Measures of Narcissism and Their Relations to DSM-5 Pathological Traits

Abstract

There exists substantial debate about how to best assess pathological narcissism with a variety of measures designed to assess grandiose and vulnerable narcissism, as well as the DSM-IV and DSM-5 based conceptualizations of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). Wright and colleagues published correlations between several narcissism measures (Narcissistic Personality Inventory [NPI]; Pathological Narcissism Inventory [PNI]; Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire [PDQ] NPD) with the traits comprising the DSM-5 Section III personality trait model. In the current study, we examine the agreement manifested by Wright and colleagues’ narcissism–DSM-5 trait profiles with expert ratings of the DSM-5 traits most relevant to descriptions of DSM-IV NPD. Despite concerns regarding the NPI’s ability to measure pathological narcissism, its trait profile was strongly correlated with expert ratings, as was PDQ NPD’s profile. Conversely, the trait profiles associated with the PNI were primarily uncorrelated with the expert rated NPD profile. The implications of these findings with regard to the assessment of narcissism are discussed.

Keywords

narcissism narcissistic personality disorder expert ratings profile matching construct validity

Despite nearly being deleted from the DSM-5 nosology (Miller, Widiger, & Campbell, 2010; Morey & Stagner, 2012), research on narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) continues to thrive with an increasing number of empirical publications addressing a wide array of core issues (e.g., Campbell & Miller, 2011). There has been a great deal of recent research on the distinction between narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability (or grandiose and vulnerable narcissism). Specifically, how do we best assess these two narcissism dimensions and incorporate them into the DSM-IV and DSM-5 related definitions of NPD? Much of the assessment-related debate has been framed in terms of the distinction between how narcissism is conceptualized and assessed in the social-personality literature (interested primarily, but not exclusively, in grandiose aspects of narcissism) versus the clinical psychology/psychiatry literature (interested in both grandiose and vulnerable dimensions but with a widely held view that vulnerability or fragility underlies the disorder; Miller & Campbell, 2008; Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010).

A major component of this debate is the suggestion (e.g., Pincus et al., 2009; Rosenthal & Hooley, 2010) that social-personality psychologists primarily study adaptive or “normal” variants of narcissism, as assessed by the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI; Raskin & Hall, 1979), whereas clinical psychologists study pathological variants, ideally using new instruments such as the Pathological Narcissism Inventory (PNI; Pincus et al., 2009) or measures designed to capture DSM-IV NPD such as the NPD scale from the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4; Hyler, 1994). For example, Pincus and Lukowitsky (2010) suggest that “the NPI does not assess subclinical narcissism reflecting a continuum of functioning, but rather predominantly assesses nondistressed adaptive expressions of the construct” (p. 425). The suggestion that the NPI measures normal or adaptive aspects of narcissism appears to be due, in part, to its positive correlations with self-esteem, negative correlations with trait and state negative affect/neuroticism, and the fact that individuals in outpatient settings have lower NPI scores than college students.¹ Conversely, we have argued that NPI scores are markers of pathological forms of narcissism as they are substantially correlated with interview and self-report ratings of DSM-IV NPD—even in clinical samples—as well as expert ratings of prototypical cases of NPD from a five-factor model perspective (e.g., Miller, Gaughan, Pryor, Kamen, & Campbell, 2009; Miller, Maples, & Campbell, 2011). Furthermore, we see narcissism as a complex “trade-off” that involves both maladaptive and adaptive components (Campbell, 2001; Campbell, Bush, Brunell, & Shelton, 2005; Campbell & Campbell, 2009). Research has shown that the NPI provides useful information above and beyond various alternative measures of narcissism-related traits (Miller, Price, & Campbell, 2012) including measures of entitlement and grandiosity (including the PNI’s grandiosity factor).

