Abstract
Background: Empirical soundness and international robustness of the PID5BF+M, a shortened version of the PID-5 developed for simultaneous evaluation of maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 models for personality disorders, was recently confirmed in 16 samples from different countries. Because the modified PID5BF+ scale (36 items) was extracted from the complete 220-item PID-5, an independent evaluation of psychometric properties of a stand-alone PID5BF+M is still missing.Objectives: The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of the 36-item PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. It also assessed associations between the Borderline Pattern qualifier and trait domain qualifiers.Methods: Two non-clinical samples meeting the inclusion criteria were employed in the study. Sample 1 (n = 614) completed the 220-item PID-5; Sample 2 (n = 1,040) completed the independent 36-item PID5BF+M. Participants were from all 14 regions of the Czech Republic. The Borderline Pattern qualifier was evaluated using a shortened IPDEQ screener.Results: The proposed latent structure of the independent PID5BF+M was confirmed, with an exception of the Disinhibition domain. The results confirmed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the measure, as well as some support for the measurement invariance of the independent PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. Significant associations between the Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism qualifiers and the IPDEQ items for the emotionally unstable personality disorder of both impulsive and borderline types confirmed good predictive validity of the PID5BF+M in pursuing borderline psychopathology within the ICD-11 model.Conclusions: The independent PID5BF+M was found to be a valid and reliable tool for evaluation of the ICD-11 trait model. However, the Disinhibition domain deserves further investigation in clinical samples as well as in international community samples.
Highlights
Both the Model for Personality Disorders (PDs) in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) use personality trait domains to specify individual manifestations of personality psychopathology beyond the evaluation of the overall personality impairment severity [1]
Both ICD-11 and AMPD include Negative affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism/Dissociality, and Disinhibition among the five domains of personality traits, some differences can be noted between these models that make it impossible for a clinician to switch seamlessly between the two nomenclatures when describing a patient
Another difference between the two models is the preservation of the ICD-10 criteria for emotionally unstable PD in the form of a Borderline Pattern qualifier in ICD-11 [12]
Summary
Both the Model for Personality Disorders (PDs) in the 11th edition of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) and the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD) use personality trait domains to specify individual manifestations of personality psychopathology beyond the evaluation of the overall personality impairment severity [1]. In contrast to AMPD, the main differences in ICD-11 include the omission of personality traits qualifiers in relation to schizotypy and psychoticism; the inclusion of the Anankastia qualifier; and the absence of specific trait facets delineating individual qualifiers [11] Another difference between the two models is the preservation of the ICD-10 criteria for emotionally unstable PD in the form of a Borderline Pattern qualifier in ICD-11 [12]. There is an evidence that many clinical professionals in many respects prefer the AMPD dimensional model of personality traits to the current categorical approach to PDs [15] Synchronization of both dimensional conceptualizations would seem to be a meaningful step in the further development of the ICD-11 model, which would reflect the needs of both the mental health professionals in terms of clinical applicability and researchers in terms of empirical validity and comparability with AMPD. Because the modified PID5BF+ scale (36 items) was extracted from the complete 220-item PID-5, an independent evaluation of psychometric properties of a stand-alone PID5BF+M is still missing
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
