The discriminant (and convergent) validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment 2015, Vol. 6, No. 4, 321–335

© 2015 American Psychological Association 1949-2715/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000118

The Discriminant (and Convergent) Validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 Cristina Crego, Whitney L. Gore, Stephanie L. Rojas, and Thomas A. Widiger

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Kentucky A considerable body of research has rapidly accumulated with respect to the validity of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM–5) dimensional trait model as it is assessed by the Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012). This research though has not focused specifically on discriminant validity, although allusions to potentially problematic discriminant validity have been raised. The current study addressed discriminant validity, reporting for the first time the correlations among the PID-5 domain scales. Also reported are the bivariate correlations of the 25 PID-5 maladaptive trait scales with the personality domain scales of the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992), the International Personality Item Pool–NEO (Goldberg et al., 2006), the Inventory of Personal Characteristics (Almagor et al., 1995), the 5-Dimensional Personality Test (van Kampen, 2012), and the HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised (Lee & Ashton, 2004). The results are discussed with respect to the implications of and alternative explanations for potentially problematic discriminant validity. Keywords: discriminant, personality disorder, PID-5, trait, validity

personality (e.g., neuroticism) with which they are said to be aligned (APA, 2013). A considerable body of research has rapidly accumulated concerning the PID-5 (Krueger & Markon, 2014), a testament to the interest and importance of the DSM–5 dimensional trait model proposal. Factor analyses of the 25 PID-5 trait scales have supported a five-factor solution (e.g., Fossati, Krueger, Markon, Borroni, & Maffei, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012; Morey, Krueger, & Skodol, 2013; Wright et al., 2012). Joint factor analyses of the PID-5 with measures of the FFM have suggested a reasonable alignment, albeit the results are not as strong for psychoticism aligning with openness (e.g., De Fruyt et al., 2013; Gore & Widiger, 2013; Griffin & Samuel, 2014; Thomas et al., 2013; Wright & Simms, 2014). There have also been joint factor analyses with other measures and models, such as the Personality Psychopathology-5 (Anderson et al., 2013). However, it is worth noting that none of the FFM joint factor analyses reported the correlations of the PID-5 trait scales with the FFM domain (or facet) scales, nor were the correlations among the PID-5 trait (or domain) scales provided in the factor analyses of Fossati et al. (2013); Krueger et al. (2012); Morey et al. (2013), or Wright et al. (2012). In fact, only one study has reported the correlations among the 25 PID-5 scales (i.e., Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock, & Bagby, 2013). None of the 25 PID-5 studies summarized by Krueger and Markon (2014) provide the correlations among the five PID-5 domain scales. This is not meant as a criticism of any one of these studies (it also appears that no previous study has provided the cross-domain correlations for the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology-Basic Questionnaire [DAPPBQ]; Livesley & Jackson, 2009). The point is simply that relatively little is known about the correlations among the PID-5 scales or their correlations with measures of general personality structure. Quilty et al. (2013) and Gore and Widiger (2013) did report the average and the range of correlations among the five PID-5 do-

There has long been a call for a shift in the diagnosis of personality disorders to a dimensional trait model (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). A significant step forward occurred with the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s (APA) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5; APA, 2013) through the inclusion of a dimensional trait model within Section III of the manual for “emerging measures and models” (APA, 2013, p. 729). The five domains of maladaptive personality included within this model are negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism. These broad domains are said to be aligned with the five domains of a predominant dimensional model of normal or general personality, the five-factor model (FFM; McCrae & Costa, 2003). As expressed in DSM–5, “these five broad domains are maladaptive variants of the five domains of the extensively validated and replicated personality model known as the ‘Big Five’ or Five Factor Model of personality” (APA, 2013, p. 773). The official measure of this model is provided by the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012), a self-report measure copyrighted by the APA but made freely available for research and clinical purposes. The purpose of the current study was to consider the discriminant (as well as convergent) validity of the PID-5 assessment of the DSM–5 dimensional trait model, both with respect to the correlations among PID-5 domain (e.g., Negative Affectivity) and trait (e.g., Anxiousness) scales, as well as their correlation with the domains of general

This article was published Online First April 20, 2015. Cristina Crego, Whitney L. Gore, Stephanie L. Rojas, and Thomas A. Widiger, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cristina Crego, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Kastle Hall, Lexington, KY 40506-0044. E-mail: [email protected] 321