The current study addresses questions regarding the construct validity of these various measures of narcissism by conducting new analyses on recent data published by Wright et al. (2013). In their original study, Wright et al. examined the correlations manifested by several prominent measures of narcissism—a short form of the NPI (NPI-16; Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006), the PNI (Pincus et al., 2009), and the PDQ-4 NPD (Hyler, 1994)—with the traits included in a new alternative approach to the diagnosis of personality disorders described in Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5). Wright et al.’s original correlations, derived from a sample of 1,653 undergraduates, are presented in Tables 1 and 2. Wright et al. used these data to address many of the ongoing debates in the literature as to the expected versus obtained trait profiles associated with various narcissism measures and the degree to which each of these measures is relevant to the study of narcissistic personality pathology. For instance, all three narcissism measures were significantly correlated with the traits comprising the antagonism domain of the DSM-5 trait model (as measured by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) but differed in their relations with other domains. Besides the NPI-16, measures of narcissism were also correlated with traits from the negative affectivity and psychoticism domains. The authors suggested that these findings are in line with “a more nuanced articulation of pathological grandiosity that goes beyond Antagonism to include additional features (Pincus, 2013)” (p. 346) and suggested that the unexpected links between narcissism and traits from the domain of psychoticism might reflect shared “nonspecific risk factors.”

Table 1.

Correspondence Between Narcissism–DSM-5 Trait Profiles With Expert Ratings of NPD.

	Expert ratings	PNI G	PNI V	NPI-16	PDQ NPD
Submissiveness	0.14	.24	.42	−.15	.05
Depressivity	0.55	.18	.53	−.09	.20
Separation insecurity	0.62	.30	.54	−.01	.18
Anxiousness	0.83	.29	.58	−.12	.16
Emotional liability	1.28	.29	.54	.03	.23
Suspiciousness	1.45	.28	.54	.11	.35
Restricted affectivity	0.86	.10	.18	.07	.17
Withdrawal	0.36	.09	.39	−.06	.24
Intimacy avoidance	1.14	.04	.21	−.02	.16
Anhedonia	0.41	.10	.47	−.10	.20
Manipulativeness	2.38	.48	.31	.53	.39
Deceitfulness	1.59	.43	.46	.42	.44
Hostility	1.69	.30	.50	.26	.38
Callousness	2.07	.15	.30	.40	.44
Attention seeking	1.83	.48	.38	.52	.36
Grandiosity	3.00	.35	.23	.60	.52
Irresponsibility	0.86	.16	.39	.20	.34
Impulsivity	0.93	.22	.25	.20	.21
Distractibility	0.17	.25	.47	−.02	.21
Perseveration	0.38	.35	.60	.01	.27
Rigid perfectionism	0.83	.29	.37	.11	.20
Risk taking	1.85	.17	.01	.30	.11
Eccentricity	0.18	.32	.43	.09	.24
Cognitive/perceptual dysregulation	0.07	.34	.52	.13	.35
Unusual beliefs and experiences	0.14	.32	.34	.23	.32
r-alerting		.30	−.42	.81**	.61*
r-contrast		.20**	−.41**	.80**	.40**

Note. Mean expert ratings for DSM-5 NPD reported in Samuel, Lynam, Widiger, & Ball (2012); correlations for PNI G, PNI V, NPI-16, and PDQ NPD with the DSM-5 traits were reported in Wright et al. (2013). PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory; G = Grandiose dimension; V = Vulnerable dimension; NPI-16 = 16-item short report of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory; PDQ NPD = DSM-IV NPD scores from the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire–4. Samuel et al.’s (2012) expert ratings for the 37 traits were reconfigured for the final 25 trait model following Krueger et al.’s (2012) description (see Table 1 of that publication for details). Facets directly tied to NPD in the Section III model of the DSM-5 are in bold.

p ≤ .01. **p ≤ .001.

Table 2.

Correspondence Between PNI Subscales–DSM-5 Trait Profiles With Expert Ratings of NPD.

