The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an alternative model of personality disorders (PDs) in Section III, consisting in part of a pathological personality trait model. To date, the 220-item Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) is the only extant self-report instrument explicitly developed to measure this pathological trait model. The present study used item response theory-based analyses in a large sample (n = 1,417) to investigate whether a reduced set of 100 items could be identified from the PID-5 that could measure the 25 traits and 5 domains. This reduced set of PID-5 items was then tested in a community sample of adults currently receiving psychological treatment (n = 109). Across a wide range of criterion variables including NEO PI-R domains and facets, DSM-5 Section II PD scores, and externalizing and internalizing outcomes, the correlational profiles of the original and reduced versions of the PID-5 were nearly identical (rICC = .995). These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that an abbreviated set of PID-5 items can be used to reliably, validly, and efficiently assess these personality disorder traits. The ability to assess the DSM-5 Section III traits using only 100 items has important implications in that it suggests these traits could still be measured in settings in which assessment-related resources (e.g., time, compensation) are limited.

The current study tests empirically the relationship of the dimensional trait model proposed for the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) with five-factor models of general personality. The DSM-5 maladaptive trait dimensional model proposal included 25 traits organized within five broad domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism). Consistent with the authors of the proposal, it was predicted that negative affectivity would align with five-factor model (FFM) neuroticism, detachment with FFM introversion, antagonism with FFM antagonism, disinhibition with low FFM conscientiousness and, contrary to the proposal; psychoticism would align with FFM openness. Three measures of alternative five-factor models of general personality were administered to 445 undergraduates along with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. The results provided support for the hypothesis that all five domains of the DSM-5 dimensional trait model are maladaptive variants of general personality structure, including the domain of psychoticism.

Current literature on narcissistic personality disorder has emphasized a distinction between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. Some researchers have further suggested that narcissistic persons fluctuate between grandiose and vulnerable narcissism. However, this perception has been confined largely to clinical experience with no systematic research testing the hypothesis. Clinicians and clinical psychology professors in the current study identified 143 persons who fit a description of either a grandiose or a vulnerable narcissist and indicated the extent to which these persons ever demonstrated traits of the complementary variant. The results supported the fluctuation hypothesis, particularly for episodes of vulnerable narcissism in persons identified as a grandiose narcissist. Correlations of the grandiose and vulnerable narcissism traits with a brief five-factor model measure corroborated past trait descriptions of the 2 respective variants of narcissism. The results of the current study are compared with existing cross-sectional and longitudinal research, and suggestions for future research are provided. (PsycINFO Database Record

The current study provides convergent, discriminant, and incremental validity data for a new measure of schizotypy from the perspective of the five-factor model (FFM) of general personality structure. Nine schizotypy scales were constructed as maladaptive variants of respective facets of the FFM (e.g., Aberrant Ideas as a maladaptive variant of FFM Openness to Ideas). On the basis of data from 143 undergraduates, the convergent validity of these nine scales was tested with respect to seven established measures of schizotypy and the respective facets of the FFM. Discriminant validity was tested with respect to facets from other FFM domains and components of schizotypy. Incremental validity was tested with respect to the ability of the FFM schizotypy scales to account for variance in two established measures of schizotypy, after variance accounted for by respective FFM facets and other established measures of schizotypy were first removed. The findings support the validity of these new scales as measures of schizotypal traits and as maladaptive variants of the FFM.

A considerable body of research has rapidly accumulated with respect to the validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5) dimensional trait model as it is assessed by the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012). This research though has not focused specifically on discriminant validity, although allusions to potentially problematic discriminant validity have been raised. The current study addressed discriminant validity, reporting for the first time the correlations among the PID-5 domain scales. Also reported are the bivariate correlations of the 25 PID-5 maladaptive trait scales with the personality domain scales of the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the International Personality Item Pool-NEO (Goldberg et al., 2006), the Inventory of Personal Characteristics (Almagor et al., 1995), the 5-Dimensional Personality Test (van Kampen, 2012), and the HEXACO Personality Inventory-Revised (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The results are discussed with respect to the implications of and alternative explanations for potentially problematic discriminant validity. (PsycINFO Database Record