Psychosomatic Medicine Tips for Better Browsing
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH

Published online before print October 15, 2009
Psychosom Med 2009, doi:10.1097/PSY.0b013e3181bd888b
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (Rapid PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ferguson, E.
Right arrow Articles by O'Carroll, R. E.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ferguson, E.
Right arrow Articles by O'Carroll, R. E.
Related Collections
Right arrow Personality
Right arrow Other Cardiovascular Medicine
© 2009 by American Psychosomatic Society

Original Article


Received December 23, 2008
Returned for revision July 29, 2009

A Taxometric Analysis of Type-D Personality

Eamonn Ferguson , PhD, Lynn Williams , PhD, Rory C. O'Connor , PhD, Siobhán Howard , PhD, Brian M. Hughes , PhD, Derek W. Johnston , PhD, Julia L. Allan , PhD, Daryl B. O'Connor , PhD, Christopher A. Lewis , DPhil, Madeleine A. Grealy , PhD, Ronan E. O'Carroll , PhD


Address correspondence and reprint requests to: Eamonn Ferguson, PhD, E-mail: eamonn.ferguson{at}nottingham.ac.uk.


   Abstract

Objective: To test the dimensionality of Type-D personality, using taxometric procedures, to assess if Type-D personality is taxonic or dimensional. Type-D personality is treated as a categorical variable and caseness has been shown to be a risk factor for poor prognosis in coronary heart disease. However, at present, there is no direct evidence to support the assumption that Type D is categorical and able to differentiate true cases from noncases. Methods: In total, 1012 healthy young adults from across the United Kingdom and Ireland completed the DS14, the standard index of Type D, and scores were submitted to two taxometric procedures MAMBAC and MAXCOV. Results: Graphical representations (comparing actual with simulated data) and fit indices indicated that Type D is more accurately represented as a dimensional rather than categorical construct. Conclusion: Type D is better represented as a dimensional construct. Implications for theory development and clinical practice with respect to Type D are examined as well as the wider use of taxometrics within psychosomatic medicine (e.g., to investigate if there are medically unexplained syndrome taxons, such as a Gulf War Syndrome taxon).

Key Words: Type D, taxometric analysis, taxon, dimensional, functional syndromes







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH
Copyright © 2009 by the American Psychosomatic Society