		Grandiose scales			Vulnerable scales
	Expert ratings	EXP	SSSE	GF	CSE	HS	DEV	ER
Submissiveness	0.14	.03	.26	26	.46	.25	.32	32
Depressivity	0.55	.07	.10	21	.53	.39	.48	31
Separation insecurity	0.62	.10	.31	28	.60	.28	.37	44
Anxiousness	0.83	.05	.26	32	.55	.44	.48	44
Emotional lability	1.28	.14	.26	26	.54	.28	.44	47
Suspiciousness	1.45	.23	.17	24	.44	.40	.55	44
Restricted affectivity	0.86	.21	−.05	09	.06	.35	.22	.08
Withdrawal	0.36	.11	−.02	11	.27	.43	.45	.24
Intimacy avoidance	1.14	.08	−.04	05	.12	.24	.31	.11
Anhedonia	0.41	.05	.02	13	.45	.37	.44	.29
Manipulativeness	2.38	.73	.19	28	.21	.22	.25	.39
Deceitfulness	1.59	.57	.18	30	.39	.29	.40	.49
Hostility	1.69	.35	.13	23	.38	.35	.42	.56
Callousness	2.07	.39	−.08	08	.18	.20	.35	.34
Attention seeking	1.83	.44	.30	40	.39	.14	.22	.44
Grandiosity	3.00	.47	.13	24	.13	.12	.23	.36
Irresponsibility	0.86	.26	.01	13	.36	.19	.42	.31
Impulsivity	0.93	.30	.09	14	.23	.14	.23	.24
Distractibility	0.17	.18	.17	22	.46	.33	.41	.36
Perseveration	0.38	.20	.27	33	.55	.44	.53	.48
Rigid perfectionism	0.83	.16	.26	26	.28	.29	.35	.35
Risk taking	1.85	.34	.02	09	−.02	.04	.01	.04
Eccentricity	0.18	.26	.17	30	.38	.37	.38	.31
Cognitive/perceptual dysregulation	0.07	.32	.18	30	.45	.38	.51	.40
Unusual beliefs and experiences	0.14	.38	.14	24	.25	.28	.37	.29
r-alerting		.65**	−.11	−.04	−.47	−.59*	−.47	.12
r-contrast		.66**	−.09**	−.05	−.50**	−.40**	−.39**	.08*

Note. Mean expert ratings for DSM-5 NPD reported in Samuel et al. (2012); correlations for PNI subscales with the DSM-5 traits were reported in Wright et al. (2013). PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory. EXP = Exploitativeness; SSSE = Self-sacrificing Self-enhancement; GF = Grandiose Fantasies; CSE = Contingent Self-esteem; HS= Hiding the Self; DEV = Devaluing; ER = Entitlement Rage. Samuel et al.’s (2012) expert ratings for the 37 traits were reconfigured for the final 25 trait model following Krueger et al.’s (2012) description (see Table 1 of that publication for details). Facets directly tied to NPD in the Section III model of the DSM-5 are in bold.

p ≤ .01. **p ≤ .001.

However, a plausible alternative explanation is that the significant relations manifested by the PNI Grandiose narcissism scale with traits from the DSM-5 psychoticism and negative affectivity domains reflect deficient discriminant validity, rather than a more nuanced view of the construct. That is, the grandiose narcissism dimension of the PNI appears to capture traits not typically considered to be part of the narcissism construct. Rather than attempting to revise the nomological network of narcissism based on findings derived from a single measure of narcissism, we believe it more appropriate to judge these correlations using a more objective criterion. Fortunately, such a criterion exists, by way of independent expert ratings (n = 29) of the DSM-5 trait profile believed to best characterize DSM-IV NPD. Samuel, Lynam, Widiger, and Ball (2012) asked active personality disorder researchers to rate prototypical cases of specific PDs on the 37 traits originally developed for use in the DSM-5. For NPD, 29 experts rated a prototypic case of NPD using these 37 traits based on the DSM-IV conceptualization of NPD.² Each trait was rated on a 0 (not at all descriptive or very little) to 3 (extremely descriptive) metric. Since the collection of these data, the DSM-5 trait model was shortened from 37 to 25 traits but most of the traits remained exactly the same and the ones that were removed were typically combined with other traits in a manner articulated by Krueger et al. (2012). Samuel et al. (2012) provided results on the reliability of these expert ratings using four indices of agreement for all 10 DSM-IV PDs. Averaged across these four measures of reliability, the expert agreement was the fourth highest for NPD out of the 10 PDs.

