Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in China: Evaluation of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Trait Structure and Continuity With Personality Disorder Types

Abstract

The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) is an established tool for assessing personality disorder (PD) traits that was developed based on section III of the DSM-5. It is composed of 220 items, organized into 25 facets, which are distributed among five domains. The psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the PID-5 remain to be demonstrated. Two samples were embodied in this study that included 3,550 undergraduates and 406 clinical patients. To probe the structure of the PID-5, parallel analyses were conducted to explore the unidimensionality of its 25 facets and a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were carried out to confirm the 25 lower-order facets and their distribution among five higher-order domains. Then, the PID-5 was employed to measure the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models and to explore the relationship of DSM-IV categorical PDs with DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to probe how well DSM-IV categorical PDs correspond with maladaptive personality traits specified in the DSM-5 and five ICD-11 domains. The respective average internal reliability coefficients of the 25 facets obtained for undergraduate and clinical patient samples were 0.76 and 0.81, those obtained for the five DSM-5 domains were 0.89 and 0.91, and those obtained for the five ICD-11 domains were 0.87 and 0.89. Serial CFAs confirmed the rationality of the PID-5's lower-order 25-facet structure and higher-order five-domain structure in both samples. Correlation and regression analyses showed that DSM-5 specified traits explain the variance in PD presentation with a manifold stronger correlation (R2 = 0.24–0.44) than non-specified traits (R2 = 0.04–0.12). Overall, the PID-5 was shown to be a reliable, stable, and structurally valid assessment tool that captures pathological personality traits related to DSM-5 and ICD-11 PDs.

Evaluation of a 36-item measure of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder trait domains and facets in Russian inpatients.

“…Bach et al (2017) created and investigated an algorithm for the PID-5, which allowed the user to compute a separate ICD-11 trait domain of anankastia by averaging the facet scores for "rigid perfectionism" and "perseveration." This operationalization has been empirically supported and further refined in later studies (Bach et al, 2018;Fang et al, 2021;Hemmati et al, 2021;Lotfi et al, 2018;Lugo et al, 2019;Sellbom et al, 2020). Additionally, other wellestablished instruments such as Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and computerized adaptive test of personality disorders may also be used to delineate aspects of ICD-11 trait domains (Anderson & Sellbom, 2021;Tarescavage & Menton, 2020).…”

An examination of the cross-cultural equivalence of the personality inventory for DSM-5 across Chinese and U.S. samples.

“…As Somma et al (2019) demonstrated that the traditional five-factor structure of the PID-5 was replicable across Western country samples, we hypothesized that this structure would be replicable and congruent with the factor structure extracted in the U.S. community sample. As the five-factor structure has been found to produce an adequate fit using CFA across Chinese samples that have used the 220-item PID-5 in adult samples (Fang et al, 2021), we hypothesized that a five-factor solution would be an acceptable fit to the Chinese community sample. Finally, as cultural and sociocontextual differences produce variations in personality across cultural groups, we hypothesized that the five-factor structure in the United States and Chinese samples would be noninvariant.…”

“…We agree and believe that for the AMPD to achieve world-wide universal status it must demonstrate broad-based cultural equivalency across both Western and non-Western countries, cultures, and languages. Although there have been a few studies examining the AMPD model with PID-5 or its brief form in Chinese-speaking samples (see Fang et al, 2021;W. Zhang et al, 2022), the results from these studies are less than consistent and none have directly examined the congruence to the PID-5 factor structure across Chinese and U.S. samples.…”

“…And whereas W. Zhang et al (2022) did employ the 220-item PID-5, it was used in an adolescent sample, compromising its generalizability to adult samples. In contrast, Fang et al (2021) examined the factor structure of the 220-item PID-5 in separate samples of Chinese undergraduate students and clinical patients using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), testing the five-factor structure of the PID-5. The authors did not, however, compare this five-factor structure to that typically derived from Western countries using statistical congruence assessment procedures, leaving unanswered the issue of whether the traditional PID-5 factor structure and AMPD model are congruent and replicable across East Asian and Western European cultures.…”

Cross-walking personality disorder types to ICD-11 trait domains: An overview of current findings

“…We used PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and a broad snowballing method to identify a total of nine relevant studies investigating associations between traditional PD types and ICD-11 trait domain scores (14,17,(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30). We chose to include exclusively articles published after 2017, with the rationale being that ICD-11 has gone through a number of iterations, in which diagnostic definitions have undergone significant changes (5,(31)(32)(33)(34).…”