Seediscussions,stats,andauthorprofilesforthispublicationat:http://www.researchgate.net/publication/236185268

ThePsychometricPropertiesofthePersonalityInventoryforDSM-5inanAPADSM-5FieldTrialSample

ARTICLEinASSESSMENT·APRIL2013

ImpactFactor:3.29·DOI:10.1177/1073191113486183·Source:PubMed

CITATIONS

24

READS

1,134

5AUTHORS,INCLUDING:

LenaCQuilty

CentreforAddictionandMentalHealth

69PUBLICATIONS1,341CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

LindsayAyearst

MultiHealthSystemsInc

16PUBLICATIONS227CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

MichaelChmielewski

SouthernMethodistUniversity

21PUBLICATIONS587CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

R.MichaelBagby

UniversityofToronto

341PUBLICATIONS14,977CITATIONS

SEEPROFILE

Availablefrom:LindsayAyearst

Retrievedon:06October2015

http://asm.sagepub.com/Assessment

http://asm.sagepub.com/content/early/2013/04/12/1073191113486183The online version of this article can be found at:

 DOI: 10.1177/1073191113486183

published online 15 April 2013AssessmentLena C. Quilty, Lindsay Ayearst, Michael Chmielewski, Bruce G. Pollock and R. Michael Bagby

Field Trial SampleDSM-5 in an APA DSM-5The Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for   

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:AssessmentAdditional services and information for    

  http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

 

http://asm.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:  

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:  

What is This? 

- Apr 15, 2013OnlineFirst Version of Record >>

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

AssessmentXX(X) 1 –8© The Author(s) 2013Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/1073191113486183asm.sagepub.com

Article

The approaching publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) has occasioned extensive research into the assessment and clinical utility of dimensional personality traits (Krueger et al., 2011). In response to the well-estab-lished limitations of the categorical personality disorders codified in the fourth edition of the DSM (DSM-IV), the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup proposed a substantial revision to the diagnosis of person-ality pathology. This proposal included a hybrid model in which a categorical diagnosis of personality disorder is derived on the basis of dimensional, pathological person-ality traits as well as personality impairment. Workgroup members and consultants developed a freely available instrument for the assessment of the dimensional person-ality traits within this model—the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012)—which has demonstrated ini-tial promise in undergraduate student and community adult samples (Ashton, Lee, deVries, Hendrickse, & Born, 2012; Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, 2012; Wright, Thomas, et al., 2012). The current investigation contributes to this line of investigation from

an applied perspective, in a focused evaluation of the psy-chometric properties of the PID-5 required for use within a clinical setting.

As outlined in Section 3 of the DSM-5, 25 dimensional “lower-order” personality facet traits are used to derive one of seven possible personality disorder diagnoses: schizotypal, antisocial, borderline, narcissistic, avoidant, obsessive–compulsive, and trait-specified. These 25 traits are proposed to reside within one or more five “higher-order” personality domains: negative affect, detachment, psychoticism, antagonism, and disinhibition. These domains resemble those found in established models of personality pathology such as the Personality

486183 ASMXXX10.1177/1073191113486183Assessment 20(3)Quilty et al.research-article2013

1Campbell Family Mental Health Research Institute, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada2University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada3Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA

Corresponding Author:R. Michael Bagby, Departments of Psychology and Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Research Science Bldg, SY-124 (Scarborough Campus), 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, Ontario M1C 1A4, Canada. Email: rmbagby@utsc.utoronto.ca

The Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA DSM-5 Field Trial Sample

Lena C. Quilty1,2, Lindsay Ayearst2, Michael Chmielewski3, Bruce G. Pollock1,2 and R. Michael Bagby1,2

AbstractSection 3 of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes a hybrid model of personality pathology, in which dimensional personality traits are used to derive one of seven categorical personality disorder diagnoses. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was developed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup and their consultants to produce a freely available instrument to assess the personality traits within this new system. To date, the psychometric properties of the PID-5 have been evaluated primarily in undergraduate student and community adult samples. In the current investigation, we extend this line of research to a psychiatric patient sample who participated in the APA DSM-5 Field Trial (Centre for Addiction and Mental Health site). A total of 201 psychiatric patients (102 men, 99 women) completed the PID-5 and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). The internal consistencies of the PID-5 domain and facet trait scales were acceptable. Results supported the unidimensional structure of all trait scales but one, and the convergence between the PID-5 and analogous NEO PI-R scales. Evidence for discriminant validity was mixed. Overall, the current investigation provides support for the psychometric properties of this diagnostic instrument in psychiatric samples.

