Investigating the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 using self and spouse reports

Using the Personality Assessment Inventory to Assess the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders: Criterion Validity in a Clinical Sample

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a broadband measure of psychopathology that is widely used in applied settings. Researchers developed regression-based estimates that use the PAI to measure constructs of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) - a hybrid dimensional and categorical approach to conceptualizing personality disorders. Although prior work has linked these estimates to formal measures of the AMPD, there is little work investigating the clinical correlates of this scoring approach of the PAI. The current study examines associations between these PAI-based AMPD estimates and life data in a large, archival dataset of psychiatric outpatients and inpatients. We found general support for the criterion validity of AMPD estimate scores, such that a theoretically consistent pattern of associations emerged with indicators such as prior academic achievement, antisocial behavior, psychiatric history, and substance abuse. These results provide preliminary support to this scoring approach for use in clinical samples.

Operational definitions and measurement of externalizing behavior problems: An integrative review including research models and clinical diagnostic systems

Measurement of externalizing disorders such as antisocial disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder or borderline disorder have relevant implications for the daily lives of people with these disorders. While the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD) have provided the diagnostic framework for decades, recent dimensional frameworks question the categorical approach of psychopathology, inherent in traditional nosotaxies. Tests and instruments develop under the DSM or ICD framework preferentially adopt this categorical approach, providing diagnostic labels. In contrast, dimensional measurement instruments provide an individualized profile for the domains that comprise the externalizing spectrum, but are less widely used in practice. Current paper aims to review the operational definitions of externalizing disorders defined under these different frameworks, revise the different measurement alternatives existing, and provide an integrative operational definition. First, an analysis of the operational definition of externalizing disorders among the DSM/ICD diagnostic systems and the recent Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) model is carried out. Then, in order to analyze the coverage of operational definitions found, a description of measurement instruments among each conceptualization is provided. Three phases in the development of the ICD and DSM diagnosis systems can be observed with direct implications for measurement. ICD and DSM versions have progressively introduced systematicity, providing more detailed descriptions of diagnostic criteria and categories that ease the measurement instrument development. However, it is questioned whether the DSM/ICD systems adequately modelize externalizing disorders, and therefore their measurement. More recent theoretical approaches, such as the HiTOP model seek to overcome some of the criticism raised towards the classification systems. Nevertheless, several issues concerning this model raise mesasurement challenges. A revision of the instruments underneath each approach shows incomplete coverage of externalizing disorders among the existing instruments. Efforts to bring nosotaxies together with other theoretical models of psychopathology and personality are still needed. The integrative operational definition of externalizing disorders provided may help to gather clinical practice and research.

Temperaments and characters: incompatible or complementary components for criterion B of the alternative model in predicting DSM-5 section II personality disorders?

BACKGROUND

Many studies have found clear correspondence among the domains of the five-factor model of personality (FFM) and the alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) in DSM-5-III, which is assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). However, very few studies have compared the PID-5 with the other well-known established dimensional models of personality such as Cloninger's model. The present study examined whether the Temperament and Character Inventory (TCI-125) dimensions, PID-5 dimensions, or a combination would represent PD-scale scores more accurately.

PARTICIPANTS AND PROCEDURE

In this regard, 437 college students completed the Persian version of the PID-5, TCI-125 and SCID-II Screening Questionnaire.RESULTS The results indicated that cooperativeness (low), self-directedness (low), and self-transcendence (high) characters of the TCI-125 and the psychoticism (high) domain of the PID-5 are the most consistent predictors of all PD-scale scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, the findings showed that an integrative model, combining dimensions of the TCI-125 and PID-5, represented the features of PD-scale scores most effectively.

Personality inventory for DSM-5 brief form(PID-5-BF) in Chinese students and patients: evaluating the five-factor model and a culturally informed six-factor model

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 been no studies about the utility of the PID-5-BF in Chinese settings. The current study aimed to explore the maladaptive personality factor model which was culturally adapted to China and to examine psychometric properties of the PID-5-BF among Chinese undergraduate students and clinical patients.

METHODS

Seven thousand one hundred fifty-five undergraduate students and 451 clinical patients completed the Chinese version of the PID-5-BF. Two hundered twenty-eight 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 factor structure in China, measurement invariance(MI), internal consistency, and external validity were also calculated.

