Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-7
Item Response Theory Analyses,Factor Structure,and External Correlates of the Italian Translation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form in Community-Dwelling Adults and Clinical Adults
To assess the psychometric properties of the Italian translation of the 100-item short form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5-SF), 2,143 community-dwelling adults (59.6% female), and 706 adult clinical participants (52.4% female) were administered the Italian translation of the PID-5. Clinical participants were also administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV (SCID-II), and the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+). Item response theory analysis showed that all proposed PID-5-SF items showed adequate item discrimination parameters in both community-dwelling adults and clinical adults. All PID-5-SF trait scales showed satisfactory internal consistency estimates. PID-5-SF five-factor structure closely matched the factor structure of the PID-5 in both community-dwelling participants and clinical participants and was invariant across the two samples that participated in this study. Moreover, the factor structure of the PID-5-SF closely replicated the factor of the PID-5-SF that was originally reported in Maples et al.’s study. In our clinical sample, dominance analysis results showed that PID-5-SF scales explained a nonnegligible and significant amount of variance in both SCID-II and PDQ-4+ ratings of selected DSM-5 Section II personality disorder, and the use of the PID-5-SF did not result in a substantial loss of information as compared with the original PID-5.
Al-DajaniN.GralnickT. M.BagbyR. M. (2016). A psychometric review of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5): Current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 62-81.
2.
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
3.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
4.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
AndersonJ. L.SellbomM.BagbyR. M.QuiltyL. C.VeltriC. O.MarkonK. E.KruegerR. F. (2013). On the convergence between PSY-5 domains and PID-5 domains and facets: Implications for assessment of DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment, 20, 286-294.
7.
AndersonJ. L.SellbomM.SalekinR. T. (2016). Utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Brief Form (PID-5-BF) in the measurement of maladaptive personality and psychopathology. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:1073191116676889
AzenR.BudescuD. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach for comparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8, 129-148.
10.
BachB.Maples-KellerJ. L.BoS.SimonsenE. (2016). The alternative DSM–5 personality disorder traits criterion: A comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7, 124-135.
11.
BachB.MarkonK.SimonsenE.KruegerR. F. (2015). Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders: Six cases from practice. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 21, 3-25.
12.
BachB.SellbomM.SimonsenE. (2017). Personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in clinical versus nonclinical individuals: Generalizability of psychometric features. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:1073191117709070
13.
BastiaensT.ClaesL.SmitsD.De ClercqB.De FruytF.RossiG.. . . De HertM. (2016). The construct validity of the Dutch Personality Inventory for DSM-5 personality disorders (PID-5) in a clinical sample. Assessment, 23, 42-51.
14.
BatemanA.FonagyP. (2004). Psychotherapy for borderline personality disorder: Mentalization based treatment. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
15.
BentlerP. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
16.
BerksonJ. (1946). Limitations of the application of fourfold tables to hospital data. Biometrics Bulletin, 2, 47-53.
17.
BlumN. S.BartelsN. E.St JohnD.PfohlB. (2012). Systems training for emotional predictability and problem solving: STEPPS (2nd ed.). Coralville, IA: Level One Publishing (Blums Books).
18.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
19.
BudescuD. V. (1993). Dominance analysis: A new approach to the problem of relative importance of predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 542-551.
20.
CaiL.HansenM. (2013). Limited-information goodness-of-fit testing of hierarchical item factor models. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 66, 245-276.
21.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1-29.
22.
ClarkL. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and emerging conceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227-258.
CregoC.GoreW. L.RojasS. L.WidigerT. A. (2015). The discriminant (and convergent) validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6, 321-335.
25.
De FruytF.De ClercqB.De BolleM.WilleB.MarkonK.KruegerR. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment, 20, 295-307. doi:10.1177/1073191113475808
26.
DebastI.RossiG.van AlphenS. P. J. (2017). Construct validity of the DSM-5 Section III maladaptive trait domains in older adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 671-688.
27.
Díaz-BataneroC.Ramírez-LópezJ.Domínguez-SalasS.Fernández-CalderónF.LozanoÓ. M. (2017). Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Short Form (PID-5-SF): Reliability, factorial structure, and relationship with functional impairment in dual diagnosis patients. Assessment. Advanced online publication. doi:1073191117739980
28.
DunneA. L.GilbertF.DaffernM. (2017). Investigating the relationship between DSM-5 personality disorder domains and facets and aggression in an offender population using the personality inventory for the DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders. doi:10.1521/pedi_2017_31_322
29.
FirstM. B.SpitzerR. L.GibbonM.WilliamsJ. B. W.BenjaminL. (1994). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID II), Version 2.0. New York, NY: Biometrics Research Department, NY State Psychiatric Institute.
30.
FossatiA.BorroniS.SommaA.MarkonK. E.KruegerR. F. (2016). Testing relationships between DSM-5 Section III maladaptive traits and measures of self and interpersonal impairment in Italian community dwelling adults. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1037/per0000192
31.
FossatiA.KruegerR. F.MarkonK. E.BorroniS.MaffeiC. (2013). Reliability and validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) predicting DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy in community-dwelling Italian adults. Assessment, 20, 689-708.
32.
FossatiA.KruegerR. F.MarkonK. E.BorroniS.MaffeiC.SommaA. (2015). The DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders from the perspective of adult attachment: A study in community-dwelling adults. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 203, 252-258.
33.
FossatiA.MaffeiC.BagnatoM.DonatiD.DoniniM.FiorilliM.. . . AnsoldiM. (1998). Brief communication: Criterion validity of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) in a mixed psychiatric sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 172-178.
34.
