Normative data for PID-5 domains, facets, and personality disorder composites from a representative sample and comparison to community and clinical samples

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Josh Miller ◽  
Christopher James Hopwood ◽  
Leonard Simms ◽  
Donald Lynam
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Sum Score

The introduction of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Model of Mental Disorders (DSM-5, APA, 2013) represented a substantive change in how personality disorders (PDs) are diagnosed. One barrier to its adoption (among several) in clinical practice, however, is a lack of information as to what constitutes an elevated score on the 25 domains and facets that comprise Criterion B. Unique sets of facets can be configured to assess any one of six PDs retained in the AMPD; each of these facets can in turn be added to create a PD sum score. In the current study, using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012), we report mean scores using this instrument that align with 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0 standard deviation elevations for each of these six PDs on the basis of Krueger and colleagues (2012) representative sample, and compare these to those obtained from a community and a clinical sample. These normative data may be useful to clinicians in determining whether a client has elevated scores on pathological personality domains, facets, or PDs.

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

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panwen Zhang ◽  
Zirong Ouyang ◽  
Shulin Fang ◽  
Jiayue He ◽  
Lejia Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Factor Model ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract Background: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) is a 25-item measuring tool evaluating maladaptive personality traits for the diagnosis of personality disorders(PDs). As a promising scale, its impressive psychometric properties have been verified in some countries, however, there have no studies about the utility of PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to explore the maladaptive personality factor model which was culturally adapted in China and examine psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form among Chinese 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+) were correlated with expected domains of PID-5-BF.Conclusions: The PID-5-BF is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders with a novel six-factor model in Chinese settings, with the main difference for the Negative Affect domain.

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

2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
BO BACH ◽  
KRISTIAN MARKON ◽  
ERIK SIMONSEN ◽  
ROBERT F. KRUEGER
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Dsm 5

The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders and Clinical Treatment: a Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 284-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
Craig Rodriguez-Seijas ◽  
Camilo Ruggero ◽  
Nicholas R. Eaton ◽  
Robert F. Krueger
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Clinical Treatment ◽  
Dsm 5

Personality Disorders in DSM-5: Emerging Research on the Alternative Model

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
Kathryn T. Benson ◽  
Alexander J. Busch ◽  
Andrew E. Skodol
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Dsm 5

Relating DSM-5 section III personality traits to section II personality disorder diagnoses

2015 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 647-655 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. C. Morey ◽  
K. T. Benson ◽  
A. E. Skodol
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Personality Traits ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Work Group ◽  
Taxonomic Structure ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Criterion A ◽  
Dsm Iv

BackgroundThe DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group formulated a hybrid dimensional/categorical model that represented personality disorders as combinations of core impairments in personality functioning with specific configurations of problematic personality traits. Specific clusters of traits were selected to serve as indicators for six DSM categorical diagnoses to be retained in this system – antisocial, avoidant, borderline, narcissistic, obsessive–compulsive and schizotypal personality disorders. The goal of the current study was to describe the empirical relationships between the DSM-5 section III pathological traits and DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II personality disorder diagnoses.MethodData were obtained from a sample of 337 clinicians, each of whom rated one of his or her patients on all aspects of the DSM-IV and DSM-5 proposed alternative model. Regression models were constructed to examine trait–disorder relationships, and the incremental validity of core personality dysfunctions (i.e. criterion A features for each disorder) was examined in combination with the specified trait clusters.ResultsFindings suggested that the trait assignments specified by the Work Group tended to be substantially associated with corresponding DSM-IV concepts, and the criterion A features provided additional diagnostic information in all but one instance.ConclusionsAlthough the DSM-5 section III alternative model provided a substantially different taxonomic structure for personality disorders, the associations between this new approach and the traditional personality disorder concepts in DSM-5 section II make it possible to render traditional personality disorder concepts using alternative model traits in combination with core impairments in personality functioning.

scholarly journals Interrater Reliability of the Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM–5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders Module i: Level of Personality Functioning Scale

2018 ◽  
Vol 100 (6) ◽  
pp. 630-641 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tore Buer Christensen ◽  
Muirne C. S. Paap ◽  
Marianne Arnesen ◽  
Karoline Koritzinsky ◽  
Tor-Erik Nysaeter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Interrater Reliability ◽  
Clinical Interview ◽  
Personality Functioning ◽  
Dsm 5

Continuity Between DSM–5 Section II and III Personality Disorders in a Dutch Clinical Sample

2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irene M. J. Orbons ◽  
Gina Rossi ◽  
Roel Verheul ◽  
Mirjam J. A. Schoutrop ◽  
Jan L. L. Derksen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Dsm 5

scholarly journals Psychometric Properties of the Chinese Version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in Undergraduate Students and Clinical Patients

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Panwen Zhang ◽  
Zirong Ouyang ◽  
Shulin Fang ◽  
Jiayue He ◽  
Lejia Fan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Personality Disorders ◽  
Measurement Invariance ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Chinese Version ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Test Retest Reliability

Abstract 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 302 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 = 0.044, SRMR = 0.063), 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=0.82, MIC=0.16) 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.

scholarly journals Maladaptive traits = normal range traits + personality dysfunction

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Morey ◽  
Evan Good ◽  
Christopher James Hopwood
Keyword(s):  
Personality Traits ◽  
Alternative Model ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Personality Pathology ◽  
Clinical Samples ◽  
Potential Utility ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Dsm 5 ◽  
Personality Dysfunction ◽  
The Relationship

Objective: The DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders distinguishes core personality dysfunction common to all personality pathology from maladaptive traits that are specific variants of disorder. Previous research shows convergence between maladaptive and normal range trait domains as well as substantial correlations between maladaptive traits and core dysfunctions, leading some to conclude that personality traits and dysfunction are redundant. This study sought to examine the potential utility of the concept of core dysfunctions as a means of clarifying the nature of the relationship between maladaptive and normal-range traits. Method: Three non-clinical samples (n=178, 307, and 1,008) were evaluated for personality dysfunction, maladaptive traits, and normal-range traits and normative traits using different measures. Results: Results indicate that: (1) normal trait domains and core dysfunction contribute independently to understanding maladaptive traits; (2) the correlation of a normal trait domain with its putative maladaptive equivalent is consistently accounted for in part by core dysfunction; and (3) the multi-trait multi-method matrices of normal and maladaptive personality trait domains demonstrate appreciable discriminant validity problems that are clarified by a consideration of core dysfunction. Conclusion: These results suggest that maladaptive traits reflect the distinguishable contributions of core personality dysfunction (problems) and normal range personality traits (person).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document