Keywords
theory of traits
PID-5
PBQ-SF
confirmatory factor analysis
How to Cite
Abstract
Objective: to validate the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in a Colombian clinical population and the gender differences. Participants: 341 patients between 18 and 60 years of age, 60% of women. Method: Confirmatory Factor Analyses (AFC) and concurrent validity whit PBQ-SF. Results: supported the existence of the 25 first-order factors. In terms of domains (second-order analysis), several organization models were posed. The results supported the model proposed by Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, and Skodol (2012): c2(2661, n = 341) = 3350, RMSEA = 0.028 (90% CI: 0.025; 0.030), CFI = 0.99, NNFI=0.99. Men scored significantly higher than women on grandiosity, irresponsibility, manipulativeness, risk-taking, antagonism, and disinhibition. Women scored significantly higher than men on emotional lability and intimacy avoidance. The concurrent validity of PID with the PBQ-SF was high, giving support to the traits of personality disorder models of the DSM-5.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and Stadistical Manual of Mental Disorders IV-TR (4th ed.). Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and Stadistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Fifth Ediction DSM-5. Washington: American Psychiatric Publishing.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013b). Online Assessment Measures.
Anderson, J., Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Quilty, L. C., Vewltri, C. O., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. 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(3), 286–284.
Bastiaens, T., Claes, L., Smits, D., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Rossi, G., … De Hert, M. (2015). The construct validity of the Dutch Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (PID-5) in a clinical simple. Assessment. http://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115575069
Beck, A. T., & Beck, J. S. (1991). The Personality Belief Questionnaire.
Bala Cynwid: The Beck Institute for Cognitive Therapy and Research.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., Pretzer, J., Davis, D. D., Fleming, B., Ottaviani, R., … Trexler, L. (1995). Terapia cognitiva de los trastornos de la personalidad. Barcelona: Editorial Paidós.
Beck, A. T., Freeman, A., Pretzer, J., Fleming, B., Arntz, A., Butler, A., … Padesky, C. A. (2005). Terapia Cognitiva de los trastornos de personalidad (2nd ed.). Barcelona: Editorial Paidós.
Bo, S., Bach, B., Mortensen, E. L., & Simonsen, E. (2015). Reliability and Hierarchical Structure of DSM-5 Pathological Traits in a Danish Mixed Sample. Personality Disorders, 29.
Butler, A. C., Beck, A. T., & Cohen, L. H. (2007). The Personality Belief Questionnaire-Short Form: Development and preliminary findings. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37(3), 357–370.
Byrne, B. M. (2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. New York: Routledge.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
Clark, L. A. (1999). Dimensional approaches to personality disorder assessment and diagnosis. In C. R. Cloninger (Ed.), Personality and psychopathology (pp. 219–244). Washington: American Psychiatric Press.
Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (n.d.). Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality-Second edition (SNAP-2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory NEO-PI-R and NEO Five-Factor Inventory NEO-FFI Professional Manual. Odessa, FL.: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2003). The Depression Anxiety Stress Scales: Normative data and latent structure in a large non-clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 111–131.
De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., Van Hiel, A., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2014). The hierarchical structure and construct validity of the PID-5 trait measure in adolescence. Journal of Personality, 82(1), 158–169.
De Clerq, B., De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., & Mervielde, I. (2006). The structure of maladaptive personality traits in childhood: A step toward an integrative developmental perspective for DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 639–657.
Fossati, A., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Borroni, S., & Maffei, C. (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(6), 689–708.
Gutiérrez, F., Alija, A., Peri, J. M., Calvo, N., Ferrer, M., Baillés, E., … Krueger, R. F. (2015). Psychometric Properties of the Spanish PID-5 in a Clinical and Community Sample. Assessment. http://doi.org/10.1177/107319111560651
Harkness, A. R. (1992). Fundamental topics in the personality disorders: Candidate trait dimensions from lower regions of the hierarchy. Psychological Assessment, 4(2), 251–259.
Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M. (2012). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Recent Constructive Replication and Assessment Literature Review. Psychological Assessment, 24(2), 432–443.
Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The personality psychopathology five (PSY-5): issue from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 291–315). New York: Springer.
Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, J. S. (1995). The personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): constructs and MMPI-2 Scales. Psychological Assessment, 7(1), 104–114.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. http://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2013). LISREL. Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890.
Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., … Livesley, W. J. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(2), 170–191.
Little, T. D. (2013). Longitudinal Structural Equation Modeling. New York: The Guilford Press.
Little, T. D., Cunningham, W. A., Shahar, G., & Widaman, K. F. (2002). To parcel or not to parcel: Exploring the question, weighing the merits. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 151-173.
Livesley, W. J. (2001). Conceptual and taxonomics issues. In Handbook of personality disorders. Theory, rearch, and treatment (pp. 3–38). New York: Guilford.
Londoño, N. H., Calvete, E., & Palacio, J. (2012). Validación del “Cuestionario de Creencias de Personalidad-Versión Breve” (PBQ-SF) en población no clínica Colombiana. Psicología Conductual, 20(2), 305–321.
Markon, K. E. (2010). Modeling psychopathology structure: A symptom-level analysis of Axis I and II disorders. Psychological Medicine, 40(2), 273–288.
Markon, K. E., Quilty, L. C., Bagby, R. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). The development and psychometric properties of an informant-report form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Assessment, 20(3), 370–383.
Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III Manual (2ed. Ed.). Minneapolis: NCS Pearson.
Morey, L. C., Krueger, R. F., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). Thehierarchical structure of clinician ratings of proposed DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(3), 836–841.
O´Connor, B. P. (2005). A search for consensus on the dimensional structure of personality disorders. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61(3), 323–345.
Quilty, L. C., Ayearst, L., Chmielewski, M., Polloch, B. G., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). The psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 field trial sample. Assessment, 20(3), 362–369.
Roskam, I., Galdiolo, S., Hansenne, M., Massoudi, K., Rossier, J., Gicquel, L., & Rolland, J.-P. (2015). The Psychometric Properties of the French Version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. PLoS ONE. http://doi.org/10.1371
Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relatioships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: a facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342.
Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20(3), 308–311.
Westen, D., & Shedler, J. (2007). Personality diagnosis with the Shedler-Westen assessment procedure (SWAP): integrating clinical and statistical measurement and prediction. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 810–822.
Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(2), 110–130.
Wright, A. G. C., & Simms, L. 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(1), 43–54.
Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pinkus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological peronality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 951–957.
Zimmermann, J., Altenstein, D., Krieger, T., Holtforth, M. G., Pretsh, J., Alexopoulus, J., … Leising, D. (2014). The structure and correlates of self-reported DSM-5 Maladaptive Personality Traits: finding from two german-speaking sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(4), 518–540.
This journal is registered under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License. Thus, this work may be reproduced, distributed, and publicly shared in digital format, as long as the names of the authors and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana are acknowledged. Others are allowed to quote, adapt, transform, auto-archive, republish, and create based on this material, for any purpose (even commercial ones), provided the authorship is duly acknowledged, a link to the original work is provided, and it is specified if changes have been made. Pontificia Universidad Javeriana does not hold the rights of published works and the authors are solely responsible for the contents of their works; they keep the moral, intellectual, privacy, and publicity rights. Approving the intervention of the work (review, copy-editing, translation, layout) and the following outreach, are granted through an use license and not through an assignment of rights. This means the journal and Pontificia Universidad Javeriana cannot be held responsible for any ethical malpractice by the authors. As a consequence of the protection granted by the use license, the journal is not required to publish recantations or modify information already published, unless the errata stems from the editorial management process. Publishing contents in this journal does not generate royalties for contributors.