DSM-5 Traits Research Articles

Using the alternative model of personality disorders for DSM-5 traits to identify personality types, and the relationship with disordered eating, depression, anxiety and stress

BackgroundThere is a substantial and growing evidence base that has identified three distinct personality types (Overcontrol, Undercontrol and Resilient) among samples of individuals with eating disorders, as well as non-clinical samples. Even in studies where up to six personality types have been identified, the three core types representing Overcontrol, Undercontrol and Resilient consistently emerge. The aim of the research was to explore whether latent Overcontrol and Undercontrol personality types could be identified using pathological personality types as part of the Alternative Model for Personality Disorders published in DSM-5. We further aimed to understand how these personality types were associated with eating pathology, depressed mood and anxiety.MethodsA total of 391 women, 167 men and 10 gender-diverse individuals aged 16 to 31 years completed measures of the alternative model of personality disorder traits, disordered eating behaviours, eating pathology, depression, anxiety and stress. A systematic four-step process using hierarchical, k-means, and random forest cluster analyses were used to identify the best fitting cluster solution in the data.ResultsThe results revealed a four-cluster solution that represented overcontrol, undercontrol, resilient and an antisocial/psychoticism cluster. The overcontrol, undercontrol, and antisocial/psychoticism types were all associated with increased disordered eating, eating pathology, depression, anxiety and stress compared to the resilient types, with the undercontrol cluster scoring significantly higher than the other three clusters on all measures of clinical pathology.ConclusionsPathological personality traits, as conceptualised within the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders may have merit for identifying overcontrol and undercontrol personality types. Our findings provide additional evidence that both overcontrol and undercontrol personality types are associated with increased eating pathology, depression, anxiety and stress.

Prototype Models of Personality Disorders: Prototype Convergence and Association With Pathological Traits.

The goal of this study was to evaluate whether personality disorder prototypes derived from three different models have similar pathological trait profiles within the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). Trainee clinicians (N = 329) rated a patient they were currently treating using the Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure, the DSM-5 hybrid model prototype match (modified from the original prototype DSM-5 proposal) and the Psychodynamic Diagnostic Manual prototype match. Correlations among each PD prototype model with the DSM-5 traits were assessed. Theoretically similar prototypes across the SWAP-II, DSM-5 hybrid model and PDM were correlated with several traits across models, ranging from small-to-large effect sizes. Similar prototypes also appeared to display similar trait profiles with some exceptions. Results suggest that the SWAP-II, DSM-5 and PDM prototype models tend to assess similar constructs overall, even though the methods are theoretically distinct. Implications of these findings for PD diagnosis are discussed.

Psychometric Properties of the Persian Version of PID5BF + M in Iranian Drug Users.

This study aimed to adapt and evaluate the psychometric properties of the PID5BF + M as a brief measure for assessing DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality disorder traits in Iranian drug users. The sample consisted of 380 participants, including both clinical (28.68%) and nonclinical (71.32%) groups, with 43.7% female participants. All participants completed the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and ICD-11 Brief Form-Modified (PID5BF + M), the Symptom Checklist-25 (SCL-25), the Brief Five-Factor Inventory (BFI-10), the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form (LPFS-BF 2.0), and the Alcohol, Smoking, and Substance Involvement Screening Test (ASSIST). The findings revealed that the PID5BF + M demonstrates strong psychometric properties, with a six-factor structure that is culturally appropriate for the Iranian population. Significant associations were found between the ICD-11/DSM-5 traits and both internalizing and externalizing symptoms, as well as with normal personality factors. The PID5BF + M appears to be a valid and reliable tool for assessing DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality disorder traits in Iranian drug users, showing promising potential for use in clinical and research settings within this cultural context.