322

CREGO, GORE, ROJAS, AND WIDIGER

main scales. Quilty et al. indicated that two of the PID-5 domain scales correlated .69 but the identity of these two scales was not provided (the average correlation among them was .46). Gore and Widiger (2013) similarly reported that two (again unidentified) PID-5 domain scales correlated substantially (i.e., .76) with a mean of .57. It might be useful to know the full set of correlations among the PID-5 domain scales, as well as the identity of the two domain scales that are highly correlated (assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that these were the same scales in each study). No published study to date has provided this information. Allusions to potentially problematic discriminant validity have been suggested in PID-5 studies. For example, in the first study reporting on the convergent validity of the PID-5, Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, and Krueger (2012) emphasized that the PID-5 scales correlated for the most part as expected with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision (DSM–IV–TR) personality disorders, but did acknowledge that “certain anomalous findings may be due to limitations with study measures” (p. 430). There were indeed a number of unexpected correlations that would appear to be inconsistent with the typical understanding of a respective personality disorder. For example, using the cutoff of .40 applied by the authors for a meaningful level of convergence, perseveration would be said to be a trait indicative of the borderline, avoidant, narcissistic, schizotypal, and dependent personality disorders (as well as the obsessive– compulsive), and perceptual dysregulation would be a trait of the antisocial, narcissistic, schizoid, and dependent personality disorders. However, these (and other) anomalous results were not considered to be necessarily attributable to the PID-5. They could just as well have reflected limitations of the criterion measure, the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4⫹, which might be, psychometrically, among the weakest of the personality disorder self-report measures (Bagby & Farvolden, 2004). In their joint factor analysis of the PID-5 with three alternative measures of general personality, Gore and Widiger (2013) indicated that “there were very high correlations across domain scales within the same measures, particularly for the PID-5” (p. 818). They obtained inadequate fit indices when they did not control for this within-measure cross-domain correlation. In the factor analysis of the PID-5 with the FFM, Thomas et al. (2013) noted that “several traits showed substantial cross-loadings” (p. 310). They identified though only two examples, and indicated that these were to be expected: PID-5 Hostility loading on both antagonism and negative affectivity, and Rigid Perfectionism loading on both disinhibition and negative affectivity. However, the expectation for Rigid Perfectionism to load on negative affectivity was based essentially on a prior finding (Krueger et al., 2012). It is not clear conceptually why rigid perfectionism would be a trait of negative affectivity. The Five Factor Obsessive Compulsive Inventory includes a Perfectionism scale that converges well with PID-5 Rigid Perfectionism (Crego, Samuel, & Widiger, 2015) but in two independent studies it was uncorrelated with FFM neuroticism (Crego et al., 2015; Samuel et al., 2012). Additional anomalies obtained by Thomas et al. was the loading of Perceptual Dysreguation, Unusual Beliefs, and Depressivity on introversion; Anhedonia on negative affectivity; and Impulsivity on openness. However, these results could again reflect the FFM measure they used and/or their particular sample. De Fruyt et al. (2013) indicated that they did not