Keywordspersonality, assessment, DSM-5

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

2 Assessment XX(X)

Psychopathology–Five (Harkness & McNulty, 1994) and/or measures of pathological personality such as the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology–Basic Questionnaire (DAPP-BQ; Livesley, Jang, & Vernon, 1998) and the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP; Clark, 1993; Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press). The domain and facet traits of the DSM-5 model were empirically derived from a larger set of 37 traits, identified by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup as a comprehensive col-lection of indicators of personality pathology. The conver-gence between the resultant DSM-5 proposal and accumulated empirical research in dimensional personal-ity lends credence to the robustness and validity of its con-stituent traits (see Harkness, Finn, McNulty, & Shields, 2012; Samuel & Widiger, 2008).

The PID-5 has demonstrated acceptable to good psycho-metric properties in the published literature to date. The hierarchical structure of the PID-5 maps well onto extant models of personality and psychopathology, providing evi-dence for the construct validity of this measure (Wright et al., 2012). Furthermore, the traits of the PID-5 have been linked with traits of prominent models of personality, dem-onstrating the convergent and discriminant validity of scale scores (Ashton et al., 2012; Wright, Pincus, et al., 2012). Finally, and perhaps most important from a clinical per-spective, the PID-5 scales account for a substantial amount of variance in DSM-IV personality disorder severity and are linked to DSM-IV personality disorders as designed (Hopwood et al., 2012). Taken together, these investiga-tions provide initial support for the PID-5 as a measure of the dimensional model of personality proposed for use in the DSM-5.

The current investigation joins several other investiga-tions in this special issue to address the limitations of the existing psychometric support for the PID-5. Of critical importance, the properties of the PID-5 have yet to be evaluated in a psychiatric sample (cf., Watson, Stasik, Ro, & Clark, 2013), which we believe is necessary prior to its use in clinical settings. Furthermore, the associations between the traits of the PID-5 and the Five Factor Model of personality have yet to be examined empirically (cf., De Fruyt et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2013). The DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup argued that the traits of this widely used model do not capture pathological traits of clinical relevance in an optimal or comprehensive way. In particular, traits associated with paranoid, schizotypal, and schizoid personality are absent or inadequately represented by scales assessing Openness to Experience (Tackett, Silberschmidt, Krueger, & Sponheim, 2008; Watson, Clark, & Chmielewski, 2008). It is important to explore such associations in a sample likely to exhibit a range of such symptoms. We focus on these particular areas of need, to begin the research required to

fully evaluate the validity of the proposed diagnostic scheme.

The Current Investigation

Our objective in the current investigation was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the PID-5 domain and facet scales with a psychiatric patient sample. In contrast to ear-lier investigations (e.g., Ashton et al., 2012; Hopwood et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2012), we evaluated the psychometric properties of the domain scales as calculated according to most recent guidelines, wherein each domain represents the average of three facet scales: Negative Affect is the aver-age of the Emotional Lability, Anxiousness, and Separation Insecurity facet scales; Detachment of Withdrawal, Anhedonia, and Intimacy Avoidance; Antagonism of Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, and Grandiosity; Disinhibition of Irresponsibility, Impulsivity, and Distractibility; and Psychoticism of Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity, and Perceptual Dysregulation. We hypothesized that the PID-5 domain and facet scales will exhibit adequate internal consistency and unidimen-sional structure, consistent with Krueger et al. (2012). We further hypothesized that the PID-5 facet scales will be positively associated due to saturation with general person-ality pathology and distress, but that the PID-5 facet scales within a domain will exhibit greater associations with each other than with facet scales of other domains. We also hypoth-esized that the PID-5 domain and facet scales will be moder-ately to strongly associated with thematically correspondent Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) domain and facet scales, with the exception of the PID-5 Psychoticism domain and the Openness-to-Experience domain, which are likely to exhibit at best a weak association.

Method

Participants

The sample included 201 outpatients (102 men, 99 women) who had previously participated in the APA DSM-5 Field Trial at the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH) in Toronto, Canada. Participants ranged in age from 19 to 73 years (M = 41.37, SD = 13.67). Current Axis I diagnoses included schizophrenia (n = 42), schizoaffective disorder (n = 36), attenuated psychosis (n = 14), personality disorder (n = 69), and other psychiatric diagnoses (n = 40) including mood, anxiety, substance use, impulse control, and pervasive developmental disorders.

All participants were required to meet the following cri-teria: (a) to endorse or exhibit current psychiatric symp-toms, (b) to be 18 years of age or older, and (c) to be able to consent and complete the study protocol in English (see Clarke et al., 2013, for a full description of study

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Quilty et al. 3

procedures). Clinicians (provincially licensed psychiatrists or registered clinical psychologists at the CAMH site) recruited to participate in the DSM-5 Field Trial screened all consecutive patients for field trial eligibility, and informed all eligible patients of the opportunity to participate in the trial; interested patients were subsequently contacted by research staff to learn more about the protocol and to sched-ule research visits. Clinicians screened a total of 1,185 unique patients. Of these, 273 consented to participate and 242 were employed in trial analyses (see also Narrow et al., 2013; Regier et al., 2013). Participants of the current inves-tigation attended an additional assessment session, includ-ing the measures described below.