The mean expert ratings for NPD on the DSM-5 traits are also provided in Table 1. If these traits were sorted from the least to most descriptive with regard to NPD, they would range from Cognitive/perceptual dysregulation (M = .07), Submissiveness (M = .14), and Unusual beliefs and experiences (M = .14) to Callousness (M = 2.07), Manipulativeness (M = 2.38), and Grandiosity (M = 3.00). This expert profile thus represents the pattern of findings that experts believe best represents DSM-IV (and now DSM-5) characterizations of NPD and can be used as an objective indicator of the extent to which the various trait profiles created by the narcissism measures tested in the Wright et al. (2013) study match the NPD construct as conceived of by experts. This approach is similar to other attempts to characterize various narcissism measures on the basis of expert ratings of external criteria (e.g., Miller, Price, & Campbell, 2012; Thomas, Wright, Lukowitsky, Donnellan, & Hopwood, 2012).

In the current study, we quantified the degree of agreement between Samuel et al.’s (2012) expert-generated NPD profile and the empirical correlational profiles (i.e., the correlations between the narcissism measures and the 25 PID-5 traits) presented by Wright et al. (2013). Profile agreement was examined using Westen and Rosenthal’s (2003) two measures of agreement, r-alerting and r-contrast. Each measure of agreement is somewhat different from the other. R-alerting is a Pearson correlation between Fisher-transformed correlations (Table 1: data presented in columns 3-6; Table 2: data presented in columns 3-9) and a set of contrast weights based on the expert profile (Tables 1 and 2: column 2). R-contrast provides an index of agreement that takes into account both the variability among the correlations between the scale and the external criteria and the intercorrelations among the external criteria.³

Results

As can be seen in the bottom two rows of Table 1, the trait profiles manifested by the NPI-16 (r-alerting: .81; r-contrast: .80) and the PDQ-4 NPD (r-alerting: .61; r-contrast: .40) were the most similar to the experts’ ratings of DSM-IV NPD. Only the r-contrast (.20) but not the r-alerting (.30) coefficient was statistically significant for the PNI Grandiose domain. Finally, the correlational profile of the PNI Vulnerable domain was dissimilar to the expert ratings of NPD (i.e., manifested negative correlations).

Next, we examined the individual performance of the seven PNI subscales by comparing the DSM-5 correlational profiles published by Wright et al. (2013) to the expert-generated NPD profile. As be seen in the bottom row of Table 2, only the profile of correlations manifested by the PNI Exploitativeness scale was significantly positively correlated with the expert profile across both measures of agreement (r-alerting: .65; r-contrast: .66). PNI Entitlement Rage also manifested a small positive correlation using the r-contrast coefficient (.08) but not the alerting coefficient (.12). The profiles generated by the remaining five PNI subscales manifested either null or significantly negative correlations with the expert profile of NPD.

Discussion

Three narcissism (sub)scales demonstrated patterns of correlations with the DSM-5 pathological personality traits that were significantly and consistently associated with an expert rated profile of traits that best characterize DSM-IV NPD: the NPI-16, PDQ NPD, and PNI Exploitativeness. The other scales generated profiles that were unrelated or significantly negatively related to the expert rated profile of NPD. This pattern of results suggests that these three measures are all reasonable assessment tools for measuring pathological narcissism as conceptualized in the DSM-IV and DSM-5 (i.e., narcissism that focuses primarily on the assessment of grandiosity). The lack of substantial profile agreement manifested by the PNI Vulnerable dimension and subscales is neither troubling nor surprising, as numerous researchers have argued that the DSM-IV conceptualization of NPD is either entirely or primarily composed of grandiosity-related content (Cain, Pincus, & Ansell, 2008; Miller, Hoffman, Campbell, & Pilkonis, 2008). It does seem problematic, however, that the PNI Grandiose dimension and two of its three subscales do not map on to the current conceptualization of NPD and pathological grandiosity, given that these scales putatively assess the same content.

