Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form in a Community Sample with High Rates of Trauma Exposure

Abstract

In the current study, we used a sample of predominantly African-American women with high rates of trauma exposure (N = 434) to examine psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF). We compared model fit between a model with five correlated latent factors and a higher-order model in which the five latent factors were used to estimate a single “general pathology” factor. Additionally, we computed estimates of internal consistency and domain interrelations and examined indices of convergent/discriminant validity of the PID-5-BF domains by examining their relations to relevant criterion variables. The expected five-factor structure demonstrated good fit indices in a confirmatory factor analysis, and the more parsimonious, higher-order model was retained. Within this higher-order model, the first-order factors accounted for more variance in the criterion variables than the general pathology factor in most instances. The PID-5-BF domains were highly interrelated (rs = .38 to .66), and convergent/discriminant validity of the domains varied: Negative Affectivity and Detachment generally showed the hypothesized pattern of relations with external criteria, while Antagonism and Disinhibition displayed less consistent and discriminant relations. Results are discussed in terms of the costs and benefits of using brief pathological trait measures in samples characterized by high levels of psychopathology.

Disclaimer

The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. Additionally, the contents of this report do not represent the views of the Department of Veterans Affairs or the United States Government.

Notes

1 Of note, an abbreviated 100-item measure has also been developed (Maples et al., 2015).

2 These diagnostic rates are based on structured clinical interviews using the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale for DSM-5 (Weathers et al., 2015) and the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview for Major Depressive Disorder (American Psychiatric Association, 2013a, 2013b).

3 Note: Criterion A for a diagnosis of PTSD (i.e., traumatic experience; see DSM-5, American Psychiatric Association, 2013a, 2013b) should not be confused with Criterion A for a diagnosis of a personality disorder under the AMPD model.

4 The models could not be compared in a step-wise fashion, as predicting the criterion variables from all latent variables (i.e., the first- and second-order factors) simultaneously resulted in an under-identified model. As such, two models were run for each of the 11 criterion variables. One higher-order model in which the general factor was used to predict the criterion, then a second higher-order model in which the five first-order factors were used to predict the criterion. Given the high number of tests, a p-value of .01 was used for these analyses.