Profile Summary
Scale Scores
| Scale | Profile | Score | Avg. | Δ vs Avg |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Paranoid Cluster A
Suspiciousness · mistrust
|
73% | 50% | +23 | |
|
Schizoid Cluster A
Detachment · limited affect
|
60% | 40% | +20 | |
|
Schizotypal Cluster A
Eccentricity · odd beliefs
|
68% | 56% | +12 | |
|
Antisocial Cluster B
Disregard for rights · impulsivity
|
71% | 46% | +25 | |
|
Borderline Cluster B
Instability · abandonment fear
|
75% | 45% | +30 | |
|
Histrionic Cluster B
Attention-seeking · emotionality
|
70% | 52% | +18 | |
|
Narcissistic Cluster B
Grandiosity · need for admiration
|
79% | 40% | +39 | |
|
Avoidant Cluster C
Social inhibition · sensitivity
|
77% | 48% | +29 | |
|
Dependent Cluster C
Submissive · separation anxiety
|
55% | 44% | +11 | |
|
Obsessive-Compulsive Cluster C
Perfectionism · control
|
76% | 45% | +31 |
* Scores in gray (Avg.) are the average web-sample score for each scale. Bars show your score; the vertical marker indicates the normative mean.
Interpretive Notes
Mr. David Tanasescu’s profile shows broad elevations across multiple personality disorder trait domains, with the most pronounced peaks on Narcissistic (79%), Avoidant (77%), Obsessive-Compulsive (76%), and Borderline (75%) scales. Seven of ten scales fall at or above a 70% elevation threshold relative to the comparison sample.
- Cluster B (dramatic / emotional): Consistently high — Narcissistic (+39 vs avg), Borderline (+30), Antisocial (+25), Histrionic (+18). Suggests prominent interpersonal intensity, self-focus, and affective reactivity on self-report.
- Cluster C (anxious / fearful): Marked Avoidant and Obsessive-Compulsive elevations alongside a nearer-average Dependent score; may reflect social caution combined with high standards for control and performance.
- Cluster A (odd / eccentric): Paranoid is elevated (+23); Schizoid and Schizotypal are moderately above sample means.
- Lowest relative scale: Dependent (55%) — still slightly above the web average (44%), but the least elevated domain in this profile.
Pattern-level interpretation should consider possible response style (e.g., general endorsement), situational stress, and overlap among scales. Follow-up with a structured clinical interview (e.g., SCID-5-PD) is recommended if clinical decisions are contemplated.