FossatiA.SommaA.BorroniS.MaffeiC.MarkonK. E.KruegerR. F. (2015). A head-to-head comparison of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) with the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4) in predicting the general level of personality pathology among community dwelling subjects. Journal of Personality Disorders. Advance online publication. doi:10.1521/pedi_2105_29_184
35.
FossatiA.SommaA.BorroniS.MarkonK. E.KruegerR. F. (2015). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form: Evidence for reliability and construct validity in a sample of community-dwelling Italian adolescents. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191115621793
36.
GoreW. L.WidigerT. A. (2013). The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 816-821.
37.
GriffinS. A.SamuelD. B. (2014). A closer look at the lower-order structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Comparison with the five-factor model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 406-412.
38.
GutiérrezF.AlujaA.PeriJ. M.CalvoN.FerrerM.BaillésE.. . . KruegerR. F. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Spanish PID-5 in a clinical and a community sample. Assessment, 24, 326-336. doi:10.1177/1073191115606518
39.
HopwoodC. J.DonnellanM. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated?Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332-346.
40.
HowellD. C. (2013). Statistical methods for psychology (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Wadsworth.
41.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
42.
HylerS. E. (1994). PDQ-4+ Personality Questionnaire. New York, NY: Author.
43.
KruegerR. F.DerringerJ.MarkonK. E.WatsonD.SkodolA. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.
44.
KruegerR. F.MarkonK. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477-501.
45.
LinehanM. M. (1993). Cognitive-behavioral treatment of borderline personality disorder. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
46.
Lorenzo-SevaU.ten BergeJ. M. (2006). Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology, 2, 57-64.
47.
MaffeiC.FossatiA.AgostoniI.BarracoA.BagnatoM.DonatiD.. . . PetrachiM. (1997). Interrater reliability and internal consistency of the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (SCID II), Version 2.0. Journal of Personality Disorders, 11, 279-284.
48.
MaplesJ. L.CarterN. T.FewL. R.CregoC.GoreW. L.SamuelD. B.. . . KruegerR. F. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1195-1210.
49.
MarshH. W.MorinA. J.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110.
50.
Maydeu-OlivaresA. (2015). Evaluating the fit of IRT models. In ReiseS. P.RevickiD. A. (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory modeling: Applications to typical performance assessment (pp. 111-127). New York, NY: Routledge.
51.
McCraeR. R.ZondermanA. B.CostaP. T.Jr.BondM. H.PaunonenS. V. (1996). Evaluating replicability of factors in the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: Confirmatory factor analysis versus Procrustes rotation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 552-566.
52.
MillerJ. D.LynamD. R.VizeC.CroweM.SleepC.Maples-KellerJ. L.. . . CampbellW. K. (2017). Vulnerable narcissism is (mostly) a disorder of neuroticism. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12303
53.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide: Statistical analysis with latent variables (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
54.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2012-2015). Mplus (Version 7.4) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
QuiltyL. C.AyearstL.ChmielewskiM.PollockB. G.BagbyR. M. (2013). The psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 field trial sample. Assessment, 20, 362-369.
57.
ReiseS. P.RodriguezA. (2016). Item response theory and the measurement of psychiatric constructs: Some empirical and conceptual issues and challenges. Psychological Medicine, 46, 2025-2039.
58.
RichmanH.Nelson-GrayR. (1994). Nonclinical panicker personality: Profile and discriminative ability. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 8, 33-47.
59.
RizopoulosD. (2006). ltm: An R package for latent variable modelling and item response theory analyses. Journal of Statistical Software, 17, 1-25.
60.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. Psychometrika (Monograph Suppl. No. 17), 34(4Pt. 2), 100.
61.
SamejimaF. (1997). Graded response model. In van der LindenW. J.HambletonR. K. (Eds.), Handbook of item response theory (pp. 85-100). New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
62.
SamuelD. B.SimmsL. J.ClarkL. A.LivesleyW. J.WidigerT. A. (2010). An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 5-21.
63.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1988). Scaling corrections for chi-square statistics in covariance structure analysis. In ASA 1988 Proceedings of the Business and Economic Statistics Section (pp. 308-313). Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association.
64.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and standard errors in covariance structure analysis. In von EyeA.CloggC. C. (Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research (pp. 399-419). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
65.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2001). A scaled difference chi-square test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66, 507-514.
66.
SharpC.SteinbergL.TempleJ.NewlinE. (2014). An 11-item measure to assess borderline traits in adolescents: Refinement of the BPFSC using IRT. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 70-78.
67.
SteigerJ. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.
68.
SuzukiT.SamuelD. B.PahlenS.KruegerR. F. (2015). DSM–5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 343-354.
69.
TanakaJ. S. (1993). Multifaceted conceptions of fit in structural equation models. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 10-39). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
70.
ThimmJ. C.JordanS.BachB. (2016). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form (PID-5-SF): Psychometric properties and association with big five traits and pathological beliefs in a Norwegian population. BMC Psychology, 4, 61.
71.
ThimmJ. C.JordanS.BachB. (2017). Hierarchical structure and cross-cultural measurement invariance of the Norwegian version of the personality inventory forDSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99, 204-210.
72.
ThomasK. M.YalchM. M.KruegerR. F.WrightA. G. C.MarkonK. E.HopwoodC. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM–5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308-311.
73.
WatsonD.StasikS. M.RoE.ClarkL. A. (2013). Integrating normal and pathological personality: Relating the DSM-5 trait-dimensional model to general traits of personality. Assessment, 20, 312-326.
74.
WidigerT. A.TrullT. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder. American Psychologist, 62, 71-83.
75.
WrightA. G. C.SimmsL. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 43-54.
76.
WrightZ. E.PahlenS.KruegerR. F. (2017). Genetic and environmental influences on Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) maladaptive personality traits and their connections with normative personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126, 416-428.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