Measures

Personality Inventory for the DSM-5. The PID-5 (Krueger et al., 2012) is a 220-item inventory newly developed to assess the pathological personality dimensions of the pro-posed hybrid model of personality pathology. This measure asks participants to rate statements on a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (Very False or Often False) to 3 (Very True or Often True). The PID-5 yields scale scores for five domain and 25 facet scale scores.

Revised NEO Personality Inventory. The NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item self-report measure frequently used to assess five higher-order domain traits and 30 lower-order facet traits of the Five Factor Model of personality. This measure asks participants to rate statements on a 5-point Likert-type scale from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 5 (Strongly agree). The NEO PI-R has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measure of the Five Factor Model traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992), including within clinical populations (Bagby et al., 1999; Costa, Bagby, Herbst, & McCrae, 2005; De Fruyt, Van Leeuwen, Bagby, Rolland, & Rouillon, 2006).

Statistical Analysis

To estimate the internal consistencies of the PID-5 domain trait scales, we calculated McDonald’s omega (ω) within a latent variable framework (McDonald, 1970). McDonald’s ω is particularly suited to estimating the reliability of a composite score (see Gignac, Bates, & Jang, 2007, for an application). To evaluate the internal consistencies of the PID-5 facet trait scales, we calculated Cronbach’s α coeffi-cient and the average item correlation (AIC). The AIC sta-tistic was used to supplement Cronbach’s α, as the AIC is less influenced by scale length.

To evaluate factor structure, we conducted a series of parallel analyses and Velicer’s minimum average partial (MAP) tests to determine how many factors to extract for each domain and facet scale (O’Connor, 2000). Parallel

analysis involves the comparison of eigenvalues from a factor analysis of the actual data with eigenvalues from a factor analysis of a random dataset; the number of factors to retain is based on the number of actual data eigenvalues greater in size than random data eigenvalues (Horn, 1965). This empirical method is well suited to the current context due to the ability to generate random per-mutations of the existing data set, which maintain the same distributional properties as the original. We used 1,000 randomly generated permutations of the existing data set and compared actual data eigenvalues with the 95th percentile eigenvalues in the random data. Velicer’s MAP test involves a series of principal components anal-yses of the data, extracting an increasing number of prin-cipal components. These components are partialed from the correlations between variables. The number of factors to extract is the number of components that generated the lowest average squared partial correlation, which repre-sent the systematic variance in the data (Velicer, 1976). For scales with more than one factor according to both indices, factor analyses were then conducted within MPlus 4.2, using a robust maximum-likelihood estimator and treating items as categorical (Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2006).

To evaluate convergent validity, we examined the associations of the PID-5 facet scales within and across each domain. Furthermore, we examined the associations between the PID-5 domain and facet scales and the analo-gous NEO PI-R domain scale. Finally, we examined the unique association of the NEO PI-R facet scales with the analogous PID-5 domain scales. To accomplish this, five linear regression models were evaluated, with each PID-5 domain scale serving as the criterion variable in separate models in turn. NEO PI-R facet scales of the analogous NEO PI-R domain were entered simultaneously as pre-dictor variables. For example, the PID-5 Negative Affect domain scale was modeled as a criterion variable and the NEO PI-R Anxiety, Angry Hostility, Depression, Self-Consciousness, Impulsivity, and Vulnerability facet scales as predictor variables in the first model. Although Openness-to-Experience has been demonstrated to be dis-tinct from Psychoticism and related traits (Tackett et al., 2008; Watson et al., 2008), this regression was included as well to explore Five Factor Model facet trait associa-tions with this domain.

Results

The mean, standard deviation, and range of the PID-5 domain scales were as follows: Negative Affect M = 1.35, SD = 0.75, range = 0.00 to 2.95; Detachment M = 1.26, SD = 0.64, range = 0.00 to 2.85; Psychoticism M = 0.94, SD = 0.64, range = 0.00 to 2.51; Antagonism M = 0.66, SD = 0.56, range = 0.00 to 2.80; Disinhibition M = 0.99, SD = 0.63, range = 0.00 to

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

4 Assessment XX(X)

2.88. The mean, standard deviation, and range of the PID-5 facet scales are displayed in Table 1. To facilitate comparison, the mean and standard deviation of the PID-5 facet scales from the representative sample described in Krueger et al. (2012) are also displayed. Anxiousness and Depressivity were markedly elevated in the current sample as compared with Krueger et al. (ds .81 and .85, respectively). Other facet scales elevated as compared to this representative sample at a medium effect size include Anhedonia, Distractibility, Emotional Lability, Intimacy Avoidance, Perceptual Dysregulation, Perseveration, Suspiciousness, Unusual Beliefs and Perceptions, and Withdrawal (ds .52 to .72). Grandiosity and Manipulativeness were in fact lower in the current sample, albeit with small effect sizes.

