The Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for <i>DSM-5</i> in an APA <i>DSM-5</i> Field Trial Sample

Quilty, Lena C.; Ayearst, Lindsay E.; Chmielewski, Michael S.; Pollock, Bruce G.; Bagby, R. Michael

doi:10.1177/1073191113486183

Cited by 188 publications

(227 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

186

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…1 The structure of the PID-5 also converges with other major measures of personality. 24,31 It is also important to note that investigations provide support for the psychometric properties of the PID-5 in psychiatric samples 29,32 as well as conceptual correspondence with the preserved DSM-IV-TR Axis II PD categories. 16,33 Furthermore, the PID-5 demonstrates convergence with conceptually similar components of well validated clinical instruments such as the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), 34 the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), 35 the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality-2 (SNAP-2), 29 the Inventory of Interper sonal Problems-Circum plex Scales (IIP-C), 36 the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Patho logy-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ), 26 and the Cognitive Therapy-based Personality Beliefs Ques tion naire (PBQ).…”

Section: Empirical Statusmentioning

confidence: 98%

Clinical Utility of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Bach

Markon

Simonsen

et al. 2015

Journal of Psychiatric Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Section III, Emerging Measures and Models, DSM-5 presents an Alternative Model of Personality Disorders, which is an empirically based model of personality pathology measured with the Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). These novel instruments assess level of personality impairment and pathological traits. Objective. A number of studies have supported the psychometric qualities of the LPFS and the PID-5, but the utility of these instruments in clinical assessment and treatment has not been extensively evaluated. The goal of this study was to evaluate the clinical utility of this alternative model of personality disorders. Method. We administered the LPFS and the PID-5 to psychiatric outpatients diagnosed with personality disorders and other nonpsychotic disorders. The personality profiles of six characteristic patients were inspected (involving a comparison of presenting problems, history, and diagnoses) and used to formulate treatment considerations. We also considered 6 specific personality disorder types that could be derived from the profiles as defined in the DSM-5 Section III criteria. Results. Using the LPFS and PID-5, we were able to characterize the 6 cases in a meaningful and useful manner with regard to understanding and treatment of the individual patient and to match the cases with 6 relevant personality disorder types. Implications for ease of use, communication, and psychotherapy are discussed. Conclusion. Our evaluation generally supported the utility for clinical purposes of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders in Section III of the DSM-5, although it also identified some areas for refinement. (Journal of Psychiatric Practice 2015;21:3-25).

show abstract

Section: Empirical Statusmentioning

confidence: 98%

Clinical Utility of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Bach

Markon

Simonsen

et al. 2015

Journal of Psychiatric Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, the disinhibition facets had a mean correlation of .39 with each other, and a mean correlation of .35 with other domains' facets. This lack of discriminant qualities to the scales has led some researchers to posit the PID-5 scales are saturated with a distress factor (e.g., Quilty et al, 2013), which might be similar to the common shared variance across the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales (Tellegen et al, 2003). Preliminary psychometric concerns raised regarding the PID-5 should prompt researchers to explore DSM-5 Section 3 operationalizations outside the PID-5 to differentiate model concerns from measurement concerns.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The PID-5 domains and facets have demonstrated convergent associations with hypothesized Five-factor model (FFM) instruments in a college sample (Thomas et al, 2013) and in a clinical sample (Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock, & Bagby, 2013). Using an outpatient sample and a community sample, Watson, Stasik, Ro, and Clark (2013) demonstrated evidence of convergence between the PID-5 and the Big Three model and a six-factor model representing the Big Five and a psychoticism factor, although it should be noted that the Big Five Openness factor was not associated with any of the PID-5 domains.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

The MMPI–2 Restructured Form Personality Psychopathology Five Scales: BridgingDSM–5Section 2 Personality Disorders andDSM–5Section 3 Personality Trait Dimensions

Finn

Arbisi

Erbes

et al. 2013

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined in a college sample and a sample of non-treatment-seeking, trauma-exposed veterans the association between the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales and DSM-5 Section 2 personality disorder (PD) criteria, the same system used in DSM-IV-TR, and the proposed broad personality trait dimensions contained in Section 3 of DSM-5. DSM-5 Section 2 PD symptoms were assessed using the SCID-II-PQ, and applying a replicated rational selection procedure to the SCID-II-PQ item pool, proxies for the DSM-5 Section 3 dimensions and select facets were constructed. The MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 scales demonstrated appropriate convergent and discriminant associations with both Section 2 PDs and Section 3 dimensions in both samples. These findings suggest the MMPI-2-RF PSY-5 scales can serve both conceptually and practically as a bridge between the DSM-5 Section 2 PD criteria and the DSM-5 Section 3 personality features.

show abstract

“…(e.g., Chmielewski, Bagby, Markon, Ring, & Ryder, 2014;Fruyt et al, 2013;Gore & Widiger, 2013;Thomas et al, 2012), others have not found any association (Few et al, 2013;Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock, & Bagby, 2013;Suzuki, Samuel, Pahlen, & Krueger, 2015;Watson et al, 2013). The debate has focused partly on how researchers define Openness to Experience/Intellect.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pathological Personality Traits (DSM-5), Risk Factors, and Mental Health

Góngora

Solano

2017

SAGE Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013), a dimensional model of maladaptive personality traits is proposed. This model coexists with, and is an alternative to, the traditional categorical taxonomy and defines a personality trait as a tendency to feel, perceive, behave, and think in relatively consistent ways across time and across situations. Although consistent, traits may also change throughout one's life (APA, 2013).The DSM-5's new model consists of 25 lower order personality facets that are classified into five higher order domains: Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. These five broad domains are maladaptive variants of the five domains of the extensively validated and replicated Five-Factor personality model known as the "Big Five": Emotional Stability, Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Lucidity (or Openness; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Although the DSM-5 focuses on personality traits that are associated with psychopathology, which is the traditional interest of the DSM classification system, it also recognizes the existence of healthy polar opposites, that is, adaptive and resilient personality traits, which are usually assessed by "normal" personality inventories (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) was developed to assess the maladaptive personality traits proposed in the DSM-5 (Krueger et al., 2012). There is an increasing body of research that supports the psychometric properties of the PID-5, with an internal consistency α >.70 for all of its dimensions. Evidence of the five-factorial structure has been found in student, community, and clinical samples (see Al-Dajani, Gralnick, and Bagby, 2016, for a review).

show abstract

The Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 Field Trial Sample

Cited by 188 publications

References 32 publications

Clinical Utility of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

Clinical Utility of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders

The MMPI–2 Restructured Form Personality Psychopathology Five Scales: BridgingDSM–5Section 2 Personality Disorders andDSM–5Section 3 Personality Trait Dimensions

Pathological Personality Traits (DSM-5), Risk Factors, and Mental Health

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About