RESULTS

The theoretical five-factor model was acceptable, but the exploratory six-factor model was more applicable 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). In the Chinese six-factor model, the Negative Affect domain was divided into two factors and the new factor was named "Interpersonal Relationships", which was in line with the Big-Six Personality model in Chinese. 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 correlation between the 25-item PID-5-BF and the 220-item PID-5 was significant(p < 0.01). The six PDs measured by Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4+ (PDQ-4+) were associated with and predicted by expected domains of PID-5-BF.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the theoretical five-factor model and the exploratory six-factor model of the PID-5-BF were acceptable to the Chinese population. The five-factor model could allow for comparison and integration with other work on the original theoretical model. However, the Chinese six-factor structure may be more culturally informed in East Asian settings. In sum, the PID-5-BF is a convenient and useful screening tool for personality disorders.

Threat Conditioning and Trait-Based Vulnerability to Personality Disorder

Some personality disorders (PDs) are accompanied by heightened threat sensitivity to benign events, whereas others are associated with minimal reactivity to danger or punishment. Such aberrant patterns of defensive responding may be due to abnormal threat learning processes, analogous to those observed in other fear- and fearlessness-based disorders. We investigated threat learning deficits with a Pavlovian differential conditioning procedure in an undergraduate sample (n = 117) overselected for negative affectivity. Contrary to predictions, maladaptive personality traits, as assessed via the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, were largely unrelated to defensive responding (i.e., subjective and electrodermal reactions to danger and safety cues) during threat conditioning. We discuss the possible boundary conditions of threat learning abnormalities in PD and suggest research designs that could more effectively reveal such deficits, if they exist.

A Brief but Comprehensive Review of Research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Both the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) and the chapter on personality disorders (PD) in the recent version of ICD-11 embody a shift from a categorical to a dimensional paradigm for the classification of PD. We describe these new models, summarize available measures, and provide a comprehensive review of research on the AMPD.

RECENT FINDINGS

A total of 237 publications on severity (criterion A) and maladaptive traits (criterion B) of the AMPD indicate (a) acceptable interrater reliability, (b) largely consistent latent structures, (c) substantial convergence with a range of theoretically and clinically relevant external measures, and (d) some evidence for incremental validity when controlling for categorical PD diagnoses. However, measures of criterion A and B are highly correlated, which poses conceptual challenges. The AMPD has stimulated extensive research with promising findings. We highlight open questions and provide recommendations for future research.

Categorical and Dimensional Conceptions of Personality Pathology in DSM-5: Toward a Model-Based Synthesis

Symptom-based models, typically operationalized through diagnostic interview, and trait models, typically operationalized via questionnaire inventories, reflect historically competing conceptions of personality disorder (PD). DSM-5 includes models of both types, in Sections II and III, respectively. In this study, we sought to synthesize these alternative conceptualizations by fitting bifactor models to data for both Section II PD symptoms (assessed using the SCID-II interview protocol) and dimensional traits for the six PDs retained in Section III (assessed using the Personality Inventory for DSM-5). Bifactor models fit the data effectively for all six PDs, and trait and symptom indicators both loaded appreciably on general factors reflecting cross-domain PD constructs. These results provide the basis for a principled, quantitative synthesis of categorical/interview and dimensional/self-report approaches to operationalizing and studying PDs, with considerable implications for diagnosis, research, and practice.

Assessment of Pathological Traits in DSM-5 Personality Disorders By the DAPP-BQ: How Do These Traits Relate to the Six Personality Disorder Types of the Alternative Model?

The six personality disorder (PD) types in DSM-5 section III are intended to resemble their DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II PD counterparts, but are now described by the level of personality functioning (criterion A) and an assigned trait profile (criterion B). However, concerns have been raised about the validity of these PD types. The present study examined the continuity between the DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II PDs and the corresponding trait profiles of the six DSM-5 section III PDs in a sample of 350 Dutch psychiatric patients. Facets of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ) were presumed as representations (proxies) of the DSM-5 section III traits. Correlational patterns between the DAPP-BQ and the six PDs were consistent with previous research between DAPP-BQ and DSM-IV PDs. Moreover, DAPP-BQ proxies were able to predict the six selected PDs. However, the assigned trait profile for each PD didn't fully match the corresponding PD.

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

This study explored associations between aggression and the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) domains and facets in 208 male offenders. Regression analyses revealed no significant domain-level relationships using either the APA-three facets only (Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2013) or the Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, and Skodol (2012) scoring algorithms. The PID-5 facets of Hostility and Risk Taking were significantly associated with aggression. These findings highlight the importance of a facet-level analysis when exploring the PD-aggression relationship. The authors call attention to how this knowledge can contribute to clinical-forensic practice and note limitations associated with using only PID-5 domain-level scoring approaches. More research is required to determine whether a universally accepted scoring approach can be adopted and promoted alongside future versions of the PID-5.

