The Effect of Response Bias on the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5)

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 Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5)–Adult (Full version). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association. [Google Scholar]), 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 Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S (2008). MMPI–2–RF technical manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. [Google Scholar]/2011 Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2011). MMPI–2–RF manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 2008) [Google Scholar]) 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.     

Development of a Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM–5

The advent of a dimensional model of personality disorder included in DSM–5 has necessitated the development of a new measurement scheme, specifically a self-report questionnaire termed the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, &; Skodol, 2012 Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., &; Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM–5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879–1890. doi:10.1017/S0033291711002674[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). However, there are many threats to the validity of a self-report measure, including response inconsistency. This study outlines the development of an inconsistency scale for the PID–5. Across both college student and clinical samples, the inconsistency scale was able to reliably differentiate real from random responding. Random responses led to increased scores on the PID–5 facets, indicating the importance of detecting inconsistent responding prior to test interpretation. Thus, this inconsistency scale could be of use to researchers and clinicians in detecting inconsistent responses to this new personality disorder measure.     

The Validity and Clinical Utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 Response Inconsistency Scale

The Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) is a self-report instrument designed to assess the personality traits of the alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) in Section III of the DSM–5. Despite its relatively recent introduction to the field, the instrument is frequently and widely used. One criticism of this instrument is that it does not include validity scales to detect potentially invalidating response style, including noncredible over- and underreporting and inconsistent (random) responding. Keeley, Webb, Peterson, Roussin, and Flanagan (2016) constructed an inconsistency scale (the PID–5–INC) to assess random responding on PID–5 and proposed a number of potential cut scores that could be applied. In this study, we attempted to cross-validate the PID–5–INC, including whether the scale could detect randomly generated protocols and distinguish them from nonrandom protocols produced by two student and two clinical samples. The PID–5–INC successfully distinguished random from nonrandom protocols and the best cut scores were similar to those reported by Keeley et al. (2016). We also found that a relatively low amount of random responding compromised the psychometric validity of the PID–5 trait scales, which extended previous work on this instrument.     

A Psychometric Review of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5): Current Status and Future Directions

The paradigm of personality psychopathology is shifting from one that is purely categorical in nature to one grounded in dimensional individual differences. Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), for example, includes a hybrid categorical/dimensional model of personality disorder classification. To inform the hybrid model, the DSM–5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group developed a self-report instrument to assess pathological personality traits—the Personality Inventory for the DSM–5 (PID–5). Since its recent introduction, 30 papers (39 samples) have been published examining various aspects of its psychometric properties. In this article, we review the psychometric characteristics of the PID–5 using the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing as our framework. The PID–5 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties, including a replicable factor structure, convergence with existing personality instruments, and expected associations with broadly conceptualized clinical constructs. More research is needed with specific consideration to clinical utility, additional forms of reliability and validity, relations with psychopathological personality traits using clinical samples, alternative methods of criterion validation, effective employment of cut scores, and the inclusion of validity scales to propel this movement forward.     

Construct Validity of the DSM–5 Section III Personality Trait Profile for Borderline Personality Disorder

This study evaluated the nomological network of the borderline personality disorder (BPD) trait profile in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]) Section III. BPD symptoms include a variety of maladaptive thoughts and behaviors, and it is important to determine if the Section III trait operationalization for BPD captures these behavioral symptoms, as well as shows similar associations as the traditional Section II version with external criteria. For this purpose, we used a sample of 285 undergraduate students and conducted correlation and regression analyses to delineate the associations between Section III BPD traits and conceptually relevant external criteria. A Section III Total score was meaningfully associated with all criteria. Moreover, externalizing psychopathology tended to be most highly associated with disinhibitory Section III BPD traits, whereas internalizing psychopathology tended to have its strongest unique associations with traits reflective of negative affectivity. These results provide support for the construct validity of the trait profile for BPD in DSM–5 Section III.     

