Validity, reliability and hierarchical structure of the PID‐5 among Egyptian college students: Using exploratory structural equation modelling

Abstract

Background -The present study aimed to investigate the pathological personality traits of undergraduate students using the Personality Inventory for among Egyptian university-age participants. Method -We replicated the five-factor model of the PID-5 using exploratory structural equation modelling analysis with target rotation towards the original study of the PID-5 construction. Next, we estimated the factor congruence to identify the similarity of the present five-factor solution with the available relevant studies. Moreover, we investigated the pattern of the Personality Pathology hierarchy for the PID-5. The sample comprised 845 undergraduate students whose ages ranged between 18 and 28 years (mean = 19.89 and standard deviation = 1.43). Results -The present study findings showed that the reliability of the PID-5 facets was acceptable. In addition, the factor congruence results showed that the replicated five factors had acceptable congruence coefficients with some relevant studies. Also, the results indicated that the hierarchy levels were found to be consistent with some relevant findings. Discussion -Generally, the PID-5 showed sufficient reliability and validity; however, there were significant cross-loadings that have been discussed in detail in the succeeding text. Further, this is the first study in the Arab world that uses exploratory structural equation modelling and build a hierarchical structure to investigate the PID-5.

Psychometric study of the brazilian version of the personality inventory for DSM-5–paper-and-pencil version

“…The reliability, internal consistency, and temporal stability indexes proved to be adequate, similar to the studies addressing the original English version [α ≥ 0.72; ( 4 )] and cross-cultural adaptations addressing general populations [α ≥ 0.68; r ≥ 0.56: ( 50 – 52 )]. However, the Suspiciousness facet is an exception because its internal consistency indicators were below the expected (α ≤ 0.69), a finding already reported by other studies ( 11 , 17 , 19 , 53 ).…”

“…Divergences concern the Negative Affect domain, which grouped a more significant number of facets (Suspiciousness, Impulsivity, and Distractibility), and the Disinhibition domain, which was composed of only two of its original facets (Irresponsibility, Rigid Perfectionism). Regarding Negative Affect, previous studies have repeatedly shown the Suspiciousness' (Detachment) high factor loading in this domain ( 17 , 18 , 20 , 28 , 76 , 78 ). On the other hand, Lotfi et al ( 78 ) had already reported an association between the Impulsivity and Distractibility facets, which were initially linked to Disinhibition and Negative Affect.…”

“…Many other studies focused on the EFA of PID-5 internal structure ( 17 , 18 , 20 , 25 , 28 , 67 , 73 – 78 ) and reported models that partially diverged from the original model, especially regarding the composition of the Negative Affect domain. Many facets that initially belonged to other domains presented a higher factor loading in this domain, expanding it in the instrument's composition.…”

“…Regarding its internal structure, studies have found it challenging to completely replicate the five-domain original model and the 25 facets proposed by Krueger et al ( 4 – 6 , 11 , 12 , 17 , 18 ). The critical points include a lack of consensus on whether the facets are one-dimension ( 19 , 20 ), interstitiality between facets [e.g., hostility - Labancz et al ( 11 )], and poor residual and comparative goodness of fit indexes ( 21 ), with facets not satisfactory loading on the domain of origin.…”

“…Furthermore, the five-level PID-5 hierarchical structure proposed by Wright et al ( 22 ), ideally initiated with pathological personality advancing to the fifth level, composed of the five domains previously mentioned, also present some inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are observed from the third level, especially concerning the Disinhibition domain, which generally is not composed of the expected facets ( 17 ).…”