Article title: Further Validation of the Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5
Authors: Lowmaster, Sara E., Hartman, M. J., Zimmermann, J., Baldock, Z. C., and Kurtz, J. E.
Journal: Journal of Personality Assessment
Bibliometrics: Volume 102, Number 6, pages 743–750
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1674320
The number of Keeley et al.’s (2016) INC scale item pairs remaining in the short-form version of the PID–5 (Maples et al., 2015) was incorrectly identified in the main body of the article.
In the fifth paragraph of the Introduction section, the sentence, “Furthermore, because the INC was developed using the full-form version of the PID–5, 10 of 20 the item pairs used within the INC do not transfer to the short-form version of the PID–5,” is incorrect and should appear as follows: “Furthermore, because the INC was developed using the full-form version of the PID–5, 9 of 20 the item pairs used within the INC do not transfer to the short-form version of the PID–5.”
The calculation of the INC-S scale was based on 10 of the 11 remaining item pairs. That is, one item pair (38–92) from Keeley et al.’s (2016) INC scale was inadvertently not included in the INC-S. The INC-S item pairs are reported in . The item numbers listed are from the full 220-item version of the PID–5.
Table 1. Item pairs for the 10-item INC-S.