Exploring the Assessment of the DSM–5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders With the Personality Assessment Inventory

Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) contains an alternative model for the diagnosis of personality disorder involving the assessment of 25 traits and a global level of overall personality functioning. There is hope that this model will be increasingly used in clinical and research settings, and the ability to apply established instruments to assess these concepts could facilitate this process. This study sought to develop scoring algorithms for these alternative model concepts using scales from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). A multiple regression strategy used to predict scores in 2 undergraduate samples on DSM–5 alternative model instruments: the Personality Inventory for the DSM–5 (PID–5) and the General Personality Pathology scale (GPP; Morey et al., 2011 Morey, L. C., Berghuis, H., Bender, D. S., Verheul, R., Krueger, R. F., &; Skodol, A. E. (2011). Toward a model for assessing level of personality functioning in DSM–5, Part II: Empirical articulation of a core dimension of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 347–353.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). These regression functions resulted in scores that demonstrated promising convergent and discriminant validity across the alternative model concepts, as well as a factor structure in a cross-validation sample that was congruent with the putative structure of the alternative model traits. Results were linked to the PAI community normative data to provide normative information regarding these alternative model concepts that can be used to identify elevated traits and personality functioning level scores.     

Hierarchical Structure and Cross-Cultural Measurement Invariance of the Norwegian Version of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5

The Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5) was created to aid a trait-based diagnostic system for personality disorders (PDs) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the Norwegian version of the PID–5 by examining its score reliability, hierarchical structure, congruency with international findings, and cross-cultural measurement invariance with a matched U.S. sample. For this purpose, 503 university students (76% females) were administered the PID–5. The Norwegian PID–5 showed good score reliability and structural validity from 1 to 5 factors. The 5-factor structure was generally congruent with international findings, and support for measurement invariance across the Norwegian and a matched U.S. sample was found. Conclusively, the results indicate that scores on the Norwegian PID–5 have sound psychometric properties, which are substantially comparable with the original U.S. version, supporting its use in a Norwegian population.     

The MMPI–2 Restructured Form Personality Psychopathology Five Scales: Bridging DSM–5 Section 2 Personality Disorders and DSM–5 Section 3 Personality Trait Dimensions

This study examined in a college sample and a sample of non-treatment-seeking, trauma-exposed veterans the association between the MMPI–2 Restructured Form (MMPI–2–RF) Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) Scales and DSM–5 Section 2 personality disorder (PD) criteria, the same system used in DSM–IV–TR, and the proposed broad personality trait dimensions contained in Section 3 of DSM–5. DSM–5 Section 2 PD symptoms were assessed using the SCID–II–PQ, and applying a replicated rational selection procedure to the SCID–II–PQ item pool, proxies for the DSM–5 Section 3 dimensions and select facets were constructed. The MMPI–2–RF PSY–5 scales demonstrated appropriate convergent and discriminant associations with both Section 2 PDs and Section 3 dimensions in both samples. These findings suggest the MMPI–2–RF PSY–5 scales can serve both conceptually and practically as a bridge between the DSM–5 Section 2 PD criteria and the DSM–5 Section 3 personality features.     

Comparing the Personality Disorder Interview for DSM–IV (PDI–IV) and SCID–II Borderline Personality Disorder Scales: An Item–Response Theory Analysis

One-hundred sixty-nine psychiatric outpatients and 171undergraduate students were assessed with the Personality Disorder Interview–IV (PDI–IV; Widiger, Mangine, Corbitt, Ellis, & Thomas, 1995) and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM–IV Axis II disorders (SCID–II; First, Gibbon, Spitzer, Williams, & Benjamin, 1997) for borderline personality disorder (BPD). Eighty individuals met PDI–IV BPD criteria, whereas 34 met SCID–II BPD criteria. Dimensional ratings of both measures were highly intercorrelated (rs = .78, .75), and item-level interrater reliability fell in the good to excellent range. An item–response theory analysis was performed to investigate whether properties of the items from each interview could help understand these differences. The limited agreement seemed to be explained by differences in the response options across the two interviews. We found that suicidal behavior was among the most discriminating criteria on both instruments, whereas dissociation and difficulty controlling anger had the 2 lowest alpha parameter values. Finally, those meeting BPD criteria on both interviews had higher levels of anxiety, depression, and more impairments in object relations than those meeting criteria on just the PDI–IV. These findings suggest that the choice of measure has a notable effect on the obtained diagnostic prevalence and the level of BPD severity that is detected.     

