Assessment of the "Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders" (4th Ed.; "DSM-IV") personality disorders (PDs) using five-factor model (FFM) prototypes and counts has shown substantial promise, with a few exceptions. Miller, Reynolds, and Pilkonis suggested that the expert-generated FFM dependent prototype might be misspecified in relation to the "DSM-IV" because of the overemphasis of high Agreeableness and underemphasis of low Conscientiousness in the experts' conception. A meta-analytic review of the relations between the FFM facets and Dependent PD (DPD) was conducted and used to create a revised, empirically based FFM DPD profile and count. The revised profile and count were more strongly correlated with "DSM" and non-"DSM" conceptualizations of maladaptive dependency. In addition, the revised FFM DPD profile was able to recreate the patterns of comorbidity typically found when using "DSM-IV" measures of DPD. Possible explanations for the discrepancy between the expert ratings and the meta-analytic results are offered. (Contains 4 tables and 6 notes.)