High convergent validity among the five-factor model, PID-5-SF, and PiCD.

Abstract

In the last 10 years, 2 instruments (the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition [PID-5] and the Personality Inventory for International Classification of Diseases, 11th Revision [PiCD]) have been developed to measure the dimensional approach to personality disorders (PDs). Several studies have analyzed the relationships between both instruments and the five-factor model, although the PiCD has received less attention than the PID-5, given its more recent publication. For instance, the PiCD has never been related to the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R). The aims of the present article were to explore the convergent validity of the NEO-PI-R, a short version of the PID-5 (PID-5-SF), and the PiCD, to compare these dimensional approaches as for their ability to predict categorical PDs measured through the screening questionnaire of the International Personality Disorder Examination and to explore the nature of 2 controversial pathological domains: Psychoticism (from the PID-5-SF) and Anankastia (from the PiCD). A total of 1,565 people from the Spanish general population completed the NEO-PI-R, PID-5-SF, and PiCD. A total of 758 also filled out the International Personality Disorder Examination. Results show a high convergent validity of the five-factor model, the PID-5-SF, and the PiCD. Especially relevant from a clinical perspective is the great convergence between the 2 measures of dimensional PDs. In light of the results, the personality correlates of Psychoticism are reconsidered, and the location of Anankastia as the opposite pole of Disinhibition instead of as a separate domain, suggested by previous authors, is supported. The advantages of a dimensional approach to PDs and the practical implications for their assessment are discussed.

Validación de la versión española del NEO-FFI-30

“…Similarly toSchmitz et al (2001), symptomatology from SCL-90-R was mainly related to N, with almost identical r-scores. Furthermore, as it was shown previously(García et al, 2022), the current results show a high conver-gent validity between the five-factor model and a measure of personality disorders. The study's main limitation was that the gains in convenience are met at the expense of loss of information concerning NEO-PI-R facets.…”

Cross-walking personality disorder types to ICD-11 trait domains: An overview of current findings

“…Histrionic PD showed a mixed pattern of small to moderate associations with Dissociality, Disinhibition, and Negative Affectivity, which aligns with the fact that this PD type is essentially characterized by self-centeredness and longing for attention (i.e., Dissociality), excitement and attention seeking (i.e., Disinhibition), and excessive and labile emotionality (i.e., Negative Affectivity). Two studies also indicated negative associations with Detachment ( 14 , 28 ), which is consistent with the extreme extraversion and emotional expressivity (e.g., reversed Detachment) characterizing Histrionic PD.…”

“…We used PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and a broad snowballing method to identify a total of nine relevant studies investigating associations between traditional PD types and ICD-11 trait domain scores (14,17,(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30). We chose to include exclusively articles published after 2017, with the rationale being that ICD-11 has gone through a number of iterations, in which diagnostic definitions have undergone significant changes (5,(31)(32)(33)(34).…”

Clinician-rated ICD-11 trait domains and personality disorder types.

“…To date, a number of studies have already investigated associations between self-reported ICD-11 trait domains and traditional PD types (Bach et al, 2018; Bach, Kerber, et al, 2020; Fang et al, 2021; García et al, 2022; Kim et al, 2021; Lugo et al, 2019; Sellbom et al, 2020; Sellbom et al, in press; Simon et al, 2023; Sorrel et al, 2022), which overall showed expected and conceptually coherent associations. However, associations have not yet been investigated with respect to clinician ratings performed by practitioners, which is deemed important because self-report bias seems to increase by the severity of personality pathology (e.g., Nuzum et al, 2019).…”