Introduction to the Special Section on the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) and DSM–5 Trait Dimensional Diagnostic Systems for Personality Disorders: Emerging Convergence

In this Special Section, 7 studies focusing on the PSY–5 model of individual differences relevant to adaptive functioning are presented. The first study by Harkness, McNulty, et al. (this issue) describes the development of the revised PSY–5 scales for the MMPI–2–RF, followed by another article by Harkness, Reynolds, and Lilienfeld (this issue) arguing for the adoption of a review of systems strategy for evaluating psychological functioning. McNulty and Overstreet (this issue) describe an alternative hierarchical strategy for organizing the interpretation of the MMPI–2–RF using the PSY–5 scales. Extending the PSY–5 model to adolescents, Veltri et al. (this issue) examine the convergent and discriminant validity of the MMPI–A PSY–5 in predicting violent delinquent behavior. Bagby and colleagues (this issue) examine the hierarchical structure of the PSY–5 model across nonclinical and clinical samples and, with a few notable exceptions, find the PSY–5 model to map well onto the DSM–5 personality trait dimensional model. Finn, Arbisi, Erbes, Polusny, and Thuras (this issue) examine the convergence between the DSM–5 proposed trait dimensions and PSY–5 model demonstrating the potential for the MMPI–2–RF PSY–5 scales to serve as a bridge between DSM–5 and DSM–IV personality disorder diagnoses. Finally, Sellbom, Smid, de Saeger, Smit, and Kamphuis(this issue) directly examine the convergence of MMPI–2–RF PSY–5 scales with DSM–IV personality disorder categories and proposed DSM–5 trait dimensions further establishing the potential for the PSY–5 scales to serve as a bridge between DSM categorical and dimensional diagnostic schemas.     

Assessment of DSM–5 Personality Disorder

The purpose of this article is to present an approach to defining, identifying, and assessing personality disorders, including the links between these definitions and personality assessment, with a particular reference to the proposed revisions to the personality disorders section of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Routledge.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). The article discusses measures of maladaptive variants of the Five-factor model (FFM) that are coordinated with both the traditional personality disorder syndromes as well as the DSM–5 dimensional trait model. Discussed as well is the assessment of the more psychodynamically oriented deficits in sense of self and interpersonal relatedness that are also included within the hybrid model proposed for DSM–5.     

Mapping the Personality Psychopathology Five Domains Onto DSM–IV Personality Disorders in Dutch Clinical and Forensic Samples: Implications for DSM–5

The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY–5) model represents 5 broadband dimensional personality domains that align with the originally proposed DSM–5 personality trait system, which was eventually placed in Section III for further study. The main objective of this study was to examine the associations between the PSY–5 model and personality disorder criteria. More specifically, we aimed to determine if the PSY–5 domain scales converged with the alternative DSM–5 Section III model for personality disorders, with a particular emphasis on the personality trait profiles proposed for each of the specific personality disorder types. Two samples from The Netherlands consisting of clinical patients from a personality disorder treatment program (n = 190) and forensic psychiatric hospital (n = 162) were used. All patients had been administered the MMPI–2 (from which MMPI–2–RF PSY–5 scales were scored) and structured clinical interviews to assess personality disorder criteria. Results based on Poisson or negative binomial regression models showed statistically significant and meaningful associations for the hypothesized PSY–5 domains for each of the 6 personality disorders, with a few minor exceptions that are discussed in detail. Implications for these findings are also discussed.     

