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 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.     

Trait Variance and Response Style Variance in the Scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5)

Using self- and observer reports on the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5) and the HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised (HEXACO–PI–R), we identified for each inventory several trait dimensions (each defined by both self- and observer reports on the facet-level scales belonging to the same domain) and 2 source dimensions (each defined by self-reports or by observer reports, respectively, on all facet-level scales). Results (N = 217) showed that the source dimensions of the PID–5 were very large (much larger than those of the HEXACO–PI–R), and suggest that self-report (or observer report) response styles substantially inflate the intercorrelations and the alpha reliabilities of the PID–5 scales. We discuss the meaning and the implications of the large PID–5 source components, and we suggest some methods of controlling their influence.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Criterion Validity and Practical Utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI–2–RF) in Assessments of Police Officer Candidates

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form scores for 145 male police officer candidates were compared with supervisor ratings of field performance and problem behaviors during their initial probationary period. Results indicated that the officers produced meaningfully lower and less variant substantive scale scores compared to the general population. After applying a statistical correction for range restriction, substantive scale scores from all domains assessed by the inventory demonstrated moderate to large correlations with performance criteria. The practical significance of these results was assessed with relative risk ratio analyses that examined the utility of specific cutoffs on scales demonstrating associations with performance criteria.     

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.     

The Utility of the NEO–PI–R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With the MMPI–2

Previous research on police intelligence has largely been confined to the study of new recruits who are just entering police work. Conflicting results have frequently been reported since police selection procedures appear to vary substantially from year to year as a result of criminal, economic, social, and other factors. Using policemen of varying experience, this study found both college and non-college police to be of higher IQ than the general population. Also, college educated police (IQ=115) obtained scores only slightly (though significantly) higher than non-college police (IQ=110). The findings do not support the stereotyped notion of the “dumb cop.”     

The Incremental Validity of Honesty–Humility Over Cognitive Ability and the Big Five Personality Traits

The present study examines the incremental validity of Honesty–Humility (H-H), a measure of the tendency to be fair and genuine in dealing with others, for supervisory ratings of job performance (including both task and contextual performance) over cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits. Specifically, we explore the incremental validity of H-H in predicting contextual performance. Results based on 217 South Korean military officer candidates are consistent with previous conclusions that Conscientiousness is the strongest predictor of contextual performance and that cognitive ability is the strongest predictor of task performance. More important, our results reveal that H-H offers moderate incremental validity for contextual performance but no incremental validity for task performance over the effects of cognitive ability and the Big Five personality traits.     

The Dispositional Flow Scale–2 as a Measure of Autotelic Personality: An Examination of Criterion-Related Validity

The Dispositional Flow Scale–2 (DFS–2; Jackson & Eklund, 2002) may be one of the most promising measures for assessing Csikszentmihalyi's (1990) construct of “autotelic personality.” Despite strong internal validity, external validity of the DFS–2 remains open. We used 2 methods to provide evidence for external validity: (1) multiple-time assessments of experience sampling (1,856 entries generated over 7 days) to derive aggregate indices of criterion validity; and (2) single-time assessments of flow and personality for additional criterion-related validity. For single-time assessments of flow, we used a modified version of the Flow Questionnaire (Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1984). To assess personality, we included a measure of the Five-factor traits using the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). A path model of NEO domains, DFS–2 global scores, and experience sampling aggregates fit the data well.     

The Utility of MMPI–2–RF Scale Scores in the Differential Diagnosis of Schizophrenia and Major Depressive Disorder

This study was designed to determine whether scores on selected Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI–2–RF) scales could be used to differentiate between individuals diagnosed with schizophrenia (SCZ) and major depressive disorder (MDD). The sample was drawn from 2 psychiatric inpatient hospitals and included data from 199 individuals with SCZ and 808 individuals with MDD. A series of multivariate analyses of variance, analyses of variance, and odds ratios were calculated to determine which MMPI–2–RF scales provide the best differentiation between individuals presenting with these 2 disorders. Results indicated scales assessing internalizing dysfunction, including Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID), Restructured Clinical Scales Demoralization (RCd), Low Positive Emotions (RC2), Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), and Self Doubt (SFD) best discriminated MDD from SCZ. Scales assessing thought dysfunction, incluidng Thought Dysfunction (THD), Restructured Clinical Scales Ideas of Persecution (RC6) and Aberrant Experiences (RC8), and Psychoticism-Revised (PSYC-r) were demonstrated to best identify SCZ. Comparisons of the examined MMPI–2–RF scales to MMPI–2 scales assessing similar constructs suggested scales from the MMPI–2–RF perform similarly to their MMPI–2 counterparts in detecting MDD or SCZ, but might have increased ability to discriminate SCZ from other conditions. Overall, results of this study suggest that scores on the examined MMPI–2–RF scales provide important information about the differential diagnosis of MDD and SCZ to clinicians working in inpatient settings.     

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.     

Large Scale Surveys for Policy Formation and Research–a Study in Inconsistency

In this paper we analyse the degree to which a distinction between social science and public health research and other non-research activities can account for differences between a number of large scale social surveys performed at the national and European level. The differences we will focus on are differences in how participation is elicited and how data are used for government, research and other purposes. We will argue that the research / non-research distinction does not account for the identified differences in recruitment or use and that there are no other convincing justifications. We argue that this entails that eliciting participation by coercion or manipulation becomes very difficult to justify.     

Contributions to the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Disorders Using Millon's Model and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI–III)

To determine if psychopaths with low anxiety are afflicted with a variety of neurosis, groups of psychopaths reporting low and high anxiety were examined with a variety of projective techniques. The use of repressive defenses, accuracy of cognition, and existence of areas of intrapsychic conflict were compared. Variance analyses indicated that the low anxious psychopaths represented a mixture of psychopathic types with a wide range of use of repressive mechanisms. Analysis of uncommon themes on the TAT produced a list of apparent appropriateness for both types of subjects.