Reliability

The internal consistencies of the PID-5 domain trait scales were as follows: Negative Affect ω = .84; Detachment ω = .75; Psychoticism ω = .87; Antagonism ω = .83; and Disinhibition ω = .80. Cronbach’s α and AIC values of the PID-5 facet trait scales are displayed in Table 1. All facet scales demonstrated Cronbach’s α values greater than .70;

Callousness, Grandiosity, Perceptual Dysregulation, Risk Taking, and Suspiciousness exhibited AIC values below .40 (mean α = .87, mean AIC = .47).

Factor Structure

Both parallel analyses and MAP tests supported a one-fac-tor structure for each of the domain scales. Parallel analyses supported a one-factor solution for all facet scales but Risk Taking. For this scale, the first three eigenvalues from the actual data were 5.49, 2.06, and 0.96; the corresponding first three 95th percentile random data eigenvalues were 1.59, 1.44, and 1.34, suggesting the retention of two compo-nents for rotation to solution. MAP tests supported a one-factor solution for all facet scales but Depressivity (average partial correlation = .0315), Hostility (average partial cor-relation = .0381), and Risk Taking as well (average partial correlation = .0197). Exploratory factor analysis of Risk Taking items revealed that seven of eight positively keyed items scored strongly on the first component (mean factor loading .67, range .50 to .82) and minimally on the second (mean factor loading .07, range −.10 to .37). In contrast, all negatively keyed items scored strongly on the second

Table 1. Descriptive Data for PID-5 Facet Trait Scales.

Domains/Facets α AIC Range M (SD) Krueger et al. (2012), M (SD) d

Anhedonia .89 .51 0.00-3.00 1.38 (0.79) 0.89 (0.64) .69Anxiousness .93 .60 0.00-3.00 1.67 (0.88) 1.02 (0.73) .81Attention Seeking .90 .52 0.00-3.00 0.83 (0.74) 0.81 (0.65) .03Callousness .87 .34 0.00-2.29 0.47 (0.47) 0.40 (0.50) .14Deceitfulness .90 .47 0.00-2.80 0.66 (0.66) 0.52 (0.54) .24Depressivity .96 .63 0.00-3.00 1.17 (0.89) 0.53 (0.62) .85Distractibility .91 .52 0.00-3.00 1.31 (0.81) 0.82 (0.69) .66Eccentricity .95 .60 0.00-2.92 1.16 (0.83) 0.82 (0.76) .43Emotional Lability .91 .59 0.00-3.00 1.38 (0.88) 0.94 (0.74) .55Grandiosity .75 .33 0.00-3.00 0.66 (0.60) 0.82 (0.58) −.27Hostility .88 .43 0.00-2.90 1.07 (0.71) 0.91 (0.67) .23Impulsivity .89 .57 0.00-3.00 1.00 (0.79) 0.77 (0.57) .34Intimacy Avoidance .87 .51 0.00-3.00 1.07 (0.85) 0.61 (0.65) .62Irresponsibility .82 .40 0.00-2.86 0.66 (0.63) 0.39 (0.49) .49Manipulativeness .85 .54 0.00-3.00 0.66 (0.69) 0.80 (0.67) .21Perceptual Dysregulation .86 .34 0.00-2.58 0.83 (0.62) 0.44 (0.48) .72Perseveration .88 .44 0.00-2.86 1.18 (0.72) 0.82 (0.62) .54Restricted Affectivity .82 .40 0.00-3.00 0.92 (0.69) 0.97 (0.56) −.08Rigid Perfectionism .91 .51 0.00-3.00 1.10 (0.76) 1.05 (0.68) .07Risk Taking .87 .33 0.00-2.71 1.06 (0.57) 1.05 (0.66) .02Separation Insecurity .89 .54 0.00-3.00 1.00 (0.84) 0.80 (0.68) .27Submissiveness .79 .49 0.00-3.00 1.29 (0.75) 1.17 (0.66) .17Suspiciousness .72 .27 0.00-3.00 1.26 (0.62) 0.95 (0.58) .52Unusual Beliefs & Perceptions .85 .41 0.00-2.63 0.84 (0.72) 0.64 (0.63) .30Withdrawal .92 .55 0.00-3.00 1.33 (0.81) 1.01 (0.72) .42

Note. AIC = average interitem correlation.

