Alternate Forms. A 60-item short form of the
NEO-PI-R, known as the NEO-Five Factor
Inventory (NEO-FFI), may be useful when a rela-
tively short measure of the five major personality
dimensions is desired; the NEO-FFI does not
contain facet scales. Another version of the NEO-
PI-R, known as Form R, is used for observer
ratings. It contains the 240 items of the self-report
version, reworded to reflect the gender of the target
person being rated. Form R scores can be used to
validate or supplement self-report scores (Costa &
McCrae, 1992).
Limitations of the NEO-PI-R. Several authors
have suggested limitations of the NEO-PI-R in
clinical assessment (Ben-Porath & Waller, 1992;
Block, 1995; Tellegen, 1993). First, the NEO-
PI-R has been criticized for its relative lack of
validity items. In contrast to the MMPI-2 and other
self-report measures, the NEO-PI-R does not
devote a number of test items to assessing response
styles that may influence interpretations of the
obtained scores. Second, the use of the NEO-
PI-R for clinical diagnostic purposes remains to be
demonstrated. Although the initial studies that have
shown associations between NEO-PI-R scores and
mental disorder diagnoses are encouraging, the
NEO-PI-R may not be especially well suited for
the general purpose of clinical diagnosis because its
development was guided by a model of“normal”
personality. Third, too little research has been con-
ducted on the use of the NEO-PI-R in treatment
planning to warrant the routine use of this measure
in clinical settings at this time. Finally, several psy-
chometric criticisms have been leveled at the NEO-
PI-R, including the intercorrelation among certain
domain scores and the placement of certain facets
within particular domains (e.g., the placement ofNEO-PI-R Case Illustration
Bruehl (1994) presents a case study of a 45-year-old,
White, divorced woman who received an Axis I diag-
nosis of Major Depressive Disorder and an Axis II diag-
nosis of Borderline Personality Disorder.“Betty”
presented for treatment because of her concerns over
parenting her daughter, who had recently been
arrested for drug possession and suspended from high
school. Betty had a history of sexual abuse in child-
hood, of poor family and peer relationships, of physical
abuse in adulthood, and of intense and labile emo-
tions. Table 8-5 presents the results of her NEO-PI-R
administration.
As can be seen, Betty produced elevations on all
Neuroticism facets, scored in the low range on several
Extraversion and Agreeableness facets, and produced
several elevations on Openness facets. Several inter-
pretive statements regarding Betty’s NEO-PI-R scores
illustrate how these scores can be useful in under-
standing a client and in treatment planning.
...Betty’s elevated Neuroticism and low Agree-
ableness were consistent with what would be
expected based on the DSM-III-R criteria for BDL
[Borderline Personality Disorder].
...The strength of the psychotherapeutic
relationship was slow to develop because of
Betty’s low levels of Warmth and Trust......The transference issues observed in ther-
apy related primarily to Betty’s low Trust and high
Hostility. As might be expected given her low
Straightforwardness, she expressed her anger and
lack of trust passively...
...Betty’s low Compliance suggested that it
was important to watch for control issues in ther-
apy. On the few occasions when therapeutic
“homework”assignments were attempted and
agreed on, Betty failed to complete them...
...Her low Compliance seemed to interact
with her low Trust and high Hostility to cause
interpersonal difficulties in therapy. These same
issues were responsible for her problems in previ-
ous intimate relationships with close friends, fam-
ily members, and husbands...
...Information provided by the NEO-PIR
also suggested strengths that improved treat-
ment progress. Betty’s high level of Openness
to Ideas did reflect in part pathological aspects,
but it also reflected an ability to be more
cognitively flexible...she was very open to
looking at her problems in different ways and
considering alternative ways for understanding
and addressing these problems. (Bruehl, 1994,
pp. 195–196)234 CHAPTER 8