Over the past two decades, evidence has suggested that personality disorders (PDs) can be conceptualized as extreme, maladaptive variants of general personality dimensions, rather than discrete categorical entities. Recognizing this literature, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) alternative PD model in Section III defines PDs partially through 25 maladaptive traits that fall within 5 domains. Empirical evidence based on the self-report measure of these traits, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), suggests that these five higher-order domains share a structure and correlate in meaningful ways with the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality. In the current study, item response theory was used to compare the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits to those from a normative FFM inventory (the International Personality Item Pool-NEO [IPIP-NEO]) in terms of their measurement precision along the latent dimensions. Within a combined sample of 3,517 participants, results strongly supported the conclusion that the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits and IPIP-NEO traits are complimentary measures of 4 of the 5 FFM domains (with perhaps the exception of openness to experience vs. psychoticism). Importantly, the two measures yield largely overlapping information curves on these four domains. Differences that did emerge suggested that the PID-5 scales generally have higher thresholds and provide more information at the upper levels, whereas the IPIP-NEO generally had an advantage at the lower levels. These results support the general conceptualization that 4 domains of the DSM-5 alternative PD model traits are maladaptive, extreme versions of the FFM. (PsycINFO Database Record

No abstract

Several studies have shown structural and statistical similarities between the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) alternative personality disorder model and the Five-Factor Model (FFM). However, no study to date has evaluated the nomological network similarities between the two models. The relations of the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) with relevant criterion variables were examined in a sample of 336 undergraduate students (M = 19.4; 59.8% female). The resulting profiles for each instrument were statistically compared for similarity. Four of the five domains of the two models have highly similar nomological networks, with the exception being FFM Openness to Experience and PID-5 Psychoticism. Further probing of that pair suggested that the NEO PI-R domain scores obscured meaningful similarity between PID-5 Psychoticism and specific aspects and lower-order facets of Openness. The results support the notion that the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model trait domains represent variants of the FFM domains. Similarities of Openness and Psychoticism domains were supported when the lower-order aspects and facets of Openness domain were considered. The findings support the view that the DSM-5 trait model represents an instantiation of the FFM.

When clinicians utilized systematic measures of dimensional traits their agreement with client was higher than reported in past studies. Furthermore, clients reported significantly more PD pathology than was noted by their therapists suggesting concerns about invalid self-reports due to underreporting have been overstated. (PsycINFO Database Record

The dimensional pathological personality trait model proposed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), Section III Criterion B, has shown promising results for its validity and utility in conceptualizing personality pathology. However, as its structural equivalence across sex is yet to be tested, the validity for the model across males and females remains uncertain. In the present article, we examined sex measurement invariance of the DSM-5 trait model in a large undergraduate sample using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. A series of confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses suggested that, although the exact facet-domain relationships as specified in the DSM-5 were not observed, the facets generally organize into a model with five latent factors similar to those listed in the DSM-5 Section III Criterion B. Further, these five factors were fully measurement invariant across sex at the configural, metric, and scalar levels. Examination of the latent trait mean levels suggests that females tend to have higher scores on latent Negative Affectivity, whereas males tend to have higher scores on latent Antagonism, Detachment, Psychoticism, and Disinhibition. These results indicate that the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality trait model is fully structurally equivalent across sex, a property that is lacking in the traditional categorical model in Section II. This further validates the use of the dimensional DSM-5 trait model for personality disorder assessment and conceptualization in both research and clinical settings. (PsycINFO Database Record