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Quilty et al. 5

Table 2. Univariate Associations Between PID-5 Domain and Facet Trait Scales.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 — 2 .72 — 3 −.01 .21 — 4 .27 .16 .29 — 5 .20 .26 .58 .63 — 6 .84 .80 .16 .34 .33 — 7 .58 .65 .33 .28 .44 .61 — 8 .45 .58 .34 .36 .42 .53 .60 — 9 .56 .74 .35 .18 .33 .67 .62 .48 — 10 −.03 .12 .52 .41 .49 .02 .21 .37 .10 — 11 .49 .58 .42 .57 .54 .62 .57 .48 .63 .34 — 12 .20 .39 .49 .36 .54 .36 .53 .45 .53 .30 .58 — 13 .18 .10 −.06 .15 .10 .12 .16 .15 −.05 .06 .01 −.07 — 14 .34 .38 .44 .52 .67 .49 .62 .47 .45 .29 .58 .58 .14 — 15 .10 .16 .59 .48 .79 .22 .29 .32 .21 .49 .40 .43 .02 .56 — 16 .45 .59 .36 .34 .45 .56 .54 .71 .48 .34 .44 .44 .22 .47 .38 — 17 .56 .69 .38 .27 .41 .59 .72 .59 .59 .31 .55 .45 .13 .48 .29 .58 — 18 .29 .13 .08 .43 .37 .23 .24 .43 −.09 .29 .21 .09 .38 .30 .34 .39 .25 — 19 .40 .46 .30 .30 .34 .42 .42 .50 .46 .37 .53 .31 .14 .25 .32 .42 .62 .25 — 20 −.07 .05 .41 .34 .36 .01 .20 .27 .18 .30 .30 .52 −.11 .32 .37 .20 .14 .07 .19 — 21 .41 .56 .44 .18 .39 .56 .51 .42 .59 .23 .53 .49 −.12 .46 .36 .46 .49 .04 .31 .16 — 22 .33 .44 .23 .07 .20 .43 .40 .35 .41 .10 .23 .28 .14 .30 .19 .42 .38 .15 .21 −.05 .42 — 23 .48 .66 .29 .32 .35 .57 .48 .56 .55 .28 .61 .45 .04 .38 .25 .49 .48 .16 .43 .26 .54 .40 — 24 .21 .33 .27 .24 .32 .29 .32 .66 .23 .42 .20 .31 .11 .30 .32 .69 .34 .31 .30 .11 .24 .29 .38 — 25 .60 .46 −.02 .42 .28 .52 .46 .49 .25 .18 .38 .18 .46 .37 .16 .50 .44 .58 .33 −.02 .22 .29 .39 .31 —NA .65 .89 .38 .20 .37 .78 .69 .67 .90 .17 .67 .54 −.03 .50 .28 .59 .68 .03 .47 .15 .82 .48 .67 .31 .36DE .75 .54 −.04 .36 .24 .62 .51 .46 .32 .10 .37 .12 .72 .36 .12 .50 .48 .53 .37 −.09 .21 .32 .38 .27 .88AN .11 .21 .67 .60 .90 .23 .37 .43 .25 .76 .50 .50 .07 .60 .90 .46 .40 .39 .40 .40 .38 .20 .34 .41 .24DI .45 .57 .49 .45 .64 .58 .86 .60 .64 .31 .68 .84 .08 .84 .50 .57 .66 .24 .39 .41 .58 .39 .52 .37 .39PS .42 .56 .36 .35 .45 .52 .55 .90 .44 .42 .42 .45 .18 .47 .38 .88 .57 .43 .46 .22 .42 .39 .54 .88 .49

Note. All correlations ≥ |.16| are significant at p < .05, all correlations ≥ |.20| are significant at p < .01. 1 = Anhedonia, 2 = Anxiousness, 3 = Attention Seeking, 4 = Callousness, 5 = Deceitfulness, 6 = Depressivity, 7 = Distractibility, 8 = Eccentricity, 9 = Emotional Lability, 10 = Grandiosity, 11 = Hostil-ity, 12 = Impulsivity, 13 = Intimacy Avoidance, 14 = Irresponsibility, 15 = Manipulativeness, 16 = Perceptual Dysregulation, 17 = Perseveration, 18 = Restricted Affectivity, 19 = Rigid Perfectionism, 20 = Risk Taking, 21 = Separation Insecurity, 22 = Submissiveness, 23 = Suspiciousness, 24 = Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, 25 = Withdrawal; NA = Negative Affect, DE = Detachment, AN = Antagonism, DI = Disinhibition, PS = Psychoticism. Cor-relations between domain scales and the facet scales used in their calculation in gray.

