4.3 Article

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

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Volume 27, Issue 4, Pages 1195-1210

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/pas0000120

Keywords

DSM-5; assessment; personality; personality disorders

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes an alternative model of personality disorders (PDs) in Section III, consisting in part of a pathological personality trait model. To date, the 220-item Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) is the only extant self-report instrument explicitly developed to measure this pathological trait model. The present study used item response theory-based analyses in a large sample (n = 1,417) to investigate whether a reduced set of 100 items could be identified from the PID-5 that could measure the 25 traits and 5 domains. This reduced set of PID-5 items was then tested in a community sample of adults currently receiving psychological treatment (n = 109). Across a wide range of criterion variables including NEO PI-R domains and facets, DSM-5 Section II PD scores, and externalizing and internalizing outcomes, the correlational profiles of the original and reduced versions of the PID-5 were nearly identical (r(ICC) = .995). These results provide strong support for the hypothesis that an abbreviated set of PID-5 items can be used to reliably, validly, and efficiently assess these personality disorder traits. The ability to assess the DSM-5 Section III traits using only 100 items has important implications in that it suggests these traits could still be measured in settings in which assessment-related resources (e.g., time, compensation) are limited. (PsycINFO Database Record

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available