replicate some of the unexpected findings of Thomas et al. (2013); more specifically, PID-5 Perceptual Dysregulation and Unusual Beliefs did not load on introversion. Nevertheless, they did find that Anhedonia loaded on negative affectivity. There is only limited information concerning the correlations of the 25 PID-5 trait scales with general personality, and the authors of these studies did raise some potential concerns with respect to discriminant validity. Quilty et al. (2013) reported the correlations of the 25 PID-5 trait scales with the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and concluded that “evidence for the discriminant validity of the PID-5 domain and facet scales was mixed” (p. 368). They noted how PID-5 disinhibition scales correlated with neuroticism, and negative affectivity subscales correlated with conscientiousness. They attributed some of this to limitations of the NEO PI-R, but also suggested that there may in fact be “shortcomings in these forms of validity” in some PID-5 scales (p. 368). Watson, Stasik, Ro, and Clark (2013) reported the convergence of the PID-5 scales with FFM personality traits as assessed by the unpublished Faceted Inventory of the Five Factor Model (FI-FFM; Simms, 2009). They suggested a number of instances of potentially problematic discriminant validity. PID-5 Suspiciousness converged more highly with antagonism and neuroticism than it did with introversion; Intimacy Avoidance correlated as highly with neuroticism and almost as highly with antagonism; and Restricted Affectivity correlated more highly with antagonism than with introversion. They further noted that PID-5 Anhedonia converged as highly with neuroticism as it did with introversion; Submissiveness correlated as highly with introversion as it did with neuroticism; and Rigid Perfectionism correlated more highly with neuroticism than it did with conscientiousness. They concluded that their results produced “some unexpected findings that merit closer scrutiny in the future” (Watson et al., 2013, p. 323). The purpose of the current study was to consider the discriminant validity of the PID-5 in three ways: (a) cross-domain correlations obtained in three independent samples; (b) correlations among the 25 PID-5 trait scales; and (c) the specificity of the relationships of the 25 trait scales with general personality. To minimize the effects of one particular criterion measure, five independent measures of general personality were considered: the NEO Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992), the International Personality Item Pool–NEO (IPIPNEO; Goldberg et al., 2006), the Inventory of Personal Characteristics (IPC; Almagor et al., 1995), the 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT; van Kampen, 2012), and the HEXACO Personality Inventory–Revised (HEXACO PI-R; Lee & Ashton, 2004). The NEO PI-R and IPIP-NEO are alternative measures of the FFM. The IPC, 5DPT, and HEXACO PI-R assess alternative models of general personality that are in some respects convergent with the FFM, but are in other important respects divergent (Almagor et al., 1995; Lee & Ashton, 2004; van Kampen, 2012). Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, and Born (2012) reported the results of a joint factor analysis of the PID-5 with the HEXACO PI-R (along with additional measures) but did not report the bivariate correlations of the PID-5 with the HEXACO PI-R domain (or trait) scales. Facilitating an avoidance of findings being specific to one particular sample, results are also reported from three different samples. In Sample 1 college students completed the NEO PI-R, IPC, and 5DPT; in Sample 2 MTurk participants

DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THE PID-5

completed the HEXACO PI-R; and in Sample 3 MTurk participants with a history of mental health treatment completed the IPIP-NEO. Findings from Samples 1 and 2 were previously published (i.e., Gore & Widiger, 2013; Rojas & Widiger, 2014) but neither publication included the correlations that are reported in the current study (Gore & Widiger did report the range of correlations among the PID-5 domain scales but, consistent with Quilty et al., 2013, did not report all of the correlations nor identify the scales that were correlated).


Method The study procedures for all three samples were approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Kentucky. Participants provided informed consent as part of the online protocol.

Sample 1 Participants. The participants in this sample were 445 undergraduate introductory psychology students who received class credit for their participation. More than half of the participants were female (67%), and their mean age was 19.23 years (58 did not report age). Eighty-three percent identified themselves as Caucasian, 10% as African American, 2% as Asian, 1% as Hispanic, and 3% as Other. Materials. Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012). The PID-5 is the measure of the DSM–5 Section III 25-trait model. It consists of 220 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 0 (very false or often false) to 3 (very true or often true). Coefficient alphas for the domain scales ranged in this sample from .87 for Disinhibition to .96 for Detachment. Coefficient alphas for the trait scales ranged from .71 for Suspiciousness to .94 for Eccentricity, consistent with Krueger et al. (2012), which ranged from .73 for Grandiosity to .95 for Eccentricity. NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). The NEO PI-R is a measure of the FFM of personality and contains 240 items rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Coefficient alphas ranged in the current study from .86 for Agreeableness to .91 for Conscientiousness, consistent with results reported in the test manual, which ranged from .86 for Agreeableness to .92 for Neuroticism. Five Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT; van Kampen, 2012). The 5DPT is a dichotomous 100-item measure of five dimensions: Neuroticism, Extraversion, Absorption, Insensitivity, and Orderliness. Items were either coded as Yes (2) or No (1). Coefficient alphas ranged in the current study from .81 for Orderliness to .89 for Neuroticism, which was consistent with the results reported by van Kampen (2012). Inventory of Personal Characteristics (IPC; Almagor et al., 1995). The IPC is a self-report inventory designed to measure Tellegen’s seven-factor model of personality, which includes five scales that align with the FFM (Almagor et al., 1995). This measure uses a 4-point Likert scale ranging from definitely false to definitely true. The present study administered only the 120 items assessing the five scales that align with the FFM. Coefficient alphas ranged in the current study from .83 for Agreeableness to .91 for Positive Emotionality.