This study is not the first to find that the PNI Grandiose dimension captures a substantial degree of vulnerability and may be better conceived of as an alternative measure of narcissistic vulnerability or one that is an admixture of vulnerable and grandiose content. Several factor analyses have demonstrated that most of the subscales that comprise the PNI Grandiose dimension load with narcissistic vulnerability scales in factor analyses (Krizan & Johar, 2012; Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011; Miller, Price, Gentile, Lynam, & Campbell, 2012) and manifest limited correlations with DSM-IV measures of NPD (Glover, Miller, Lynam, Crego, & Widiger, 2012). Although it is possible to redefine the construct of NPD or grandiosity to match the correlations manifested by the PNI Grandiose dimension (e.g., argue that NPD should be associated with traits such as separation insecurity, submissiveness, and cognitive/perceptual dysregulation), we believe it is more parsimonious and methodologically sound to give weight to the profile determined by expert consensus, and acknowledge that the NPI-16, PDQ NPD scale and PNI Exploitativeness scale appear to be the most successful at capturing pathological aspects of narcissistic grandiosity.

This conclusion has several important implications. First, the NPI has been the subject of substantial and widespread criticism over the past several years for a variety of reasons (e.g., Pincus & Lukowitsky, 2010; Rosenthal & Hooley, 2010); the most prominent critique, however, states that the NPI assesses normal but not pathological aspects of narcissism. These arguments persist despite research demonstrating that the NPI is strongly correlated with self and interview rated symptoms of NPD and generates a five-factor model trait profile that is consistent with expert ratings of prototypical cases of NPD (e.g., Miller et al., 2009; Miller, Hoffman, et al., 2011). In the current study, using these objective expert ratings as the standard, Wright and colleagues’ data clearly demonstrate that the NPI generates the personality profile that is most similar to the expert-generated profile for DSM-IV and DSM-5 conceptualizations of NPD.

The current data also have implications for the PNI as neither the PNI Grandiose nor Vulnerable dimension produced a pattern of trait correlates that is consistent with expert ratings of DSM-IV and DSM-5 defined NPD. Similarly, only one of the seven PNI subscales—Exploitativeness—was consistently and substantively related to the expert ratings of NPD. It is worth noting, however, that all six of the PNI Exploitativeness items were derived directly from the items used to measure exploitativeness in the NPI (e.g., NPI: “I can usually talk my way out of anything” vs. “I try to accept the consequences of my behavior”; PNI: “ I can usually talk my way out of anything; NPI: “I find it easy to manipulate people” vs. “I don’t like it when I find myself manipulating people”; PNI: I find it easy to manipulate people.”). Despite the criticism of the NPI as a deficient measure of pathological narcissism, the only PNI subscale that is related to experts’ conceptualization of NPD is the one entirely composed of items taken from the NPI.

Ultimately, these data suggest two things. First, consistent with evidence cited earlier, the NPI appears to be a good measure of DSM-IV and DSM-5 NPD. This should not be a surprise as it was written to assess DSM-III NPD. Second, the PNI, which has quickly become one of the most frequently used measures of narcissism, has tenuous ties to widely accepted conceptualizations of NPD and grandiose narcissism. Although the PNI may in fact be more pathological in nature, as some have argued (e.g., Roche et al., 2013), this pathology stems less from its ability to assess traits considered central to grandiose narcissism of NPD (i.e., its correlation with PID-5 grandiosity was relatively modest; r = .35) and more from its assessment of a much wider variety of pathological traits, many of which have little to no empirical or theoretical link to narcissism (e.g., submissiveness).

