Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Psychiatric Patients

Abstract

Background: The fundamental problems with the personality disorders diagnostic system in DSM-IV led to the revision of the DSM approach and proposition of a dimensional model for DSM-5. The DSM-5 Personality and personality disorders workgroup developed the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) to assess the pathological personality traits within this new model. Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of PID-5 in psychiatric patients. Methods: In a cross-sectional study, the Persian translation of the PID-5 was administered to 400 psychiatric patients admitted to the Roozbeh Hospital. After data collection, the reliability of the inventory was investigated using internal consistency and test-retest methods. In addition, confirmatory factor analysis and convergent validity methods were used to evaluate the validity of the scale. Results: Adequate internal consistency coefficients were obtained for domains and facets. In addition, the test-retest coefficients (up to 0.70) suggested scale stability. Confirmatory factor analysis supported the original five-factor model of the inventory. The convergent validity of the inventory with the TCI-R scale was appropriate. Conclusions: The results of the study supported the psychometric properties of the Persian version of PID-5 in psychiatric populations.

Clinical cut scores for the Persian version of the personality inventory for DSM‐5

“…Regardless of scoring algorithms for the maladaptive domains, items response is based on a Likert scale ranging from 0 ( often false ) to 3 ( often true ). The reliability and validity of the Persian version of PID‐5 are acceptable in the Iranian populations (Amini et al, 2021; Hemmati et al, 2021; Lotfi et al, 2018; Shojaei et al, 2020). In the present sample, Cronbach's ⍺ for all domains of both DSM‐5/ICD‐11 systems and DSM‐5 PD composites were acceptable, ranging from 0.84 to 0.96.…”

“…Although the cross-cultural reports support the validity of all versions of PID-5 (Al-Dajani et al, 2016;Amini et al, 2021;Bagby et al, 2022;Bo et al, 2016;Coelho et al, 2020;Fang et al, 2021;Hemmati et al, 2021;Hong et al, 2018;Sellbom et al, 2020;Shojaei et al, 2020;Thimm et al, 2016;Venema et al, 2021;Zhang et al, 2021), a few studies focused on determining the cut points of the scale to diagnose clinical status (Bagby & Sellbom, 2018;Keeley et al, 2014). The neglect by previous studies may be affected by the dimensional approach to measurement that underlies the PID-5 structure (Waugh et al, 2017).…”

“…Previous reports, especially in Western societies, support the reliability and validity of original and shorter versions of this personality scale (Al‐Dajani et al, 2016; Bagby et al, 2022; Bo et al, 2016; Díaz‐Batanero et al, 2019; Maples et al, 2015; Thimm et al, 2016). Recent studies reported the validity of all versions of the PID‐5 to be acceptable in some non‐Western cultures such as Iran (Amini et al, 2021; Coelho et al, 2020; Fang et al, 2021; Hemmati et al, 2021; Hong et al, 2018; Shojaei et al, 2020; Venema et al, 2021; Zhang et al, 2021).…”

“…In other regions such as Asia, although some studies have sought to report the validity of different versions of the PID‐5 (Coelho et al, 2020; Fang et al, 2021; Hong et al, 2018; Zhang et al, 2021), cutoff points have largely been ignored. Several studies also reported the validation of different Persian versions of PID‐5 in different age groups (Amini et al, 2021; Hemmati et al, 2021; Lotfi et al, 2018; Shojaei et al, 2020). However, very little research reported cutoff scores for indicating clinically significant issues (Miller et al, 2022; Quilty et al, 2013).…”

Meta-Analytic Review of Temperamental Correlates of the Five-Factor Model and Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology Domains

“…Although many studies based on factor analytical techniques that form the basis of the HiTOP system are inattentive to the etiology of personality and psychopathology, other studies have attempted to extract common factors between traits developed using factor analysis and those in temperamental theories. [35][36][37] For example, Clark and Ro 35 found that high HA and internalizing spectrum traits in the HiTOP loaded on a common higher-order factor they called negative affectivity. Also, of all the traits examined, high NS had its highest factor loading on a disinhibited externalizing spectrum and low RD on the detachment spectrum.…”