Validation of the Persian Version of the ICD-11 Compatible Personality Inventory for DSM-5– Brief Form Plus, Modified

Clinical assessment increasingly emphasizes six maladaptive domains of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models, including negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, disinhibition, psychoticism, and anankastia. The present study aimed to validate the Persian version of the ICD-11 compatible Personality Inventory for DSM-5–Brief Form Plus, Modified (PID5BF + M). Data from a mixed sample including 1,615 adults (community N = 1,476 and outpatient N = 139) were used to assess the latent structure, congruence coefficients, reliability, convergent validity, and criterion validity of the PID5BF + M. The results supported the six-factor structure of the PID5BF + M whose traits are largely congruent with those from previous studies. The scale reliabilities were acceptable, and strong associations were observed with personality disorder-type symptom counts (r ranging from .15 to .59, all p < .001). PID5BF + M scales also distinguished clinical and non-clinical samples. The present results support the validity and utility of the PID5BF + M for personality psychopathology screening in the Iranian population.

Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 trait correlates with self-reported acts of rape.

Sexual aggression researchers have identified "dark triad" personality traits as potential etiologic contributors to rape perpetration. The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) canvasses trait dimensions that underlie a proposed hybrid diagnostic model for the personality disorders. Associations between PID-5 item/facet/domain scores and self-reported acts of rape were examined in a national survey of men (N = 517) administered on a crowdsourcing platform. Pervasive associations were found between various PID-5 risk indicators and acts of oral, anal, or vaginal physical contact with nonconsenting partner(s). While dimensional correlation coefficients were modest in size, odds ratios for elevated PID-5 facet dimensions were substantial. The odds of self-reported rape increased with the trait elevation count in a graded fashion. Selected PID-5 subscale dimensions (callousness, irresponsibility, grandiosity, intimacy avoidance, distractibility, and attention seeking) were significant correlates of self-reported rape. A subset of PID-5 items accounted for unshared variance in the criterion measures. Scores from the PID-5 appeared to provide useful risk indicators of sexual aggressiveness. Scores from the PID-5 appeared to provide useful risk indicators of sexual aggressiveness. Men with personality disorder trait elevations appear far more likely to acknowledge past behavior that constitutes sexual assault. These interpretations were limited by the cross-sectional, retrospective, and self-report nature of these data.

The sensitivity of the ICD-11 trait model to the symptoms of clinical disorders in young adults.

Hierarchical psychopathology contributes to providing a broader picture of the links between emerging personality structures such as the DSM-5/ICD-11 trait models and clinical disorders. The present study aimed to predict the specific and general clinical symptoms by the less studied constructs of the ICD-11 model (negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia). Data from 642 young adults from Iran (63% female, 18-34 years) were collected by three mental symptom scales and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), which was recently used to harmonize the constructs of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models. Multiple linear regressions showed that the ICD-11 model significantly predicted both the specific clinical symptoms (ranging from R2 = 0.15 to 0.40) and the general factor of clinical symptoms extracted by exploratory factor analysis (R2 = 0.40, all p < 0.001). Negative affectivity was the strongest construct correlated with both the specific symptoms (ranging from β = 0.36 to 0.69) and the general symptom factor (β = 0.59, all p < 0.001). Because the ICD-11 trait model is a practical structure related to the clinical psychopathology in young adults, screening for maladaptive traits can help clinicians in case formulation for diagnosis and treatment.

Predicting psychological need satisfaction and frustration from early maladaptive schemas and DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits

The satisfaction of basic psychological needs is closely connected with an individual’s well-being and mental health. The purpose of the present study was to examine the associations of persistent and pervasive negative cognitions about oneself and others (early maladaptive schemas) and pathological personality traits (DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits) with the satisfaction and frustration of basic psychological needs. To this aim, self-report measures of psychological need satisfaction (Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale), early maladaptive schemas (Young Schema Questionnaire – Short Form 3), and pathological personality traits (Modified Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and ICD-11 – Brief Form Plus), were administered in a community sample (N = 322, Mage = 35.3 years, SDage = 12.5 years, 66% female). The data were analyzed using correlation analysis, linear regression analysis, and a machine-learning approach (XGBoost). The results showed strong negative relationships of early maladaptive schemas and pathological personality traits with the satisfaction and frustration of the needs for autonomy, relatedness, and competence, especially the disconnection/rejection and impaired autonomy/performance schema domains and the pathological personality traits of negative affectivity and detachment. Early maladaptive schemas predicted the frustration of the psychological needs for relatedness and competence above pathological personality traits. The study findings add to the understanding of current psychological need satisfaction.

