The Personality Inventory for ICD-11: Investigating reliability, structural and concurrent validity, and method variance.

Abstract

Grants from the University of Minnesota Press funded data collection for the present study. Martin Sellbom is a paid consultant to the University of Minnesota Press, publisher of the MMPI-2-RF, which was used in the present study.

Personality Disorders in the ICD-11: Spanish Validation of the PiCD and the SASPD in a Mixed Community and Clinical Sample

“…The attempt to retain five factors does not bring us any closer to a meaningful five-factor system, because disinhibition and anankastia cannot be recovered as separate domains. Instead, two narrower bipolar domains emerge, reflecting “impulsivity” and “carelessness.” Furthermore, although both models fit the data about equally well in ESEM, the four-factor solution was more congruent between the samples and with the literature: Whereas the bipolar domain of disinhibition–anankastia showed at least partial agreement with prior solutions (Φ = .82 with Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018; .94 with Bach et al, 2019; .96 with Carnovale et al, 2020), impulsivity and carelessness did not (.29 to .86; Table 3). The PiCD has also resulted in a four-factor structure whenever it has been analyzed together with other questionnaires (Crego & Widiger, 2019; McCabe & Widiger, 2020; Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018, 2020; Somma et al, 2020).…”

“…Both the four- (CFI = .95, TLI = .94 to .95, RMSEA = .06, SRMR = .06, congruence Φ = .96 to .98) and the five-factor solutions (CFI = .97, TLI = .96 to .97, RMSEA = .04 to .05, SRMR = .05, congruence Φ = .90 to .97; Supplementary Table S9, available online) showed acceptable fit and replicability. An additional random-intercept analysis (Carnovale et al, 2020; Maydeu-Olivares & Coffman, 2006), aimed at controlling for acquiescent responding or other biases, barely improved fit. Furthermore, the method factor only explained 6.0% and 4.9% of the variance of the four- and five-factor solutions when added to the CFA models, and 2.5% and 2.6% in the case of ESEM models.…”

“…Items are sorted following the four-factor solution. na = negative affectivity; dt = detachment; ds = dissociality; dn = disinhibition; ak = anankastia; comm = community sample; clin = clinical sample; Oltmanns = Oltmanns and Widiger (2018); Bach = Bach et al (2019); Carnovale = Carnovale et al (2020).…”

“…However, because of the short time interval since their publication, only a dozen studies are available on the properties of the PiCD or the SASPD, and further evidence is urgently needed. For example, the PiCD has been studied in nonclinical subjects (Carnovale et al, 2020; McCabe & Widiger, 2020; Somma et al, 2020) and in patients assessed via the Internet (Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018, 2019, 2020), and thus additional examination of its reliability and validity in clinical samples is required. The structure of the model also needs closer scrutiny.…”

“…On the one hand, although domains are allegedly based on the literature (Mulder et al, 2011; Tyrer et al, 2011), they have undergone nontrivial changes since then in their number and nature (Crego & Widiger, 2019; Kleindienst et al, 2017): The early traits “emotional/unstable” and “anxious/dependent” were collapsed into negative affectivity around 2014, disinhibition did not appear until 2015, and borderline was added at the very last moment (Reed, 2018; Tyrer et al, 2014; Tyrer et al, 2015). On the other hand, the original structure (Oltmanns & Widiger, 2018) has only been replicated in students (Carnovale et al, 2020) or using an informant version (Bach et al, 2020), and in no case were five independent domains found. All three studies instead supported a four-factor solution with disinhibition and anankastia located at the opposite poles of a single dimension.…”