323

Validity scale. A previously developed five-item validity scale for the assessment of careless responding was administered (Gore & Widiger, 2013). Each item describes a behavior that was very unlikely to be true (e.g., “I am currently in the Guinness Book of World Records” and, reverse coded, “I have used a computer in the past 2 years”), thus an endorsement suggested the individual was not attending to the item’s content. Items are rated on a Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) and were dispersed among items from other measures. Procedure. Participants completed all questionnaires via SurveyMonkey, a secure online survey tool. Participants were allowed as much time as necessary to complete the materials (which required approximately 2 hours), and could temporarily suspend participation whenever they felt tired or distracted. Because of the online administration, a conservative threshold was set for inclusion of participants. One hundred (17%) were deleted because they did not adequately complete the administered measures (i.e., failed to complete at least 80% of the items). Forty participants (7%) were deleted because they received elevated scores on the validity scale. Some of the remaining 445 participants failed to respond to a few scattered items (in the vast majority of cases, less than 5% of the items). These missing data were imputed using the expectation maximization (EM) procedure, which has been shown to produce more accurate estimates of population parameters than other methods, such as deletion of missing cases or mean substitution (Enders, 2006).

Sample 2 Participants. Sample 2 consisted of 330 adults with 208 females and 121 males (1 individual did not respond). Participants had a mean age of 35.1 with a standard deviation of 12.9. For ethnicity, 77% were White/Caucasian, 6.4% Black/African American, 6% Asian, 4.5% Hispanic/Latino, 1% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, .6% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 3% were other (2 did not respond). For marital status, 37.9% were single, 37.9% were married, 16.4% were cohabiting, 6.7% were divorced, and 1.5% were widowed. In Sample 2, fully one third (i.e., 36.7%) were currently receiving or had received mental health treatment and 10.9% were taking psychotropic medication at the time of the study. Materials. The validity scale and the PID-5 administered in Sample 1 were again administered. For Sample 2, PID-5 coefficient alpha for Negative Affectivity ⫽ .94, Detachment ⫽ .96, Psychoticism ⫽ .95, Antagonism ⫽ .94, and Disinhibition ⫽ .88. Coefficient alphas for the trait scales ranged from .71 for Suspiciousness to .94 for Eccentricity. HEXACO Personality Inventory—Revised (HEXACO PI-R; Lee & Ashton, 2004). The HEXACO PI-R is a 100-item questionnaire that examines the six-dimensional model of Ashton and Lee (2001), along with an additional scale for altruism. Respondents respond to items on a 5-point Likert-type scale ranging from very inaccurate (1), moderately inaccurate (2), neither inaccurate nor accurate (3), moderately accurate (4), to very accurate (5). For Sample 2, coefficient alpha for Emotionality ⫽ .84, Extraversion ⫽ .84, Openness ⫽ .88, Agreeableness ⫽ .88, Honesty-Humility ⫽ .84, Altruism ⫽ .69, and Conscientiousness ⫽ .84.


324


Procedure. Measures were administered on MTurk, an online service where requesters recruit persons to complete tasks for financial compensation (Shapiro, Chandler, & Mueller, 2013). MTurk provides more demographically diverse samples than is obtained through traditional college samples and provide data quality that is equal to, if not more valid (Shapiro et al., 2013). This is attributable in part to the fact that one can confine data collection to persons who have previously received high scores for quality of participation, as was the case in the current study. Participants were compensated $1.50 for their time. Participants completed the HEXACO-PI-R and the PID-5, in that order. Study completion took about an hour and a half. Participants were again deleted if they failed to complete at least 80% of the items. Thirty-three participants were deleted because they received elevated scores on the validity scale. Some of the remaining 330 participants failed to respond to a few scattered items (in the vast majority of cases, less than 5% of the items). These missing data were again imputed using the expectation maximization (EM) procedure (Enders, 2006).