Sex and pathological personality traits: measurement invariance and comparisons

IntroductionThe Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is an instrument that aims to assess pathological personality traits according to the alternative model proposed by the DSM-5. To validate the comparison of an instrument’s scores between different groups, it is necessary that the measure’s invariance be attested, in order to guarantee that the same underlying constructions are being evaluated between the groups. Differences between sex in relation to the predominance of adaptive personality traits were portrayed in previous studies, a fact that seems to be related to culture.ObjectivesThis study aims to assess whether the PID-5 presents structural equivalence between sex (sex measuremet invariance) and whether there are differences between pathological personality traits in Brazilian men and women.MethodsA community sample of 1110 subjects was assessed (71.2% women, mean age 34.6 (±15.8) years, 68.8% higher education). They were recruited through advertisements in different media and by the “snowball” method. Participants responded to the PID-5 in person. The cross-culturally adapted version into Brazilian Portuguese was usedResultsThe PID-5 showed that its structure was invariant for sex at the configural level (CFI= 1.000; TLI=1.007; RMSEA&lt;0.001), metric (ΔCFI=0.01; ΔTLI= 0.02; ΔRMSEA=0.02) and scalar (ΔCFI=0.006) ; ΔTLI= 0.006; ΔRMSEA=0.004), allowing comparisons. Regarding the domains evaluated by the PID-5, men showed more traits of Distancing, Antagonism, Disinhibition and Psychoticism (p&lt;0.002), while for Negative Affectivity there were no differences between genders (p=0.06). In terms of facets, women showed higher indicators of lability, anxiety and impulsivity (p&lt;0.01), while men showed perseverance, withdrawal, restricted affectivity, manipulation, dishonesty, grandiosity, attention seeking, insensitivity, irresponsibility, exposure to risks, unusual beliefs and eccentricity (p&lt;0.04).ConclusionsThe findings reinforce the validity evidence of the DSM-5 trait model, which, through the PID-5, similarly evaluates such aspects between sex. Differences between genders were observed in relation to pathological personality traits, which bear similarities with differences observed in terms of adaptive personality traits. Specificities are observed at the cultural level, when, for example, the findings are compared with a Japanese university sample, reinforcing the role of culture at this levelDisclosure of InterestNone Declared

Replicability of the five-factor structure of DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait systems and their associations with binge eating and bipolar spectrum psychopathology.

Since the research on contemporary personality models-and psychopathology-mainly originate from the Western world, we aimed to test the factorial structure of two trait systems assessed with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in a non-Western sample and to compare the extracted models' relative associations with binge eating disorder (BED) and bipolar spectrum disorder (BSD) symptoms. A community sample (N = 516; 72% female) was administered the PID-5, which can operationalize both the DSM-5 and ICD-11 systems. The factor structures of both systems were tested using exploratory structural equation modeling (ESEM). The congruence coefficients of all factor loadings with international studies were calculated. The Binge Eating Scale (BES), Bipolar Spectrum Diagnostic Scale (BSDS), and Hypomania Checklist-32-Revised (HCL-32) were used to measure the criterion variables. Linear regression models were used for comparing the DSM-5 and ICD-11 systems in predicting the BED and BSD. The findings supported five-factor solutions for both trait systems. Both systems significantly predicted dimensional measures of both BED and BSD (all p < 0.001). The present findings support an acceptable five-factor structure for both personality systems in the non-Western sample. Different algorithms of maladaptive domains on both systems are related to binge eating and bipolar spectrum psychopathology.