It is important to acknowledge that the expert ratings collected by Samuel et al. (2012) and used here were constrained in that experts were asked to rate the prototypic case of NPD as operationalized in DSM-IV. It is possible that the results might have been different if experts were given more flexibility to rate other features of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. There are data, however, that speak to this very issue as well. Thomas et al. (2012) asked experts to provide separate ratings of grandiose and vulnerable narcissism on a host of external criteria, including the traits of the Big Five and Clark’s three-factor model (Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, 2014), as well as clinical scales assessed by the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991). Miller, McCain, et al. (2013) compared the trait profiles manifested by 14 narcissism subscales, which included a mix of grandiose and vulnerable scales, to these expert ratings on the aforementioned external criteria (e.g., Big Five; PAI) and found that two of the three NPI subscales (Grandiose Exhibitionism; Leadership Authority) were the quite congruent with expert ratings of grandiose narcissism, whereas the PNI Grandiose composite manifested substantially weaker correspondence. Taken together with the current results, the data are clear in demonstrating that the NPI results in an empirical network of correlations that are more in line with experts conceptualizations of DSM-IV and DSM-5 NPD, as well as grandiose narcissism. Conversely, the PNI Grandiose dimension assesses a much broader construct that includes traits related to negative emotionality, introversion, and oddity—many of which are not typically viewed as central to narcissism.

Clearly further research is needed that tests the validity of measures like the NPI and PNI, as well as promising “newcomers” such as the Five-Factor Narcissism Inventory (Glover et al., 2012). Whenever possible, given space and financial constraints, we believe multiple assessments of narcissism should be used in research enterprises, so that a better understanding can be developed about the nomological networks associated with these various measures of narcissistic traits and their underlying conceptualizations. In addition, researchers must be clear in articulating how they conceptualize narcissistic grandiosity as results from research studies may differ substantially depending on the measure (and underlying conceptualization) used. Finally, continued attempts to build toward a consensus description of narcissism would be beneficial. We have argued that NPD should be conceptualized and assessed primarily on the basis of pathological levels of grandiosity (consistent with its current descriptions in the DSM-IV and DSM-5) but that there should be a distinct diagnostic specifier that could be used to address occasions when substantial vulnerability is present as well (Miller, Gentile, Wilson, & Campbell, 2013). This approach would ensure that NPD would retain some degree of discriminant validity while making the vulnerability component available for use when appropriate.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Ames

D. R.

Rose

Anderson

C. P.

(2006). The NPI-16 as a short measure of narcissism. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 440-450.

Cain

N. M.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

(2008). Narcissism at the crossroads: Phenotypic description of pathological narcissism across clinical theory, social/personality psychology, and psychiatric diagnosis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 638-656.

Campbell

W. K.

(2001). Is narcissism really so bad? Psychological Inquiry, 12, 214-216.

Campbell

W. K.

Bush

C. P.

Brunell

A. B.

Shelton

(2005). Understanding the social costs of narcissism: The case of the tragedy of the commons. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1358-1368.

Campbell

W. K.

Campbell

S. M.

(2009). On the self-regulatory dynamics created by the peculiar benefits and costs of narcissism: A contextual reinforcement model and examination of leadership. Self and Identity, 8, 214-232.

Campbell

W. K.

Miller

J. D.

(2011). Handbook of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder: Theoretical approaches, empirical findings, and treatments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Clark

L. A.

Simms

L. J.

K. D.

Casillas

(2014). Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality-2nd Edition (SNAP-2): Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame.

Glover

Miller

J. D.

Lynam

D. R.

Crego

Widiger

T. A.

(2012). The five-factor narcissism inventory: A five factor measure of narcissistic personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 500-512.

Hyler

S. E.

(1994). PDQ-4+ Personality Questionnaire. New York, NY: NYSPI.

10.

Krizan

Johar

(2012). Envy divides the two faces of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 80, 1415-1451.

