Top

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Gepubliceerd in:

01-12-2013

Age-Neutrality of the Trait Facets Proposed for Personality Disorders in DSM-5: A DIFAS Analysis of the PID-5

Auteurs: Joke Van den Broeck, Leen Bastiaansen, Gina Rossi, Eva Dierckx, Barbara De Clercq

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 4/2013

Abstract

An age-neutral measurement system is one of the basic conditions for an accurate personality assessment across the lifespan, both longitudinally and cross-sectionally. In this study the age-neutrality of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 PID-5; Krueger et al. (Psychological Medicine 42, 1879–1890, 2012) was investigated. Potential Differential Item Functioning (DIF) was examined for the 25 trait facets in older versus younger adults. Overall, 33 items displayed large DIF, according to the adjusted Bonferroni corrected cutoffs (Mantel Chi-square, Liu-Agresti Cumulative Common Log-Odds Ratio [L-A LOR], and Cox’s Noncentrality Parameter Estimator [Cox’s B]). In a next step, the implications of the item level DIF across age groups was investigated on scale (i.e., facet) level. These Differential Test Functioning (DTF) analyses revealed large DTF for four of the 25 PID-5 facets (i.e., Withdrawal, Attention Seeking, Rigid Perfectionism and Unusual Beliefs). Current initial results show that most PID-5 traits are measured equally well across age, however, further research is needed to further refine this instrument and make it entirely age-neutral.

vorige artikel The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Shadows and Lights on its Construct Validity

volgende artikel Testing a Hierarchical Model of Distress Tolerance

The exact cutoff values for each of the three DIF indicators for each analysis can be obtained on requested from the first author.

In deriving their thresholds Penfield and Algina (2006) argued that a collective large level of DIF in a group of items exist if 25 % or more of the items are categorized as having moderate or large magnitudes of DIF based on the ETS classification scheme (i.e. if 25 % or more of the items have an absolute value of log(α_MH) greater than or equal to .43. They also suggest that MH and L-A LOR have similar meanings in terms of DIF magnitude. Because we wanted to reduce the Type I error, a Bonferroni correction was applied and adjusted L-A LOR cut-off values were used to flag items with large DIF (depending on the number of items per scale). In line, we made a similar adjustment for the DTF thresholds. For example: Penfield and Algina consider the variance of DIF effect large when weighted v² > .14, using an L-A LOR value of .43 as critical value. Since we adhere to stringent L-A LOR critical values (for example > .92 for Anhedonia) we adjusted this to v² > .35 (i.e., .14/.43*.92).

Agronin, M. E., & Maletta, G. (2000). Personality disorders in later life. Understanding and overcoming the gap in research. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 8, 4–18.PubMedCrossRef

American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Bagby, M. R., Quilty, L. C., Veltri, C. O. C., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). On the convergence between PSY-5 domains and PID-5 domains and facets: implications for assessment of DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191112471141.

Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. B. (2011). Differential item functioning on the five facet mindfulness questionnaire is minimal in demographically matched mediators and nonmediators. Assessment, 18(1), 3–10.PubMedCrossRef

Balsis, S., Gleason, M. E. J., Woods, C. M., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2007). An item response theory analysis of DSM-IV personality disorder criteria across younger and older age groups. Psychology and Aging, 22(1), 171–185.PubMedCrossRef

Camilli, G., & Congdon, P. (1999). Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–341.

Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: social activity in life-span context. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 11, 195–217.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. (2011). Dutch translation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5).

Edwards, M. C., & Edelen, M. O. (2009). Special topics in item response theory. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 178–185). London: Sage.CrossRef

Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The personality psychopathology five (PSY-5): Issue 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: Springer.

Holmén, K., & Furukawa, H. (2002). Loneliness, health and social network among elderly people—a follow-up study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 35, 261–274.PubMedCrossRef

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.PubMedCrossRef

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(2), 424–432.PubMedCrossRef

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, 1879–1890.PubMedCrossRef

Liu, I. M., & Agresti, A. (1996). Mantel-Haenszel-type inference for cumulative odds ratio with a stratified ordinal response. Biometrics, 52, 1223–1234.PubMedCrossRef

Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1992). The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 443–451.CrossRef

Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.

Oltmanns, T. F., & Balsis, S. (2011). Personality disorders in later life: questions about the measurement, course, and impact of disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 321–349.PubMedCrossRef

Penfield, R. D. (2005). DIFAS: differential item functioning analysis system. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 150–151.CrossRef

Penfield, R. D. (2007). DIFAS 4.0. Differential item functioning analysis system: user’s manual. Unpublished manuscript.

Penfield, R. D. (2010). Distinguishing between net and global DIF in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 129–149.CrossRef

Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2006). A generalized DIF effect variance estimator for measuring unsigned differential test functioning in mixed format tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(4), 295–312.CrossRef

Reed, A. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2012). The theory behind the age-related positivity effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00339.

Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 3–27.

Segal, D. L., Coolidge, F. L., & Rosowsky, E. (2000). Personality disorders. In S. Krauss (Ed.), Psychopathology in later adulthood (pp. 89–115). Wiley: New York.

Tackett, J. L., Balsis, S., Oltmanns, T. F., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). A unifying perspective on personality pathology across the life span: developmental considerations for the fifth edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 687–713.PubMedCrossRef

Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of NEO PI-R scales in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 493–506.PubMedCrossRef

Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and Five Factor Model trait domains. Assessment.

Van Alphen, S. P. J., Engelen, G. J. J. A., Kuin, Y., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2006). The relevance of a geriatric sub-classification of personality disorders in the DSM-V. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 205–209.PubMedCrossRef

Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.PubMedCrossRef

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. doi:10.1037/a0027669.

Titel: Age-Neutrality of the Trait Facets Proposed for Personality Disorders in DSM-5: A DIFAS Analysis of the PID-5
Auteurs: Joke Van den Broeck
Leen Bastiaansen
Gina Rossi
Eva Dierckx
Barbara De Clercq
Publicatiedatum: 01-12-2013
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 4/2013
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9364-3

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2013

A Pilot Trial of Supporting teens’ Academic Needs Daily (STAND): A Parent-Adolescent Collaborative Intervention for ADHD

Evaluating Self-Report Measures of Narcissistic Entitlement

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory: Shadows and Lights on its Construct Validity

From Dispositional Traits to Psychopathological Symptoms: Social-Cognitive Vulnerabilities as Intervening Mechanisms

Relation Between Treatment Satisfaction and Treatment Outcome in Veterans with Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Testing a Hierarchical Model of Distress Tolerance