Sample 3 Participants. Sample 3 consisted of 296 adults with 228 females and 65 males (3 individuals did not respond). Participants had a mean age of 34 with a standard deviation of 11.61. For ethnicity, 80.7% were White/Caucasian, 6.8% Black/African American, 4.1% Hispanic/Latino, 2.4% Asian, 1.0% were American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.7% Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander, and 3.0% were other (4 did not respond). For marital status, 43.6% were single, 32.1% were married, 15.5% were cohabiting, 6.8% were divorced, and 1.7% were widowed (1 individual did not respond). In sample 3, all of the participants were currently receiving or had received mental health treatment such that 40% were currently in treatment, 6.4% within the last month, 28% within the past year, 12.8% within the prior five years, 8.4% within the past 10 years, and 3.7% unspecified. The majority of participants were in treatment for depression and/or anxiety (84.5% and 70.9%, respectively) followed by a personality disorder (10.1%), alcohol abuse (8.8%), substance use (8.4%), psychosis (4.7%), or other (17.2%; other disorders included bipolar, ADHD, eating disorders, and PTSD). Fifty-six percent of the participants were currently receiving some form of psychotropic medication; 87% had at some point in the past received psychotropic medication. Materials. Participants were again administered the validity scale and the PID-5. For Sample 3, coefficient alpha for Negative Affectivity ⫽ .95, Detachment ⫽ .96, Psychoticism ⫽ .96, Antagonism ⫽ .96, and Disinhibition ⫽ .94. Coefficient alphas for the trait scales ranged from .79 for Suspiciousness and Irresponsibility to .96 for Eccentricity. International Personality Item Pool-NEO (IPIP-NEO; Goldberg et al., 2006). The IPIP-NEO is a self-report personality inventory coordinated with the NEO PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The IPIP-NEO consists of 300 items rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale, ranging from strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neutral (3), agree (4), to strongly agree (5). Coefficient alpha for Neuroticism ⫽ .96, Extraversion ⫽ .92, Openness ⫽ .89, Agreeableness ⫽ .80, and Conscientiousness ⫽ .93.

Procedure. The measures for Sample 3 were again administered on MTurk. Individuals for this sample were asked to participate only if they were currently in or had in the past received mental health treatment (data collection for this sample took considerably longer than for Sample 2). Participants were asked to complete the PID-5 and the IPIP-NEO, in that order. Study completion took about an hour and participants were compensated $1.00 for their time. Participants were again deleted if they did not complete at least 80% of the items (i.e., n ⫽ 49; 13%). Some of the remaining 296 participants failed to respond to a few scattered items (less than 5% of items for the vast majority of participants). These missing data were again imputed using the expectation maximization (EM) procedure (Enders, 2006).

Results Discriminant Validity of Domain Scales Table 1 provides the cross-domain correlations of the PID-5 for each of the three samples. Domain scales were scored as specified by Krueger et al. (2011, 2012). It is evident from Table 1 that there is considerable cross-domain correlation. The correlations were highest across all three samples for Psychoticism (average ranged from .50 to .66). Psychoticism correlated with Negative Affectivity from .57 to .61, with Detachment from .46 to .76, and with Antagonism from .54 to .69. In addition, Negative Affectivity consistently correlated highly with Detachment (ranging from .62 to .65). Disinhibition consistently obtained the lowest crossdomain correlations, with the average ranging from only .23 to .46.

Correlations Among PID-5 Trait Scales To conserve space, the correlations among the 25 PID-5 trait scales are not provided for each sample. Table 2 provides the average of these correlations across all three samples (after Z-transformation). Table 2 also provides the average discriminant validity coefficients (for z-transformed scores) for each PID-5 trait scale (i.e., average of correlation with scales from other domains), which ranged from .17 (Risk Taking) to .48 (Perseveration, Submissiveness, and Perceptual Dysregulation), with a median value of .37.

Discriminant (and Convergent) Validity With General Personality Scales Tables 3 through 7 provide the convergent and discriminant validity correlations of the 25 PID-5 trait scales with the NEO PI-R, IPC, 5DPT, HEXACO PI-R, and IPIP-NEO domain scales, respectively. Convergent validity (i.e., correlations with their home domain) across the five measures of personality was demonstrated for most of the PID-5 scales. Notable exceptions, though, included the following: (a) Restricted Affectivity relating weakly with NEO PI-R, 5DPT, IPIP-NEO, and IPC Neuroticism (or Negative Emotionality); (b) Rigid Perfectionism and Risk-Taking relating weakly with NEO PI-R, HEXACO PI-R, IPIP-NEO and IPC Conscientiousness (or Dependability); (c) Suspiciousness relating weakly with NEO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPIP-NEO Extraversion; (d) Attention-Seeking relating weakly with NEO PI-R, IPC, HEXACO PI-R, and 5DPT Agreeableness (or Insensitivity); and


