Abstract
There has been no proper validation of the Personality Inventory for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (PID-5) Faceted Brief Form (PID-5-FBF), a shortened 100-item version of the original PID-5, in the French language. In addition, more than one domain scoring procedure has been proposed in the literature, and no study has attempted to compare them from a factor analytic standpoint. Also, no study about the PID-5 (nor the PID-5-FBF) has been conducted with private practice clients, to the best of our knowledge, despite the fact that it is a very common clientele. This study seeks to (a) provide initial evidence of reliability and validity for the PID-5-FBF among French-speaking samples; (b) compare the structure of the PID-5-FBF while using two different domain scoring procedures; and (c) investigate its measurement invariance between sexes and across samples following a theoretical gradient of psychopathology. Indices of reliability and validity were documented among three samples: a community sample (n = 526, 49.8% women), private practice clients (n = 544, 64.0% women), and outpatients with personality disorder (n = 288, 61.5% women). Results generally showed good to excellent psychometric properties, providing initial support for the PID-5-FBF for research and clinical applications. The results of both scoring procedures were good, but one showed a clear advantage, by having notably cleaner loadings. Using stringent criteria, strict invariance was supported between sexes, while partial invariance was supported across samples. Clinical implications are discussed, notably pertaining to private practice clients, an understudied group.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Data Availability
Due to ethical and privacy restrictions, the data is not publicly available, but could be provided on reasonable request.
Notes
Formerly referred to as the “Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Short Form” (PID-5-SF).
For instance, to qualify for a formal AMPD-based borderline PD diagnosis, the patient must have high elevations of four out of seven specific facets (i.e., Emotional Lability, Anxiousness, Separation Insecurity, Depressivity, Impulsivity, Risk Taking, Hostility), with at least one from the last three facets (APA, 2013).
This study was not preregistered. The outpatient sample and a part of the private practice sample (44%) have already been used in other studies from our group. Nonetheless, this study represents an original analysis.
For a more thorough description of the similarities and differences between the two domain calculation methods, see Watters et al. (2019).
Simply put, “a scale will yield far more information—and, hence, be a more valid measure of a construct—if it contains more differentiated items that are only moderately intercorrelated” (Clark & Watson, 1995, p. 316).
After adjustments were made at the scalar invariance step, full MI was also reported at the strict level (Gomez et al., 2022).
The authors reported partial strict MI as well, but, as they stated, the general goodness-of-fit indices fell below the conventional standards (Bach et al., 2018).
References
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 16(3), 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204
Bach, B., Maples-Keller, J. L., Bo, S., & Simonsen, E. (2016). The alternative DSM–5 personality disorder traits criterion: A comparative examination of three self-report forms in a Danish population. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(2), 124–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000162
Bach, B., Sellbom, M., & Simonsen, E. (2018). Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in clinical versus nonclinical individuals: Generalizability of psychometric features. Assessment, 25(7), 815–825. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117709070
Bagby, R. M., Keeley, J. W., Williams, C. C., Mortezaei, A., Ryder, A. G., & Sellbom, M. (2022). Evaluating the measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Black Americans and White Americans. Psychological Assessment, 34(1), 82–90. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001085
Baggio, S., Iglesias, K., Duarte, M., Nicastro, R., Hasler, R., Euler, S., Debbané, M., Starcevic, V., & Perroud, N. (2022). Validation of self-report measures of narcissism against a diagnostic interview. PLoS ONE, 17(4), e0266540. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0266540
Baylé, F. J., Bourdel, M. C., Caci, H., Gorwood, P., Chignon, J.-M., Adés, J., & Lôo, H. (2000). Structure factorielle de la traduction française de l’échelle d’impulsivité de Barratt (BIS-10) [Factor structure of the French translation of the Barratt Impulsivity Scale (BIS-10)]. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry/Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 45(2), 156–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674370004500206
Bradley, S., Roberge, P., Service, J., Vasiliadis, H.-M., & Drapeau, M. (2019). Psychotherapy in the private sector: A survey of licensed psychologists and psychotherapists in Quebec. Canadian Journal of Counselling and Psychotherapy, 53(1). https://cjc-rcc.ucalgary.ca/article/view/61191
Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult romantic attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46–76). Guilford.
Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluation of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1986.tb00391.x
Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36(1), 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3601_05
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464–504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233–255. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Chodos, H. (2017). Options for improving access to counselling, psychotherapy and psychological services for mental health problems and illnesses (report). Mental Health Commission of Canada. https://www.mentalhealthcommission.ca/wp-content/uploads/drupal/2017-07/Options_for_improving_access_to_counselling_psychotherapy_and_psychological_services_eng.pdf
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (2022). The trait model of the DSM–5 alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD): A structural review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 328–336. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000568
Comrey, A. L., & Lee, H. B. (1992). A first course in factor analysis. Psychology Press.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
Diguer, L., Turmel, V., Brin, J., Lapointe, T., Chrétien, S., Marcoux, L.-A., Mathieu, V., & Da Silva Luis, R. (2020). Traduction et validation en français du Pathological Narcissism Inventory [Translation and validation in French of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory]. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/revue Canadienne Des Sciences Du Comportement, 52(2), 115–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/cbs0000140
Fischer, R., & Karl, J. A. (2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507
Gamache, D., Leclerc, P., Payant, M., Mayrand, K., Nolin, M. C., Marcoux, L. A., Sabourin, S., Tremblay, M., & Savard, C. (2022). Preliminary steps toward extracting the specific Alternative Model for Personality Disorders diagnoses from Criteria A and B self-reports. Journal of Personality Disorders, 36(4), 476–488. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2012_35_541
Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P., & Côté, A. (2019). Introducing a short self-report for the assessment of DSM-5 Level of Personality Functioning for personality disorders: The Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(5), 438–447. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000335
Gamache, D., Savard, C., Leclerc, P., Payant, M., Berthelot, N., Côté, A., Faucher, J., Lampron, M., Lemieux, R., Mayrand, K., Nolin, M. C., & Tremblay, M. (2021). A proposed classification of ICD-11 severity degrees of personality pathology using the Self and Interpersonal Functioning Scale. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, Article 628057. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.628057
Gilet, A.-L., Mella, N., Studer, J., Grühn, D., & Labouvie-Vief, G. (2013). Assessing dispositional empathy in adults: A French validation of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science/Revue canadienne des sciences du comportement, 45(1), 42–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030425
Gomez, R., Watson, S., Brown, T., & Stavropoulos, V. (2022). Personality inventory for DSM–5-Brief Form (PID-5-BF): Measurement invariance across men and women. Theory, Research, and Treatment. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000569
Gregorich, S. E. (2006). Do self-report instruments allow meaningful comparisons across diverse population groups? Testing measurement invariance using the confirmatory factor analysis framework. Medical Care, 44(11 Suppl 3), S78–S94. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000245454.12228.8f
Hamp, A., Stamm, K., Lin, L., & Christidis, P. (2016). 2015 APA survey of psychology health service providers. Center for Workforce Studies, American Psychological Association. https://www.apa.org/workforce/publications/15-health-service-providers
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310361240
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., Ansell, E. B., Bach, B., Bagby, R. M., Blais, M. A., Bornovalova, M. A., Chmielewski, M., Cicero, D. C., Conway, C., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Docherty, A. R., Eaton, N. R., Edens, J. F., & Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1408
Hu, L.-T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Ilfeld, F. W. Jr. (1976). Further validation of a psychiatric symptom index in a normal population. Psychological Reports, 39(3, Pt 2)J2, 1215–1228. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1976.39.3f.1215
Jane, J. S., Oltmanns, T. F., South, S. C., & Turkheimer, E. (2007). Gender bias in diagnostic criteria for personality disorders: An item response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(1), 166–175. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.1.166
Kerber, A., Schultze, M., Müller, S., Rühling, R. M., Wright, A. G. C., Spitzer, C., Krueger, R. F., Knaevelsrud, C., & Zimmermann, J. (2022). Development of a short and ICD-11 compatible measure for DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits using ant colony optimization algorithms. Assessment, 29(3), 467–487. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120971848
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(9), 1879–1890. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF) [Psychometric test] . file:///C:/Users/phili/Downloads/APA_DSM5_The-Personality-Inventory-For-DSM-5-Brief-Form-Adult.pdf
Lafontaine, M.-F., Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., Valois, P., Shaver, P. R., & Johnson, S. M. (2016). Selecting the best items for a short-form of the Experiences in Close Relationships questionnaire. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 32(2), 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000243
Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., Williamson, R. L., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195–1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000120
Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
Newsom, J. T. (2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Routledge.
Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. Tata McGraw-Hill Education.
