clinicians also rated the FFM as more useful than the DSM for communicating information about Earnst to other mental health professionals, F(1,91) = 7.51, p = .007.
For Madeline, the differences between the utility of the FFM and the DSM were again not significant for ease of application or for professional communication (see table 3). The results for Madeline with respect to global personality description, communication with clients, comprehensive inclusion of important personality difficulties, and treatment planning, again favored the FFM.
Averaged across the three cases, the six utility ratings for the FFM correlated positively with one another, ranging from .38 between ease of application and communication with client to .63 between comprehensive description and treatment decision. The six utility ratings for the DSM also correlated positively with one another, ranging from .38 between communication with client and communication with another professional to .69 between comprehensive description and treatment decision. However, the FFM utility ratings were uncorrelated with the DSM utility ratings in all but a few instances and no significant correlations were obtained when control for experimental-wise error was considered.
The averaged utility ratings were also correlated with demographic characteristics, including model familiarity. No significant correlations were obtained with gender, academic degree, theoretical orientation, or degree of clinical experience when averaged across all six utility questions. The only significant correlation of the mean utility rating for either model was between mean DSM utility and familiarity with the DSM nomenclature ( r = .26, p < .001). In other words, the more familiarity a clinician had with the DSM nomenclature, the higher utility