325

Table 1 Cross-Domain Correlations of PID-5 Scales in Three Samples PID-5 domains


PID-5 Domains Sample 1, students, n ⫽ 445 Negative Affectivity Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Psychoticism Sample 2, MTurk, n ⫽ 330 Negative Affectivity Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Psychoticism Sample 3 MTurk clinical, n ⫽ 296 Negative Affectivity Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Psychoticism

Negative Affectivity Detachment Antagonism Disinhibition Average — .63ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱ

— — .65ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .76ⴱⴱ

— — — .53ⴱⴱ .69ⴱⴱ

— — — — .56ⴱⴱ

.53 .64 .61 .46 .66

— .62ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .57ⴱⴱ

— — .36ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ

— — — .46ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ

— — — — .39ⴱⴱ

.46 .42 .44 .23 .50

— .65ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .59ⴱⴱ

— — .25ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .53ⴱⴱ

— — — .53ⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱ

— — — — .44ⴱⴱ

.51 .44 .47 .38 .55

Note. PID-5 ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012). ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

(e) Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity, and Perceptual Dysregulation relating weakly with NEO PI-R, HEXACO PI-R, and IPIP-NEO Openness. Noteworthy, however, is that (a) Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity, and Perceptual Dysregulation did converge well with IPC Conventionality and 5DPT Absorption; and (b) Restricted Affectivity converged well with HEXACO PI-R Emotionality. It is also evident from Tables 3 through 7 that discriminant validity (correlations with other domains) was typically good for almost all of the scales within antagonism. Attention-Seeking though did correlate as highly with NEO PI-R, 5DPT, HEXACO PI-R, and IPIP NEO Extraversion as it did with Antagonism. Deceitfulness correlated highly with NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, HEXACO PI-R, and IPC Conscientiousness (or Dependability). Emotional Lability, Anxiousness, Separation Insecurity, and Submissiveness from negative affectivity demonstrated good discriminant validity, but not only did Restricted Affectivity fail to correlate well with its own home domain, it correlated significantly with NEO PI-R and 5DPT Introversion, and IPC Positive Emotionality, as well as with NEO PI-R and IPIP-NEO Agreeableness, and IPC Agreeableness and Dependability. In addition, Hostility correlated highly with NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, HEXACO PI-R, and IPC Antagonism, as well as with 5DPT Insensitivity. Almost all the scales within detachment evidenced problematic discriminant validity. One possible exception was Withdrawal. Depressivity, Intimacy Avoidance, and Suspiciousness correlated as highly with at least two other NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, IPC, and 5DPT domains as they did with Extraversion. These scales demonstrated good discriminant validity though with the HEXACO PI-R. Distractibility, Impulsivity, and Irresponsibility from the domain of disinhibition evidenced good discriminant validity when compared to their convergent validity coefficients. The same might also be said for Rigid Perfectionism for its relationship with the

domain scales from the NEO PI-R, HEXACO PI-R, and 5DPT, albeit its convergent validity was itself weak for the NEO PI-R and HEXACO PI-R (and nonexistent for the IPIP-NEO and IPC). Risk-Taking correlated as highly with two other NEO PI-R, IPIPNEO, IPC, HEXACO PI-R domains as it did with its home domain. For the 5DPT, it correlated as highly with extraversion (as was the case for the NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, and HEXACO PI-R). All three of the scales from the domain of psychoticism, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity, and Perceptual Dysregulation, evidenced problematic discriminant validity. This may reflect in part their weak convergent validity with the openness scales from the NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, and HEXACO PI-R. However, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, and Perceptual Dysregulation also correlated as highly with at least two other domain scales from the IPC.