O’Connor, B. P. (2002). The search for dimensional structure differences between normality and abnormality: A statistical review of published data on personality and psychopathology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 962–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.962
Patton, J. H., Stanford, M. S., & Barratt, E. S. (1995). Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 51(6), 768–774. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4679(199511)51:6%3c768::AID-JCLP2270510607%3e3.0.CO;2-1
Préville, M., Boyer, R., Potvin, L., Perreault, C., & Légaré, G. (1992). La détresse psychologique : détermination de la fiabilité et de la validité de la mesure utilisée dans l’enquête Santé Québec 87 [Psychological distress: Determining the reliability and validity of the measure used in the Santé Québec survey 87]. Ministère de la Santé et des services sociaux du Québec. http://www.santecom.qc.ca/Bibliothequevirtuelle/santecom/35567000006905.pdf
Putnick, D. L., & Bornstein, M. H. (2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41, 71–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004
Roskam, I., Galdiolo, S., Hansenne, M., Massoudi, K., Rossier, J., Gicquel, L., & Rolland, J.-P. (2015). The psychometric properties of the French version of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5. PLoS ONE, 10, Article e0133413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133413
Samuel, D. B., South, S. C., & Griffin, S. A. (2015). Factorial invariance of the five-factor model rating form across gender. Assessment, 22(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114536772
Schoenleber, M., Roche, M. J., Wetzel, E., Pincus, A. L., & Roberts, B. W. (2015). Development of a brief version of the Pathological Narcissism Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1520–1526. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000158
Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. W. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8602_09
Sharma, S., Durvasula, S., & Ployhart, R. E. (2011). The analysis of mean differences using mean and covariance structure analysis: Effect size estimation and error rates. Organizational Research Methods, 15(1), 75–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428111403154
Sleep, C. E., Sellbom, M., Campbell, W. K., & Miller, J. D. (2017). Narcissism and response validity: Do individuals with narcissistic features underreport psychopathology? Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 1059–1064. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000413
Somma, A., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Borroni, S., & Fossati, A. (2019a). Item response theory analyses, factor structure, and external correlates of the Italian translation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form in community-dwelling adults and clinical adults. Assessment, 26(5), 839–852. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118781006
Somma, A., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., & Fossati, A. (2019b). The replicability of the personality inventory for DSM–5 domain scale factor structure in U.S. and non-U.S. samples: A quantitative review of the published literature. Psychological Assessment, 31(7), 861–877. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000711
Sorrel, M. A., García, L. F., Aluja, A., Rolland, J.-P., Rossier, J., Roskam, I., & Abad, F. J. (2021). Cross-cultural measurement invariance in the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychiatry Research, 304, Article 114134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2021.114134
Stewart, R. E., & Chambless, D. L. (2007). Does psychotherapy research inform treatment decisions in private practice? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 63(3), 267–281. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.20347
Suzuki, T., South, S. C., Samuel, D. B., Wright, A. G. C., Yalch, M. M., Hopwood, C. J., & Thomas, K. M. (2019). Measurement invariance of the DSM–5 Section III pathological personality trait model across sex. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(2), 114–122. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000291
Ten Berge, J. M. F., & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69(4), 613–625. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289858
Watters, C. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of the five-factor internal structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5. Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1255–1260. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000605
Watters, C. A., Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2019). Comparing two domain scoring methods for the Personality Inventory for DSM–5. Psychological Assessment, 31(9), 1125–1134. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000739
Widiger, T. A., & Crego, C. (2019). HiTOP thought disorder, DSM-5 psychoticism, and five factor model openness. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 72–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.04.008
Zimmermann, J., Kerber, A., Rek, K., Hopwood, C., & F Krueger, R. (2019). A brief but comprehensive review of research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21(9), Article 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1079-z
Funding
This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (892–2017-3003) and by the Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale (no number), both of which were awarded to Claudia Savard and Dominick Gamache.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Philippe Leclerc: conceptualization, data curation, formal analysis, methodology, writing—original draft. Claudia Savard: formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing—review and editing. Martin Sellbom: writing—review and editing. Alexandre Côté: investigation, writing—review and editing. Marie-Chloé Nolin: investigation, writing—review and editing. Maude Payant: investigation, writing—review and editing. David Roy: writing—review and editing. Dominick Gamache: conceptualization, formal analysis, funding acquisition, methodology, project administration, supervision, writing—review and editing.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
The standards of the 1964 Declaration of Helsinki and its later amendments (or its equivalent) were respected during this study. The project was approved by three ethics committees: Université du Québec à Trois-Rivières, Université Laval, Centre intégré universitaire de santé et de services sociaux de la Capitale-Nationale [Integrated University Health and Social Services Center of the Capitale-Nationale] Sectoral Research Ethics Committee in Neurosciences and Mental Health.
Consent to Participate
All participants granted consent to participate in this study, which had no impact on their access to services (in the case of clinical samples).
Consent to Publish
All participants granted permission to use their data for research purposes and for publication, which had no impact on their access to services (in the case of clinical samples).
Conflict of Interest
All authors have no conflict of interest of any kind to disclose.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Leclerc, P., Savard, C., Sellbom, M. et al. Investigating the Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form Among French-speaking Clinical and Nonclinical Samples. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 45, 519–536 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-022-10000-0
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-022-10000-0