Evaluation of a 36-item measure of ICD-11 and DSM-5 personality disorder trait domains and facets in Russian inpatients.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (DSM-5) and International Classification of Diseases 11th revision (ICD-11) have introduced a new dimensional approach to personality disorder (PD) classification that relies on the global level of PD severity and individual expressions of personality dysfunction in terms of specified trait domains (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism). This study sought to evaluate the psychometric qualities of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait domains and facets in 570 Russian psychiatric inpatients using the Modified 36-Item Personality Inventory for DSM-5 and ICD-11 Brief Form Plus-Modified (PID5BF + M). The expected six-factor structure of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait domains was replicated using exploratory factor analysis. The six domain scores showed expected convergence with normal five-factor model scores, and the 18 subfacets showed acceptable scale reliability. Our findings overall support the psychometric properties of the six PID5BF + M domain scores and 18 subfacet scores covering both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5 trait models. Consequently, clinicians and researchers in Russian-speaking mental health services are now able to perform a combined and facet-level assessment of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models in a feasible and psychometrically sound manner. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Bridging the ICD11 and the DSM-5 personality disorders classification systems: The role of the PID5BF + M.

In both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets. The current study compares a community sample (N = 280, M age = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample (N = 131, M age = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples. As expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group. Although this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.

Connecting DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait domains with schema therapy and dialectical behavior therapy constructs.

The DSM-5 Section III alternative model of personality disorder (AMPD) and the International Classification of Diseases - 11th Edition's (ICD-11) personality disorder classification allow clinicians to identify individual trait domains in which people score highly. However, how these domains relate to constructs associated with efficacious treatment approaches is unclear. The current study aimed to determine whether constructs from two evidence-based treatments (schema therapy [ST] and dialectical behavior therapy [DBT]) were associated with maladaptive personality traits in a way consistent with underlying theories. We examined associations between ST constructs, DBT skill use and maladaptive coping styles, and personality traits in a sample of 525 adults. Bivariate intercorrelations and a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted to investigate the associations. As hypothesized, maladaptive coping was strongly associated with all trait domains. Surprisingly, poor DBT-skill use was only associated with negative affectivity, detachment, and disinhibition trait domains. Specific schema domains were associated with each personality trait domain, supporting trait domain-schema domain specificity. The current study highlights the potential clinical utility of the AMPD and ICD-11 trait models and ultimately contributes to the dearth of evidence on their likely usefulness for treatment selection, planning, and applications.

Where are the active ingredients for borderline personality disorder? The importance of heightened triggers, two arguments for traits, and two arguments for Criterion A.

We are grateful that insightful experts took the time to comment on our article, and we find their comments both elucidating and advancing. In response to the commentaries, we consider 3 possible locations for the active ingredients producing borderline personality disorder symptoms. First, we offer a more optimistic case that the active ingredients may be in Personality Inventory for DSM-5 traits because of the important role of heightened trigger frequency in accounting for elevated symptoms (with some caveats). Second, we support the commenters' arguments that active ingredients may be in dysfunction in the self and in relationships, as in Criterion A. Third, we offer an argument that the active ingredients may be in normal traits, but that the conception and measurement of normal traits need to be updated in light of the connection between normal traits and personality disorders. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

A meta-structure for DSM-5 and ICD-11 pathological traits and the differentiation of personality functioning at different trait levels in older adults

Objectives Categorical criteria are not well suited to inform personality disorder (PD) diagnoses in older adults. More promising are the ICD-11 and DSM-5 alternative models. Both conceptualize PD by level of severity and maladaptive traits. Severity is conditional for making a PD diagnosis. Trait levels portray stylistic differences in PD expression. Yet, in older adults the hierarchical trait structure is unknown. Neither is the differentiation of the severity criterion from maladaptive traits confirmed. Methods A series of exploratory factor analyses with progressively greater numbers of factors were conducted to examine the hierarchical trait structure in 293 community dwelling older adults. The on average differentiation of a single higher order personality functioning factor from trait factors at succeeding levels of the hierarchy was estimated with Cohen q effect size. Results Six meaningful trait levels were identified. From the fourth trait level on the general personality functioning factor shared less than 15% variance on average with the trait factors. Trait factors at the sixth level corresponded to both DSM-5 and ICD-11 pathological traits. Conclusion A future nosology integrating DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait proposals would be applicable in older adults. Personality functioning can be differentiated from traits, so separate assessment of traits and severity is worthwhile.