11.

Krueger

R. F.

Derringer

Markon

Watson

Skodol

(2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.

12.

Miller

J. D.

Campbell

W. K.

(2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism. Journal of Personality, 76, 449-476.

13.

Miller

J. D.

Gaughan

E. T.

Pryor

L. R.

Kamen

Campbell

W. K.

(2009). Is research using the NPI relevant for understanding Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 482-488.

14.

Miller

J. D.

Gentile

Wilson

Campbell

W. K.

(2013). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality trait model. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 284-290.

15.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

Campbell

W. K.

Pilkonis

P.A.

(2008). An examination of the factor structure of DSM-IV narcissistic personality disorder criteria: One or two factors? Comprehensive Psychiatry, 49, 141-145.

16.

Miller

J. D.

Hoffman

B. J.

Gaughan

E. T.

Gentile

Maples

Campbell

W. K.

(2011). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism: A nomological network analysis. Journal of Personality, 79, 1013-1042.

17.

Miller

J. D.

Maples

Campbell

W. K.

(2011). Comparing the construct validity of scales derived from the Narcissistic Personality Inventory: A reply to Rosenthal and Hooley (2010). Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 401-407.

18.

Miller

J. D.

McCain

Lynam

D. R.

Few

L. R.

Gentile

MacKillop

Campbell

W. K.

(2013). A comparison of the criterion validity of popular measures of narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder via the use of expert ratings. Manuscript submitted for publication.

19.

Miller

J. D.

Price

Campbell

W. K.

(2012). Is the Narcissistic Personality Inventory still relevant? A test of independent grandiosity and entitlement scales in the assessment of narcissism. Assessment, 19, 8-13.

20.

Miller

J. D.

Price

Gentile

Lynam

D. R.

Campbell

W. K.

(2012). Grandiose and vulnerable narcissism from the perspective of the interpersonal circumplex. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 507-512.

21.

Miller

J. D.

Widiger

T. A.

Campbell

W. K.

(2010). Narcissistic personality disorder and the DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 119, 640-649.

22.

Morey

L. C.

(1991). Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

23.

Morey

L. C.

Stagner

B. H.

(2012). Narcissistic pathology as core personality dysfunction: Comparing the DSM-IV and the DSM-5 proposal for narcissistic personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 68, 908-921.

24.

Pincus

A. L.

Ansell

E. B.

Pimentel

C. A.

Cain

N. M.

Wright

Levy

K. N.

(2009). Initial construction and validation of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 21, 365-379.

25.

Pincus

A. L.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

(2010). Pathological narcissism and narcissistic personality disorder. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 421-446.

26.

Raskin

R. N.

Hall

C. S.

(1979). A narcissistic personality inventory. Psychological Reports, 45, 590-590.

27.

Roche

M. J.

Pincus

A. L.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

Menard

K. S.

Conroy

D. E.

(2013). An integrative approach to the assessment of narcissism. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 171-192.

28.

Rosenthal

S. A.

Hooley

J. M.

(2010). Narcissism assessment in social personality research: Does the association between narcissism and psychological health result from a confound with self-esteem? Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 453-465.

29.

Samuel

D. B.

Lynam

D. R.

Widiger

T. A.

Ball

S. A.

(2012). An expert consensus approach to relating the proposed DSM-5 types and traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 1-16.

30.

Thomas

K. M.

Wright

A. G. C.

Lukowitsky

M. R.

Donnellan

M. B.

Hopwood

C. J.

(2012). Evidence for the criterion validity and clinical utility of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Assessment, 19, 135-145.

31.

Westen

Rosenthal

(2003). Quantifying construct validity: Two simple measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 608-618.

32.

Wright

A. G. C.

Pincus

A. L.

Thomas

K. M.

Hopwood

C. J.

Markon

K. E.

Krueger

R. F.

(2013). Conceptions of narcissism and the DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Assessment, 20, 339-352.