component (mean factor loading .60, range .50 to .81) and minimally on the second (mean factor loading .01, range −.30 to .21). Thus, the Risk Taking facet scale appears to exhibit a method effect reflecting item keying.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

The univariate associations among the PID-5 facet scales, and between the PID-5 facet and domain scales, are pre-sented in Table 2. Facet scales within each domain were strongly correlated: mean r = .41 for Negative Affect; mean r = .42 for Detachment; mean r = .53 for Antagonism; mean r = .39 for Disinhibition; and mean r = .68 for Psychoticism. Facet scales across domains were also significantly associ-ated, although to a lesser degree: mean r = .36 for Negative

Affect; mean r = .30 for Detachment; mean r = .29 for Antagonism; mean r = .35 for Disinhibition; and mean r = .38 for Psychoticism. There was considerable range in dis-criminant associations, however. For example, within Negative Affect, Anxiousness was strongly associated with Anhedonia (Detachment) at r = .72, whereas Submissiveness was not significantly associated with Risk Taking (Disinhibition) at r = −.05. All domain scales were signifi-cantly positively associated, rs ranging from .18 to .69 (mean r = .46).

The univariate associations between the PID-5 facet and domain scales and NEO PI-R domain scales are displayed in Table 3. The pattern of results was consistent with expec-tations. Neuroticism, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness were moderately to strongly associated

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

6 Assessment XX(X)

with the correspondent PID-5 domain scales and the facet scales used to calculate them (in boldface in Table 3 to facil-itate review). Overall, Neuroticism demonstrated the great-est overall association with the PID-5 facets (mean r = .39), followed by Agreeableness (mean r = −.33) and Conscientiousness (mean r = −.32), reflecting the emotional distress and social and behavioral dysregulation typifying personality pathology. Of note, Openness-to-Experience was minimally associated with all the PID-5 scales with the exception of Risk Taking (r = .32).

The results of the linear regression analyses are presented in Table 4. NEO PI-R facet scales accounted for more than 50% of the variance in the analogous PID-5 domain scale for all domains but Psychoticism. Negative Affect was posi-tively predicted by Anxiety and Angry Hostility. Detachment was negatively predicted by Warmth, Gregariousness,

Assertiveness, and Positive Emotions. Antagonism was neg-atively predicted by Straightforwardness and Modesty. Disinhibition was positively predicted by Achievement Striving and negatively by Dutifulness, Self-discipline, and Deliberation. Finally, Psychoticism was positive predicted by Fantasy and negatively by Actions and Values.

Discussion

These results contribute to a growing body of evidence sup-porting the validity of the trait model and clinical tool pro-posed by the DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders workgroup. As anticipated, the majority of trait scales were

Table 3. Univariate Associations Between PID-5 Domain and Facet Trait Scales and NEO PI-R Domain Scales.

Domains/facets N E O Α C

Negative affect .81 −.24 .08 −.26 −.52Detachment .49 −.71 −.21 −.22 −.37Psychoticism .39 −.24 .02 −.30 −.30Antagonism .13 .14 .06 −.60 −.22Disinhibition .59 −.10 .03 −.43 −.68Anhedonia .70 −.66 −.11 −.22 −.45Anxiousness .82 −.42 .06 −.23 −.46Attention Seeking .19 .38 .18 −.39 −.20Callousness .17 −.16 −.06 −.61 −.24Deceitfulness .26 .05 .00 −.58 −.39Depressivity .78 −.49 −.04 −.26 −.52Distractibility .62 −.29 .07 −.29 −.60Eccentricity .42 −.26 .06 −.33 −.34Emotional Lability .73 −.16 .14 −.19 −.46Grandiosity −.04 .11 .05 −.48 .06Hostility .63 −.16 .00 −.58 −.46Impulsivity .43 .10 .00 −.40 −.51Intimacy Avoidance .07 −.34 −.19 −.02 −.11Irresponsibility .44 −.05 .01 −.43 −.61Manipulativeness .11 .18 .10 −.47 −.20Perceptual Dysregulation .43 −.24 .00 −.26 −.31Perseveration .60 −.26 .16 −.30 −.40Restricted Affectivity .04 −.37 −.16 −.29 −.15Rigid Perfectionism .34 −.13 .21 −.32 .02Risk Taking .03 .33 .32 −.37 −.13Separation Insecurity .55 −.04 .00 −.26 −.42Submissiveness .41 −.17 −.12 −.03 −.29Suspiciousness .58 −.22 −.01 −.47 −.35Unusual Beliefs & Perceptions .17 −.12 −.02 −.20 −.13Withdrawal .39 −.67 −.19 −.28 −.32

Note. All correlations |.16| are significant at p < .05, all correlations |.20| are significant at p < .01. N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, O = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness.

