a science.
Works Cited
Watson, David, Lee Anna Clark and Michael Chmielewski. "Structures of Personality and their
Relevance to Psychopathology: II. Further Articulation of a Comprehensive Unified
Structure." Journal of Personality (2008): 76 (6), 1545-1586 . Print.
