The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) assesses the five pathological personality trait domains that comprise the descriptive core of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The PID-5 five-domain factor structure is aligned with the AMPD and is reported as replicable across samples in the U.S., in other countries, and in different languages. In this study, the PID-5 factor structure is examined in two distinct racial groups within the U.S.-White Americans (WA) and Black Americans (BA). Student participants from four universities in the U.S. (N = 1,834)-composed of groups of WA (n = 1,274) and BA (n = 560)-were proportionally parsed into derivation and replication subsamples. The "traditional" PID-5 five-factor structure emerged for the WA group in the derivation subsample and was subsequently confirmed in the WA replication subsample. In the BA group derivation subsample, a single-factor solution emerged, which was also confirmed in the BA replication sample. This single-factor solution in the BA group reflects large shared covariation across all pathological personality domains, suggesting an undifferentiated, broadly based level of demoralization represented by the item pool of the PID-5. We argue that this structure can be construed as mirroring a racialized and prejudice-based living experience for many BAs in a predominantly non-Black society. Based on the results with the samples employed in the present study, we conclude that the PID-5 is not an equivalent measure of pathological personality traits across Black Americans and White Americans.
Public Significance StatementIn this study, the authors report that a commonly used instrument to assess personality pathology (the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 [PID-5]) is not an equivalent measure across Black Americans and White Americans. Until other evidence emerges to suggest otherwise, we advise against its use in Black American samples.
The traditional background hypothesis (TBH) is a long-standing belief associated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) L scale; a validity scale, which appears on every version of the family of MMPI instruments including the soon-to-be released MMPI-3. The L scale was originally designed to assess whether test respondents presented themselves in an unrealistically favorable light. Both researchers and clinicians noted, however, that those from traditional Christian faith–based groups produced elevated L-scale scores. A recent meta-analysis supported this observation, reporting an average L-scale elevation 0.50 SD greater than the MMPI-2 normative sample compared to samples of those with presumptively strong Christian–Judeo faith. Some limitations of this meta-analysis are that (a) the samples used in it included those undergoing an evaluative assessment, which could elevate L-scale scores independent of strength of faith belief, and (b) direct assessments of strength of faith or positive impression management were included or measured independently. Our primary goal in this study was to examine the TBH addressing these limitations with a sample of those who self-identified as believers in the Muslim faith (N = 267), the examination of which expands the scope beyond those of the Christian–Judeo faith. Consistent with previous results, the mean L-r (MMPI/MMPI-2 L scale counterpart on the MMPI-2—Restructured Form) was 56.41 T. Higher L-r scale scores were associated with increasing strength in the Muslim faith, and although increasing L-r scores were primarily associated with impression management, increasing Muslim-based faith values had a nontrivial influence on L-r scores and especially in the moderate score range of this scale.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.