Valid self-report assessment of psychopathology relies on accurate and credible responses to test questions. There are some individuals who, in certain assessment contexts, cannot or choose not to answer in a manner typically representative of their traits or symptoms. This is referred to, most broadly, as test response bias. In this investigation, we explore the effect of response bias on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2013 ), a self-report instrument designed to assess the pathological personality traits used to inform diagnosis of the personality disorders in Section III of DSM-5. A set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008 / 2011 ) validity scales, which are used to assess and identify response bias, were employed to identify individuals who engaged in either noncredible overreporting (OR) or underreporting (UR), or who were deemed to be reporting or responding to the items in a "credible" manner-credible responding (CR). A total of 2,022 research participants (1,587 students, 435 psychiatric patients) completed the MMPI-2-RF and PID-5; following protocol screening, these participants were classified into OR, UR, or CR response groups based on MMPI-2-RF validity scale scores. Groups of students and patients in the OR group scored significantly higher on the PID-5 than those students and patients in the CR group, whereas those in the UR group scored significantly lower than those in the CR group. Although future research is needed to explore the effects of response bias on the PID-5, results from this investigation provide initial evidence suggesting that response bias influences scale elevations on this instrument.

The Personality Inventory for (PID-5) is a 220-item self-report instrument that assesses the alternative model of personality psychopathology in Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) of. Despite its relatively recent introduction, the PID-5 has generated an impressive accumulation of studies examining its psychometric properties, and the instrument is also already widely and frequently used in research studies. Although the PID-5 is psychometrically sound overall, reviews of this instrument express concern that this scale does not possess validity scales to detect invalidating levels of response bias, such as underreporting and overreporting. McGee Ng et al. (2016), using a "known-groups" (partial) criterion design, demonstrated that both underreporting and overreporting grossly affect mean scores on PID-5 scales. In the current investigation, we replicate these findings using an analog simulation design. An important extension to this replication study was the finding that the construct validity of the PID-5 was also significantly compromised by response bias, with statistically significant attenuation noted in validity coefficients of the PID-5 domain scales with scales from other instruments measuring congruent constructs. This attenuation was found for underreporting and overreporting bias. We believe there is a need to develop validity scales to screen for data-distorting response bias in research contexts and in clinical assessments where response bias is likely or otherwise suspected. (PsycINFO Database Record

Our aim in the current study was to develop a validity scale for the Personality Inventory for (PID-5) to detect noncredible overreported responding. To this end, we used a rare symptoms approach and identified extreme response options on PID-5 items that were infrequently endorsed by students in 3 different university samples (N = 1,370) and in a psychiatric patient sample (N = 194). The resulting 10-item scale (the PID-5-ORS) produced adequate-to-good estimates of internal reliability and was significantly correlated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructued Form (MMPI-2-RF) overreporting validity scales, providing evidence of concurrent validity. The criterion validity of the PID-5-ORS was demonstrated in an analog simulation design study. More specifically, university students instructed to overreport (n = 80) scored substantially higher on the PID-5-ORS relative to both a group of genuine psychiatric patients and students instructed to complete the PID-5 under standard (honest) instructions (n = 161); the effect size magnitudes associated with these differences were large. Classification accuracy analyses further revealed that high scores on the PID-5-ORS were associated with high specificity (and thus, low rates of false positive classifications) in differentiating overreporters from genuine patients, with sensitivity being somewhat weaker. (PsycINFO Database Record