Top

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Gepubliceerd in:

14-02-2023

Investigating the Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form Among French-speaking Clinical and Nonclinical Samples

Auteurs: Philippe Leclerc, Claudia Savard, Martin Sellbom, Alexandre Côté, Marie-Chloé Nolin, Maude Payant, David Roy, Dominick Gamache

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 2/2023

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.

vorige artikel Identification of a Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation Marker for Predicting Police Candidates Who Receive Racial and Excessive Force Complaints

volgende artikel COVID-19 Stress (Traumatic Symptoms, Compulsive Checking, Xenophobia, and Danger & Contamination) and Alcohol Use Uniquely Explain State Alcohol Cravings

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

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).

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/10.1080/10705510903008204CrossRef

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/per0000162CrossRef

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/10.1177/1073191117709070CrossRefPubMed

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/pas0001085CrossRefPubMed

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.0266540CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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/10.1177/070674370004500206CrossRefPubMed

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.xCrossRef

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_05CrossRef

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/10.1080/10705510701301834CrossRef

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_5CrossRef

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/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309CrossRef

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/per0000568CrossRef

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/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113CrossRef

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/cbs0000140CrossRef

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/per0000335CrossRef

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/a0030425CrossRef

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/per0000569CrossRef

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.0000245454.12228.8fCrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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/10.1177/1088868310361240CrossRefPubMed

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.1408CrossRefPubMed

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/10.1080/10705519909540118CrossRef

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.116.1.166CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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/10.1177/1073191120971848CrossRefPubMed

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/S0033291711002674CrossRefPubMed

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/a000243CrossRef

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/pas0000120CrossRefPubMed

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-032813-153700CrossRefPubMed

Newsom, J. T. (2015). Longitudinal structural equation modeling. Routledge.CrossRef

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/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.962CrossRefPubMed

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;2-1CrossRefPubMed

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.2016.06.004CrossRefPubMed

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/10.1177/1073191114536772CrossRefPubMed

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/pas0000158CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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_09CrossRefPubMed

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/10.1177/1094428111403154CrossRef

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/pas0000413CrossRefPubMed

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/10.1177/1073191118781006CrossRefPubMed

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/pas0000711CrossRefPubMed

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.20347CrossRefPubMed

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/per0000291CrossRef

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/BF02289858CrossRef

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/pas0000605CrossRefPubMed

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/pas0000739CrossRefPubMed

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.2019.04.008CrossRef

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

Titel: Investigating the Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form Among French-speaking Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Auteurs: Philippe Leclerc
Claudia Savard
Martin Sellbom
Alexandre Côté
Marie-Chloé Nolin
Maude Payant
David Roy
Dominick Gamache
Publicatiedatum: 14-02-2023
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 2/2023
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-022-10000-0

Drinking to Cope is Uniquely Associated with Less Specific and Bleaker Future Goal Generation in Young Hazardous Drinkers

Open Access

Social Anxiety and Its Maintaining Factors: Accounting for the Role of Neuroticism

Open Access

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Investigating the Validity and Measurement Invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Faceted Brief Form Among French-speaking Clinical and Nonclinical Samples

Abstract

Andere artikelen Uitgave 2/2023

Bidirectional Links Between Coping Strategies and Sibling and Peer Victimization Among Elementary School-Age Youth

Young Adult Routines Inventory (YARI): Development and Initial Validation

Drinking to Cope is Uniquely Associated with Less Specific and Bleaker Future Goal Generation in Young Hazardous Drinkers

Social Anxiety and Its Maintaining Factors: Accounting for the Role of Neuroticism

Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Prosocial Decision Making in Callous-Unemotional Traits

Identification of a Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation Marker for Predicting Police Candidates Who Receive Racial and Excessive Force Complaints

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Bidirectional Links Between Coping Strategies and Sibling and Peer Victimization Among Elementary School-Age Youth

Young Adult Routines Inventory (YARI): Development and Initial Validation

Drinking to Cope is Uniquely Associated with Less Specific and Bleaker Future Goal Generation in Young Hazardous Drinkers

Social Anxiety and Its Maintaining Factors: Accounting for the Role of Neuroticism

Cognitive Mechanisms Underlying Prosocial Decision Making in Callous-Unemotional Traits

Identification of a Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation Marker for Predicting Police Candidates Who Receive Racial and Excessive Force Complaints