Table 4. Linear Regression Analyses of the NEO PI-R Facets Predicting PID-5 Domains.

Criterion/predictors R2 F β t

Negative Affect .67 62.30** Anxiety .39 4.96** Angry hostility .22 3.75** Depression .09 1.05 Self-consciousness .07 1.06 Impulsiveness .04 .80 Vulnerability .14 1.92Detachment .56 38.84** Warmth −.21 2.94** Gregariousness −.31 4.42** Assertiveness −.14 2.50* Activity −.09 1.54 Excitement-seeking .09 1.49 Positive emotions −.26 4.13**Psychoticism .25 10.08** Fantasy .36 5.09** Aesthetics .01 .11 Feelings −.04 .52 Actions −.29 4.06** Ideas .13 1.70 Values −.25 3.73**Antagonism .52 33.37** Trust −.07 1.11 Straightforwardness −.55 7.82** Altruism .03 .52 Compliance −.05 .75 Modesty −.24 3.98** Tender-mindedness .04 .64Disinhibition .56 39.94** Competence −.10 1.29 Order −.01 .22 Dutifulness −.19 2.69** Achievement striving .22 3.22** Self-discipline −.45 5.83** Deliberation −.31 4.80**

Note.*p < .05. **p < .01.

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Quilty et al. 7

elevated in the current clinical sample as compared with the representative sample of Krueger et al. (2012); the decreased severity of Grandiosity and Manipulativeness may be related to the Axis I disorders characterizing the current sample. Domain and facet scales demonstrated acceptable levels of internal consistency, and factor analyses supported a unidimensional structure for all scales but one, supporting the interpretation of a single summary score. The impact of the method effect of the Risk Taking facet scale on mea-surement accuracy and validity requires further investiga-tion, however.

The PID-5 facet scales within domains were strongly associated, although significant associations were also observed among facets across domains, consistent with our hypothesis that scales would be associated due to their satu-ration with personality pathology and associated distress, as well as with the strong secondary loadings evidenced in previous research (e.g., Krueger et al., 2012). The moderate associations between domain scales were also in line with these hypotheses and previous literature. The PID-5 domain and facet scales were also strongly associated with analo-gous NEO PI-R domain scales, supporting the convergent validity of these scales. Evidence for the discriminant valid-ity of the PID-5 domain and facet scales was mixed, how-ever. Disinhibition domain and associated facet scales were strongly associated with Neuroticism scores, and Negative Affect scales similarly with Conscientiousness; such pat-terns of association are captured in hierarchical models such as outlined by Wright et al. (2012). Numerous facets were associated with more than one NEO PI-R domain scale to a similar degree. In some cases (e.g., Unusual Beliefs and Perceptions scale) this may indicate the lack of available scales appropriate to gauge convergent and dis-criminant validity in the NEO PI-R; however, in others (e.g., Risk Taking) this may further indicate shortcomings in these forms of validity in these PID-5 scales.

The PID-5 domain scale associations with NEO PI-R facet scales provide further characterization of domains according to this novel scoring algorithm. Of note, Openness to Experience was minimally associated with all the PID-5 scales with the exception of Risk Taking (r = .32). NEO PI-R Openness facet scales accounted for a quarter of the variance in the PID-5 Psychoticism scale, which was uniquely associated with Fantasy in the positive direction, and Actions and Values in the negative direction. Thus, the trait domain associated with oddity, eccentricity, and pecu-liarity is clearly more consistent with the content domain of psychoticism as conceptualized by Harkness and McNulty (1994), as compared with the imaginativeness and explora-tion typifying openness/intellect—as well as the unsympa-thetic, nonconforming trait domain of the same name described by Eysenck, Eysenck, and Barrett (1985).

Previous investigations have provided critical evidence for the validity of this measure and model. The current

investigation contributes to this line of research in being one of the first tests of the PID-5 in a psychiatric sample. This psychiatric sample exhibited a broad range of Axis I and II symptoms, as reflected by the range of psychiatric condi-tions including a significant proportion of patients meeting criteria for personality disorder diagnoses (34.3%). In this context, results generally supported the internal consistency, factor structure, and convergent validity of most of the PID-5 domain and facet scales in a clinical setting. Previous inves-tigations have explored the hierarchical structure of the facet scales, which speaks to the validity of this measure via its convergence with established hierarchical models of person-ality (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013; Ashton et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2012). The current investigation maintained a more translational focus on the psychometric properties that may permit clinicians to confidently and knowledgeably interpret scale scores, with a nuanced understanding of how those scores are linked with a popular model of personality. Continued research such as that of Hopwood, Schade, Krueger, Wright, and Markon (in press), who demonstrated specific dysfunctional beliefs tied to the PID-5 personality domains, will further contribute to the evaluation of the clin-ical utility of the PID-5 traits, in psychological treatment as well as assessment.

