Evaluation of DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 personality traits using the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5 (PID‐5) in a Brazilian sample of psychiatric inpatients

Lugo, Vania; Oliveira, Sérgio Eduardo Silva de; Hessel, Carolina Rabello; Monteiro, Ricardo Tavares; Pasche, Nickolle Lorandi; Pavan, Gabriela; Motta, Luis Souza; Pacheco, Marcos Antônio Barbosa; Spanemberg, Lucas

doi:10.1002/pmh.1436

Cited by 30 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Instruments related to the AMPD have been translated into a number of different languages and cultural contexts. For example, the PID-5 is available and has been successfully applied in Arabic [71], Brazilian [72,73] 63,86], and Swedish [64]. Further developments are underway on assessing severity and style according to the AMPD.…”

Section: Further Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Zimmermann

Kerber

Kappelmann

et al. 2019

Curr Psychiatry Rep

249

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of Review Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD. Recent Findings A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. Summary The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

show abstract

Section: Further Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Zimmermann

Kerber

Kappelmann

et al. 2019

Curr Psychiatry Rep

249

212

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[13][14][15][16] Moreover, a number of preliminary studies have sought to examine the new framework with regard to its reliability and validity. 14,[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] Previous research on perceived clinical utility of personality disorder models…”

Section: The Icd-11 Classification Of Personality Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The empirical rationale for the ICD‐11 PD classification was informed by reviews of the literature on PD severity and traits . Moreover, a number of preliminary studies have sought to examine the new framework with regard to its reliability and validity …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐10 vs. ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders

Hansen

Christensen

Kongerslev

et al. 2019

Personality & Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders (PDs) has adopted a dimensional approach which includes three levels of severity (mild, moderate and severe) with the option of specifying five trait qualifiers (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition and anankastia) and one borderline pattern qualifier. This study examined mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐11 PD framework compared with the ICD‐10 categorical PD framework. Method A sample of 163 mental health professionals (primarily psychologists, nurses and medical doctors) completed a survey in which they were asked to apply the ICD‐10 and ICD‐11 PD classifications on one of their patients followed by judgement of their clinical utility. Results The ICD‐11 PD framework was generally rated as being slightly more useful than the ICD‐10 framework even when accounting for educational background and years of experience. This advantage particularly involved the utility for treatment planning, communicating with patients, comprehensiveness and ease of use. The two frameworks showed no significant differences with respect to utility for communicating with other professionals and describing global personality. Conclusion This study provided initial evidence that mental health professionals perceive the ICD‐11 PD classification as slightly more useful for clinical practice than the ICD‐10 classification. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

“…Further correlational analyses between the PID-5-BF and other psychological scales are also needed. Recently, the combination of DSM-5 and ICD-11 in diagnosis of personality disorders has aroused increasing attention [58][59][60][61][62][63][64] as the ve trait dimensions (including Negative affctivity, Detachment, Dissociality, Disinhibiition and Anankastia) proposed by the ICD-11 are similar to those of DSM-5. Therefore researchers tried to develop novel algorithms to assess ICD-11 personality domains from DSM-5 trait domains through facet level and item level.…”

Section: Limitations and Future Directionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in undergraduate students and clinical patients

Zhang

Ouyang²,

Fang

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties has been verified in some countries, however, there has no studies about the utility of PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to examine cultural applicability of the Chinese version of PID-5-BF among undergraduate students and clinical patients.Methods: 7155 undergraduate students and 451 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of PID-5-BF. 228 students were chosen randomly for test-retest reliability at a 4-week interval. Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) were conducted to discover the most suitable construct in Chinese, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency and external validity were also calculated. Results: An exploratory six-factor model was supported more suitable in both samples(Undergraduate sample: CFI = 0.905, TLI = 0.888, RMSEA = 0.044, SRMR = 0.039; Clinical sample: CFI = 0.904, TLI = 0.886, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.060), adding a new factor“Interpersonal Relationships”. Measurement invariance across non-clinical and clinical sample was established(configural, weak, strong MI, and partial strict MI). Aside from acceptable internal consistency(Undergraduate sample: alpha=0.84, MIC=0.21; Clinical sample: alpha=0.86, MIC=0.19) and test-retest reliability(0.73), the association with 220-item PID-5 was significant(r = 0.93, p < 0.01), and six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) was correlated with expected domains of PID-5-BF. Conclusions: The Chinese version of the PID-5-BF showed satisfactory psychometric properties, which is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders.

show abstract

Evaluation of DSM‐5 and ICD‐11 personality traits using the Personality Inventory for DSM‐5 (PID‐5) in a Brazilian sample of psychiatric inpatients

Cited by 30 publications

References 49 publications

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

Mental health professionals' perceived clinical utility of the ICD‐10 vs. ICD‐11 classification of personality disorders

Psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in undergraduate students and clinical patients

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About