Development and validation of an Overreporting Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5).

Abstract

Our aim in the current study was to develop a validity scale for the Personality Inventory for (PID-5) to detect noncredible overreported responding. To this end, we used a rare symptoms approach and identified extreme response options on PID-5 items that were infrequently endorsed by students in 3 different university samples (N = 1,370) and in a psychiatric patient sample (N = 194). The resulting 10-item scale (the PID-5-ORS) produced adequate-to-good estimates of internal reliability and was significantly correlated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructued Form (MMPI-2-RF) overreporting validity scales, providing evidence of concurrent validity. The criterion validity of the PID-5-ORS was demonstrated in an analog simulation design study. More specifically, university students instructed to overreport (n = 80) scored substantially higher on the PID-5-ORS relative to both a group of genuine psychiatric patients and students instructed to complete the PID-5 under standard (honest) instructions (n = 161); the effect size magnitudes associated with these differences were large. Classification accuracy analyses further revealed that high scores on the PID-5-ORS were associated with high specificity (and thus, low rates of false positive classifications) in differentiating overreporters from genuine patients, with sensitivity being somewhat weaker. (PsycINFO Database Record

Validation of Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5) algorithms to assess ICD-11 personality trait domains in a psychiatric sample.

“…The PID-5 is an established measure, particularly for research practice, and despite reports of concern regarding discriminant validity (especially at the domain level; e.g., Al-Dajani et al, 2016), the ICD-11 domains appear to have very promising construct validity support across multiple samples and countries now (Bach et al, 2018; Lugo et al, 2019). The PID-5 also has validity scales (Bagby & Sellbom, 2018; Keeley, Webb, Peterson, Roussin, & Flanagan, 2016; Sellbom et al, 2018), which is an important step for ultimate clinical use, though psychologists will likely be more comforted if the APA would support the development of a test manual and a formal normative sample (but see Samuel, Hopwood, Krueger, Thomas, & Ruggero, 2013, for other scoring options). Ultimately, if these latter developments occur, and the current findings continue to be replicated, these PID-5 operationalizations could be viewed as an important method of assessing ICD-11 domains in clinical practice.…”

“…We used an archival sample of psychiatric patients, which has been employed in several previous investigations (e.g., Anderson et al, 2015; Bagby & Sellbom, 2018; McGee Ng et al, 2016; Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock, & Bagby, 2013; Sellbom, Dhillon, & Bagby, 2018; Watters, Bagby, & Sellbom, 2019; Watters, Sellbom, Uliaszek, & Bagby, 2019), though the current analyses and results are completely novel to the current project. Detailed procedures for data collection can be found in these previous publications.…”

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Brief Form: An Examination of Internal Consistency, Factor Structure, and Relationship to Aggression in an Incarcerated Offender Sample

“…Several factors may have compromised participants’ responding, including carelessness, fatigue, inadequate reading comprehension and language, level of insight and/or defensiveness, or socially desirable responding. It is important to note that while certain validity scales have been developed for the PID-5 (e.g., PID-5-Variable Response Inconsistency, Keeley et al, 2016; PID-5-Overreporting scale, Sellbom et al, 2018), they are unable to be used with the PID-5-BF. Given this is the first examination of the PID-5-BF in a forensic population, and extant empirical research has demonstrated support for the utility of self-report approaches for the accurate measurement of personality (Hopwood et al, 2008) and aggression (Gilbert et al, 2013), the use of self-report to measure personality traits and aggression within the current study was deemed reasonable.…”

The Multidimensional Emotional Disorder Inventory (MEDI): Assessing transdiagnostic dimensions to validate a profile approach to emotional disorder classification.

“…For the MEDI to be used in general outpatient settings, which often assess emotional disorders for disability claims or litigation, it will be necessary to develop clinician-friendly validity scales to detect untoward response style. Indeed, most omnibus measures used to assess both emotional/internalizing and externalizing disorder (and personality) symptoms include easy-to-score validity scales (e.g., MMPI-RF, Chmielewski et al, 2017; Personality Inventory for DSM-5 , Sellbom, Dhillon, & Bagby, 2018; Personality Assessment Inventory, McGee et al, 2016)…”