Acknowledgment

We are indebted to all patients and clinicians for the time and effort they dedicated to their involvement in this research.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The operating costs of this research were supported by the CAMH Foundation.

References

Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Quilty, L. C., Veltri, C. O., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). On the conver-gence between PSY-5 domains and PID-5 domains and fac-ets: Implications for assessment of DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment.

Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Hendrickse, J., & Born, M. P. (2012). The maladaptive personality traits of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in relation to the HEXACO personality factors and schizotypy/dissociation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 641-659.

Bagby, R. M., Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. R., Livesley, W. J., Kennedy, S. H., Levitan, R. D., & Young, L. T. (1999). Replicating the five factor model of personality in a psychiat-ric sample. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1135-1139.

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from

8 Assessment XX(X)

Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (in press). Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive per-sonality– 2nd edition (SNAP-2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Clarke, D. E., Narrow, W. E., Regier, D. A., Kuramoto, S. J., Kupfer, D. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kraemer, H. C. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part I: Study design, sampling strategy, implementation, and analytic approaches. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 43-58.

Costa, P. T., Bagby, R. M., Herbst, J. H., & McCrae, R. R. (2005). Personality self-reports are concurrently reliable and valid during acute depressive episodes. Journal of Affective Disorders, 89, 45-55.

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory pro-fessional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., De Bolle, M., Wille, B., Markon, K., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment.

De Fruyt, F., Van Leeuwen, K., Bagby, R. M., Rolland, J., & Rouillon, F. (2006). Assessing and interpreting personality change and continuity in patients treated for major depres-sion. Psychological Assessment, 18, 71-80.

Eysenck, S. B. G., Eysenck, H. J., & Barrett, P. (1985). A revised version of the Psychoticism Scale. Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 21-29.

Gignac, G. E., Bates, T. C., & Jang, K. L. (2007). Implications relevant to CFA model misfit, reliability, and the five-fac-tor model as measured by the NEO-FFI. Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1051-1062.

Harkness, A. R., Finn, J. A., McNulty, J. L., & Shields, S. M. (2012). The personality Psychopathology-Five (PSY-5): Recent constructive replication and assessment literature review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 432-443.

Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Issues from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 291-315). New York, NY: Springer.

Hopwood, C. J., Schade, N., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., & Markon, K. E. (in press). Connecting DSM-5 personal-ity traits and pathological beliefs: Toward a unifying model. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment.

Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 424-432.

Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30, 179-185.

Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012). Initial construction of a maladaptive personal-ity trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Medicine, 42, 1879-1890.

Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., & Livesley, W. J. (2011). Deriving an empir-ical structure of personality pathology for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 170-191.

Livesley, W. J., Jang, K. L., & Vernon, P. A. (1998). Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55, 941-948.

McDonald, R. P. (1970). The theoretical foundations of princi-pal factor analysis, canonical factor analysis, and alpha fac-tor analysis. British Journal of Statistical and Mathematical Psychology, 23, 1-21.

Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2006). Mplus user’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kuramoto, S. J., Kraemer, H. C., Kupfer, D. J., Greiner, L., & Regier, D. A. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part III: Development and reliability testing of a cross-cutting symptom assessment for DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 71-82.

O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS, SAS, and MATLAB programs for determining the number of components using parallel analy-sis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 32, 396-402.

Regier, D. A., Narrow, W. E., Clarke, D. E., Kraemer, H. C., Kuramoto, S. J., Kuhl, E. A., & Kupfer, D. J. (2013). DSM-5 field trials in the United States and Canada, Part II: Test-retest reliability of selected categorical diagnoses. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 59-70.

Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1326-1342.

Tackett, J. L., Silberschmidt, A., Krueger, R. F., & Sponheim, S. (2008). A dimensional model of personality disorder: Incorporating DSM Cluster A characteristics. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 454-459.

Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M. Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. (2013). The convergent struc-ture of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment.

Velicer, W. (1976). Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations. Psychometrika, 41, 321-327.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Chmielewski, M. (2008). Structures of personality and their relevance to psychopathology: II. Further articulation of a comprehensive unified trait structure. Journal of Personality, 76, 1545-1586.

Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Ro, E., & Clark, L. A. (2013). Integrating normal and pathological personality: Relating the DSM-5 trait dimensional model to general traits of personal-ity. Assessment.

Wright, A. G. C., Pincus, A. L., Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). An interper-sonal analysis of pathological personality traits in DSM-5. Assessment, 19, 263-275.

Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 951-957.

at UNIV TORONTO on April 19, 2013asm.sagepub.comDownloaded from