Associations between the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 trait facets and aggression among outpatients with personality disorder: A multimethod study

Associations between the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 trait facets and aggression among outpatients with personality disorder: A multimethod study

Implementation of the DSM-5 and ICD-11 Dimensional Models of Maladaptive Personality Traits Into Pre-bariatric Assessment.

Background: Personality pathology does not have to be a contraindication to a bariatric surgery if a proper pre-surgical assessment is done. Indicating subgroups of patients with their specific needs could help tailor interventions and improve surgical treatment outcomes.Objectives: Using the Alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders (AMPD) and the ICD-11 model for PDs to detect subgroups of patients with obesity based on a specific constellation of maladaptive personality traits and the level of overall personality impairment.Methods: 272 consecutively consented patients who underwent a standard pre-surgical psychological assessment. The majority were women (58.0%), age range was 22–79 years (M = 48.06, SD = 10.70). Patients’ average body mass index (BMI) was 43.95 kg/m2. All participants were administered the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) from which Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Self Report (LPFS-SR) and Standardized Assessment of Severity of Personality Disorder (SASPD) scores were gained using the “crosswalk” for common metric for self-reported severity of personality disorder. The k-means clustering method was used to define specific subgroups of patients with obesity and replicated for equality testing to the samples of non-clinical respondents and psychiatric patients.Results: The cluster analysis detected specific groups in the sample of patients with obesity, which differed quantitatively from the samples of non-clinical respondents and psychiatric patients. A vast majority of patients with obesity showed above-average values in most of the PID-5 facets compared to the United States representative general community sample. In two out of the three clusters defined, patients demonstrated moderate (> M + 1.5 × SD) to severe (> M + 2.0 × SD) personality psychopathology within the Detachment and Negative Affectivity domains according to PID-5, which in one of the clusters corresponded to the mild overall impairment in both, LPFS-SR (M = 2.18, SD = 0.27) and SASPD (M = 8.44, SD = 2.38). Moreover, higher levels of psychopathology prove to be associated with higher age and use of psychiatric medication.Conclusions: The dimensional DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models are suitable procedures for defining specific “characters” of patients in a pre-bariatric setting. As such, they help to identify subgroups of patients with obesity who are different from general population and psychiatric patients. Implications for clinical practice and further research are discussed.

Differential Effects of Psychological Interventions in Online and Face-to-Face Settings on DSM-5 and ICD-11 Maladaptive Trait Domains: An Exploratory Pilot Study.

While mental health treatments have proven to be effective for a range of mental health problems, there is comparably little research on its effects on personality disorders or difficulty (PD). New dimensional conceptualizations of PD such as the ICD-11 PD model enable the cost- and time-effective dimensional assessment of severity and style of PD. Furthermore, they constitute a promising tool to investigate PD, not only as a treatment endpoint but also as a predictive or influencing factor for mental health treatments. In this study, we investigated the effects in two different mental health treatment settings [online (N = 38); face-to-face and blended [FTF/blended] (N = 35)] on the reduction of maladaptive personality traits as well as the interaction between maladaptive personality patterns and the response on primary endpoints (i.e., mental distress). Results indicate that both treatment settings have comparable within-group effects on the reduction of distress symptoms, while the treatment in the FTF/blended setting seems to have a stronger impact on the reduction of maladaptive traits. Further, reduction of maladaptive trait expressions was a reliable predictor of treatment response in the FTF/blended setting while explaining less variance in the online setting. Beyond the promising findings on the utility of maladaptive trait change as an outcome measure, we discuss possible applications as an information source for treatment decisions.

The Utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 Traits for Differentiating Patients With Personality Disorders From Other Clinical Groups.