Development and Validation of Personality Disorder Spectra Scales for the MMPI–2–RF

The purpose of this study was to develop and validate a set of MMPI–2–RF (Ben-Porath &; Tellegen, 2008/2011) personality disorder (PD) spectra scales. These scales could serve the purpose of assisting with DSM–5 PD diagnosis and help link categorical and dimensional conceptions of personality pathology within the MMPI–2–RF. We developed and provided initial validity results for scales corresponding to the 10 PD constructs listed in the DSM–5 using data from student, community, clinical, and correctional samples. Initial validation efforts indicated good support for criterion validity with an external PD measure as well as with dimensional personality traits included in the DSM–5 alternative model for PDs. Construct validity results using psychosocial history and therapists' ratings in a large clinical sample were generally supportive as well. Overall, these brief scales provide clinicians using MMPI–2–RF data with estimates of DSM–5 PD constructs that can support cross-model connections between categorical and dimensional assessment approaches.     

Validity Rates of the Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 in a VA Medical Center Setting

This paper presents some notions regarding the all important question of projective stimulus ambiguity. It is suggested that in spite of the observation that TAT stimulus ambiguity has been the most studied, the problem of stimulus ambiguity must be considered a vital problem in relation to projective tests as a whole. Findings specific to an extended DAP (involving the inclusion of a self-portrait) are reported and the relevance of these findings to the problem of stimulus ambiguity is discussed.     

Psychometric Properties of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI–A) Clinical,Content, and Supplementary Scales in a Forensic Sample

In this study, we evaluated the internal psychometric properties and external correlates of scores on the Clinical, Content, and Supplementary scales in a forensic sample of 496 adolescents (315 boys and 181 girls) who were court-ordered to receive psychological evaluations. We examined Cronbach's alpha coefficients, scale intercorrelation matrices, and frequencies of scale elevations. Further, we found varying degrees of support for the convergent and discriminant validity of scores on the MMPI–A (Butcher et al., 1992 Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S. and Kaemmer, B. 1992. MMPI–A (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.  [Google Scholar]) Clinical, Content, and Supplementary scales. This study adds to the body of literature establishing the utility of the MMPI–A in forensic evaluations.     

Trauma and Aggression in the DSM–5

Psychological trauma, stress, childhood abuse, neglect, and loss are mentioned as important features or risk factors for mental disorders in 15 out of 19 sections of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM-5]). This means that, according to the DSM–5, trauma and stress are relevant themes throughout the mental health field, not solely an area of subspecialty. Despite the recognition of the widespread role of trauma and stress in the DSM–5, there are inconsistencies in the discussion of trauma, including its relationship to anger and aggression, that should be corrected in future editions of the manual.     

Relations Between Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–A Scales and Rorschach Variables With the Scope and Severity of Maltreatment Among Adolescents

This study examined preexisting Rorschach (Exner, 2001) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–A (MMPI–A; Butcher et al., 1992) profiles to determine if selected MMPI–A scales and Rorschach variables would jointly associate with the number and severity of maltreatment subtypes (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and emotional maltreatment) of 157 adolescents (ages 14–17) with documented maltreatment histories. The Maltreatment Classification System was used to systematically code the maltreatment attributes. Six Rorschach variables (MOR, PER, Afr, SumY, SumC’, Human Content) were significantly correlated with the number of maltreatment subtypes, but none of the anticipated MMPI–A scales were related. MMPI–A Scale 7 and Rorschach variables Ego, MOR, and PER were jointly associated with physical abuse severity. MMPI–A Scale 0 and Rorschach variables MOR, PER, SumY, SumC’, PTI, Human Content, and Texture jointly associated with sexual abuse severity. This study supports the potential for certain MMPI–A scales and Rorschach variables to reflect the impact of adolescents’ maltreatment experiences in terms of the number and severity of types of maltreatment experienced. Because both instruments captured different aspects of adolescents’ maltreatment experiences, clinicians should consider using both when evaluating the impact of maltreatment on adolescents.