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

The goal of this study was to evaluate the continuity across the Section II personality disorders (PDs) and the proposed Section III model of PDs in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a ). More specifically, we analyzed association between the DSM-5 Section III pathological trait facets and Section II PDs among 110 Dutch adults (M age = 35.8 years, range = 19-60 years) receiving mental health care. We administered the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Disorders to all participants. Participants also completed the self-report Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) as a measure of pathological trait facets. The distributions underlying the dependent variable were modeled as criterion counts, using negative binomial regression. The results provided some support for the validity of the PID-5 and the DSM-5 Section III Alternative Model, although analyses did not show a perfect match. Both at the trait level and the domain level, analyses showed mixed evidence of significant relationships between the PID-5 trait facets and domains with the traditional DSM-IV PDs.

Coverage of the DSM-IV-TR/DSM-5 Section II Personality Disorders With the DSM-5 Dimensional Trait Model

Section III of DSM-5, for emerging measures and models, includes a five-domain, 25-trait model, assessed by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. A primary concern with respect to the trait model is its coverage of the DSM-IV-TR personality disorder syndromes (all of which were retained in DSM-5). The current study considered not only total scale scores of three independent measures of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders but also the coverage of each diagnostic criterion included within six personality disorders: antisocial, borderline, avoidant, dependent, narcissistic, and obsessive-compulsive. Participants were 425 community adults, all of whom had received mental health treatment (36% currently; 75% within the past year). Results provided support for the coverage of the diagnostic criteria for the antisocial, borderline, avoidant, dependent, and narcissistic personality disorders. Coverage could perhaps be improved for a few of the criteria for obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.

Borderline Personality Disorder and Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): Dimensional personality assessment with DSM-5

INTRODUCTION

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) diagnosis has been considered highly controversial. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th edition (DSM-5) proposes an alternative hybrid diagnostic model for personality disorders (PD), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has adequate psychometric properties and has been widely used for the assessment of the dimensional component.

METHODS

Our aim was to analyze the utility of the personality traits presented in Section III of the DSM-5 for BPD diagnosis in an outpatient clinical sample, using the Spanish version of the PID-5. Two clinical samples were studied: BPD sample (n=84) and non-BPD sample (n=45). Between-sample differences in PID-5 scores were analyzed.

RESULTS

The BPD sample obtained significantly higher scores in most PID-5 trait facets and domains. Specifically and after regression logistic analyses, in BPD patients, the domains of Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition, and the trait facets of emotional lability, [lack of] restricted affectivity, and impulsivity were more significantly associated with BPD.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our findings are only partially consistent with the algorithm proposed by DSM-5, we consider that the combination of the PID-5 trait domains and facets could be useful for BPD dimensional diagnosis, and could further our understanding of BPD diagnosis complexity.

Continuity between DSM-5 Categorical Criteria and Traits Criteria for Borderline Personality Disorder

OBJECTIVE

Borderline personality disorder (BPD) includes a heterogeneous constellation of symptoms operationalized with 9 categorical criteria. As the field of personality disorder (PD) research moves to emphasize dimensional traits in its operationalization, it is important to delineate continuity between the 9 DSM-IV/Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) categorical criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions in DSM-5 Section III. To date, no study has attempted such validation.

METHODS

We examined the associations between the 9 categorical DSM-IV/DSM-5 criteria for BPD and the trait dimensions of the alternative DSM-5 model for PDs in consecutively recruited psychiatric outpatients (N = 142; 68% female; age: mean 29.02, SD 8.38). This was investigated by means of bivariate correlations, followed by multiple logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The categorical BPD criteria were associated with conceptually related DSM-5 Section III traits (P > 0.001), except for the criterion of chronic feelings of emptiness. Consistent with the proposed traits criteria for BPD in DSM-5 Section III, we found Emotional lability, Anxiousness, Separation insecurity, Depressivity, Impulsivity, Risk taking, and Hostility to capture conceptually coherent BPD categorical criteria, while Suspiciousness was also strongly associated with BPD criteria. At the domain level, this applied to Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism. Notably, Emotional lability, Impulsivity, and Suspiciousness emerged as unique predictors of BPD (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In addition to the proposed BPD traits criteria, Suspiciousness and features of Psychoticism also augment BPD features. Provided that these findings are replicated in forthcoming research, a modified traits operationalization of BPD is warranted.

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

BACKGROUND

The 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.

METHOD

Data 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.

RESULTS

Findings 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.

CONCLUSIONS

Although 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.