Discussion The inclusion of the dimensional trait model within Section III of DSM–5 represents an important and significant step toward the potential adoption of such a model as the official diagnostic system (APA, 2013). As expressed in DSM–5, it was the intention of this edition of the diagnostic manual to stimulate “the development of dimensional approaches to diagnosis that will likely supplement or supersede current categorical approaches in coming years” (APA, 2013, p. 13). Included in DSM–IV was just a list of alternative dimensional models. Included in DSM–5 is an explicit proposal. In addition, as emphasized by the authors of this model, the PID-5 dimensional trait model is an empirically based proposal that will be revised in response to an accumulating body of research. Krueger and Markon (2014) summarized the extensive empirical support to date, but indicated that “this is not to suggest that there is no room for improvement” (p. 491). They emphasized that the dimensional trait model is to be informed by and would be

— .65 ⫺.05 .55 .57 .60 .35 .36 .45 .58 .16 .47 .27 .39 .20 .28 .23 .40 .40 .39 .54 .05 .45 .48 .56

— — .12 .50 .49 .57 .36 .46 .60 .66 .22 .55 .20 .30 .07 .14 .16 .34 .23 .42 .48 ⫺.11 .33 .40 .49

Anx

SI

— — — — — — .04 — .28 .40 .34 .48 .12 .46 .55 .21 .38 .34 .30 .46 .45 ⫺.04 .33 .40 .34 .22 .40 .33 .36 .22 .19 .34 .58 .23 .38 .31 .29 .28 .24 .34 .33 .38 .20 .04 .31 .32 .37 .30 .36 .43

RA

— — — — — .54 .21 .51 .49 .54 .32 .60 .49 .60 .39 .33 .63 .51 .45 .42 .51 .21 .47 .46 .56

Hos — — — — — — .42 .50 .49 .58 .35 .54 .34 .50 .32 .35 .41 .53 .48 .56 .68 .13 .49 .57 .65

Per — — — — — — — .22 .26 .32 .10 .18 .14 .25 .15 .22 .12 .18 .20 .25 .34 ⫺.08 .17 .21 .27

Sub — — — — — — — — .67 .62 .56 .55 .19 .22 .32 .13 .48 .44 .25 .32 .48 ⫺.03 .35 .41 .47

With — — — — — — — — — .81 .44 .52 .15 .37 .09 .01 .37 .46 .26 .24 .50 ⫺.17 .29 .33 .47

Anh — — — — — — — — — — .43 .57 .21 .45 .15 .13 .40 .55 .35 .30 .57 .03 .40 .46 .61

Dep

Detachment

— — — — — — — — — — — .33 .14 .27 .17 .02 .40 .39 .22 .19 .32 .00 .26 .26 .36

IA — — — — — — — — — — — — .36 .46 .32 .23 .50 .44 .35 .42 .42 .10 .50 .43 .58

Susp — — — — — — — — — — — — — .75 .55 .56 .52 .44 .45 .29 .25 .37 .45 .41 .42

Man — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .48 .50 .65 .63 .56 .28 .47 .36 .45 .51 .54

Dec — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .54 .58 .37 .30 .35 .29 .30 .46 .33 .40

Gran

Antagonism

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .33 .34 .41 .28 .20 .39 .37 .37 .36

AS — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .58 .46 .30 .36 .34 .48 .42 .54

Call — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .58 .19 .64 .29 .45 .50 .59

Irr — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .14 .55 .55 .39 .50 .50

Imp — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .24 .00 .39 .31 .42

RP — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .14 .41 .56 .59

Dis

Disinhibition

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .26 .26 .22

RT

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .62 .74

UBE

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .68

Ecc

.38 .36 .36 .29 .48 .48 .21 .36 .35 .41 .24 .41 .30 .42 .35 .24 .41 .45 .37 .34 .45 .17 .39 .41 .48

ADV

Psychoticism

Note. n ⫽ 296. Italics ⫽ medium effect size; bold ⫽ large effect size (Cohen, 1992). EL ⫽ Emotional Lability; Anx ⫽ Anxiousness; RA ⫽ Restricted Affectivity; SI ⫽ Separation Insecurity; Hos ⫽ Hostility; Per ⫽ Perseveration; Sub ⫽ Submissiveness; With ⫽ Withdrawal; Anh ⫽ Anhedonia; Dep ⫽ Depressivity; IA ⫽ Interpersonal Avoidance; Susp ⫽ Suspiciousness; Man ⫽ Manipulativeness; Dec ⫽ Deceitfulness; Gran ⫽ Grandiosity; AS ⫽ Attention-Seeking; Call ⫽ Callousness; Irr ⫽ Irresponsibility; Imp ⫽ Impulsivity; RP ⫽ Rigid Perfectionism; Dis ⫽ Distractibility; RT ⫽ Risk Taking; UBE ⫽ Unusual Behavior & Experiences; Ecc ⫽ Eccentricity; PD ⫽ Perceptual Dysregulation; ADV ⫽ Averaged discriminant validity (average correlation with scales from other domains).