The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders delineates five trait domain qualifiers (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia), whereas the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders also delineates a separate domain of psychoticism. These six combined traits not only characterize individual stylistic features, but also the severity of their maladaptive expressions. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to investigate the utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains to differentiate patients with personality disorders (PD) from patients with other mental disorders (non-PD). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+M) was administered to a sample of patients diagnosed with a personality disorder (N = 124, Mage = 42.21, 42.7% females) along with a sample of patients diagnosed with other mental disorders (N = 335, Mage = 44.83, 46.6% females). Group differences were explored using the independent sample t test or the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples, and discriminant factor analysis was used to maximize group differences for each trait domain and facet score. The PD group showed significantly higher scores for the total PID5BF+M composite score, for the trait domains of negative affectivity, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition and for the trait facets of emotional lability, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and impulsivity. The trait domains of disinhibition, negative affectivity, and antagonism/dissociality as well as the trait facets of impulsivity, deceitfulness, emotional lability, and manipulativeness were the best discriminators between PD and non-PD patients. The global PID5BF+M composite score was also one of the best discriminators supporting its potential as a global severity index for detecting personality dysfunction. Finally, high scores in three or more of the 18 PID5BF+M facets suggested the possible presence of a PD diagnosis. Despite some limitations, our findings suggest that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 traits have the potential to specifically describe the stylistic features that characterize individuals with PD, including the severity of their maladaptive expressions.

The ICD-11 Personality Disorder Trait Model Fits the Kurdish Population Better Than the DSM-5 Trait Model.

The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) operate with trait domains that contribute to the individual expression of personality disturbance (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, anankastia, and psychoticism). To date, these trait frameworks have not been investigated sufficiently in Middle Eastern cultures. Thus, the present study explored the structure of the ICD-11 and AMPD personality disorder (PD) trait domains in a large mixed sample from the Kurdistan zone of Iran. The ICD-11 and AMPD trait domains were operationalized using empirically supported algorithms for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The PID-5 was administered to a large mixed sample (N = 3,196) composed of 2,678 community and 518 clinical participants. Structural validity was investigated using Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), whereas differential construct validity was explored by comparing clinical and community scores. Model fit and the expected factor structure were deemed appropriate for the ICD-11 trait model, but less adequate for the DSM-5 trait model (i.e., disinhibition did not emerge as a separate factor). All domain and facet scores showed significant differences between clinical and community subsamples with moderate to large effects, mostly for disinhibition and dissociality/antagonism while least for anankastia. The findings of the present study may suggest that the ICD-11 trait model is more cross-culturally fitting than the DSM-5 AMPD trait model, at least with respect to a large mixed sample from the region of Kurdistan. Accordingly, there is evidence for using PID-5 data for WHO ICD-11 purposes in this part of the World.

Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in China: Evaluation of DSM-5 and ICD-11 Trait Structure and Continuity With Personality Disorder Types.

The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) is an established tool for assessing personality disorder (PD) traits that was developed based on section III of the DSM-5. It is composed of 220 items, organized into 25 facets, which are distributed among five domains. The psychometric properties of the Chinese version of the PID-5 remain to be demonstrated. Two samples were embodied in this study that included 3,550 undergraduates and 406 clinical patients. To probe the structure of the PID-5, parallel analyses were conducted to explore the unidimensionality of its 25 facets and a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were carried out to confirm the 25 lower-order facets and their distribution among five higher-order domains. Then, the PID-5 was employed to measure the DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait models and to explore the relationship of DSM-IV categorical PDs with DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality traits. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to probe how well DSM-IV categorical PDs correspond with maladaptive personality traits specified in the DSM-5 and five ICD-11 domains. The respective average internal reliability coefficients of the 25 facets obtained for undergraduate and clinical patient samples were 0.76 and 0.81, those obtained for the five DSM-5 domains were 0.89 and 0.91, and those obtained for the five ICD-11 domains were 0.87 and 0.89. Serial CFAs confirmed the rationality of the PID-5's lower-order 25-facet structure and higher-order five-domain structure in both samples. Correlation and regression analyses showed that DSM-5 specified traits explain the variance in PD presentation with a manifold stronger correlation (R2 = 0.24–0.44) than non-specified traits (R2 = 0.04–0.12). Overall, the PID-5 was shown to be a reliable, stable, and structurally valid assessment tool that captures pathological personality traits related to DSM-5 and ICD-11 PDs.