Informant-reports of Personality Sample Clauses

Informant-reports of Personality. In an effort to obtain a more complete picture of an individual’s personality, researchers sometimes have family members or close friends (i.e., informants) also provide personality trait ratings for the proband (i.e., the individual whose personality is of interest; Xxxxx, 2007; Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxxx, 2002; Xxxxxxx et al., 2004; Xxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, Xxxxxx & Xxxxxxxxx, 1986). Due to the abovementioned potential for psychopathology to bias the self- assessment of personality, some have argued that high concordance between self- and informant- reports of personality is necessary to confirm the validity of the self-report among those with psychopathology (Funder & Xxxx, 1993; Ready & Xxxxx, 2002; Xxxx et al., 1999). The practice of using self-informant agreement to evaluate the accuracy of self-reported personality is grounded largely in assumption that informant-reports of personality are less biased by the proband’s psychopathology and social desirability, and thus more objective, than self-reports of personality (Funder & Xxxx, 1993; Xxxxxxx & Xxxx, 1990; Xxxx et al., 1999). However, there is evidence to suggest that both self- and informant-reports of personality may have strong incremental validity even if self- and informant-reports do not entirely correspond (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx , 2013; Xxxxxx et al., 2013). For example, Xxxxx (2003) found that, among individuals with personality disorders, informant- and self-reports of personality pathology each contributed independently to the prediction of depressive symptoms and global functioning at follow-up. The findings of Xxxxx (2003) and others (Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx, 2004; Xxxxxxx & Xxxxxxxx , 2013; Xxxxxx et al., 2013) may suggest that obtaining self- and informant-reports of personality is particularly valuable when the two sources provide divergent information, as each source may add to the predictive utility of personality assessment. Conversely, if self-informant agreement is high, obtaining both reports may be unnecessary and not worth the extra effort. Thus, determining whether self-informant concordance rates on personality measures are higher in certain populations may prove valuable for guiding clinicians and researchers as to when gathering assessments from both sources may be redundant.