EL Anx RA SI Hos Per Sub With Anh Dep IA Susp Man Dec Gran AS Call Irr Imp RP Dis RT UBE Ecc PD

EL

Negative Affectivity

Table 2 Correlations Among PID-5 Maladaptive Trait Scales


326 CREGO, GORE, ROJAS, AND WIDIGER


327

Table 3 Correlations of PID-5 Trait Scales With NEO PI-R Domains


Trait scale Negative Affectivity Emotional lability Anxiousness Restricted affectivity Separation insecurity Hostility Perseveration Submissiveness Detachment Withdrawal Anhedonia Depressivity Intimacy avoidance Suspiciousness Antagonism Manipulativeness Deceitfulness Grandiosity Attention seeking Callousness Disinhibition Irresponsibility Impulsivity Rigid perfectionism Distractibility Risk-taking Psychoticism Unusual beliefs and experiences Eccentricity Perceptual dysregulation

N

E

A

C

O

ADV

.54ⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱ .02 .42ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ

⫺.05 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ .02 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.07

⫺.13ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.53ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .07

⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱ

.07 .03 ⫺.08 ⫺.04 ⫺.08 .03 ⫺.09

.15 .14 .18 .08 .28 .18 .09

.34ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ

⫺.55ⴱⴱ ⫺.54ⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ

⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ

⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ

⫺.03 ⫺.12ⴱ .00 ⫺.03 ⫺.07

.26 .34 .33 .18 .30

.07 .26ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 .06 .10

.10ⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.02 .31ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ

⫺.47ⴱⴱ ⫺.55ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱ

⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ

.05 .01 ⫺.09 .13ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ

.10 .20 .04 .17 .20

.30ⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ ⫺.09

⫺.19ⴱⴱ .08 .03 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱ

⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱ

⫺.56ⴱⴱ ⫺.53ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ ⫺.58ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ

.00 .17ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 .10ⴱ .15ⴱⴱ

.23 .20 .09 .22 .20

.16ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ

⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ

⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ

⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ

.10ⴱ .28ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ

.21 .27 .31

Note. n ⫽ 445. PID-5 ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012); NEO PI-R ⫽ NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Costa & McCrae, 1992); N ⫽ Neuroticism; E ⫽ Extraversion; A ⫽ Agreeableness; C ⫽ Conscientiousness; O ⫽ Openness; ADV ⫽ averaged discriminant validity (i.e., average correlation with scales within other domains). ⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

responsive to empirical research. “Indeed, an overarching point is that the connection between the PID-5 and the DSM–5 provides an empirical tether for future DSM development” (Krueger & Markon, 2014, p. 491). “One exciting aspect of the PID-5 endeavor is that it opens up the possibility of continual evolution of the DSM based on data” (Krueger, 2013, p. 360). In the current study, all but a few of the 25 PID-5 trait scales correlated as predicted with the respective domains of general personality. Consistent with prior research though (Quilty et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013), weak to nonexistent correlations were obtained for the three Psychoticism subscales with NEO PI-R and IPIP-NEO Openness. However, convergence was obtained with IPC Conventionality and 5DPT Absorption, alternative models and measures of this domain (Gore & Widiger, 2013). Relatively weak convergent validity though was also obtained for Restricted Affectivity with NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, and 5DPT Neuroticism and IPC Negative Emotionality, correlating instead with NEO PI-R and 5DPT Extraversion, along with IPC Positive Emotionality. Suspiciousness was relatively weakly related to NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, and 5DPT Extraversion, correlating instead with NEO PI-R and IPIP-NEO Antagonism and 5DPT Insensitivity. These particular results may reflect alternative placements for these two DSM–5 traits (Livesley & Jackson, 2009; Watson et al., 2013;

Widiger, Costa, & McCrae, 2013). In addition, however, Rigid Perfectionism and Risk-Taking were only weakly related to NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, and HEXACO PI-R Conscientiousness, and IPC Dependability, inconsistent with expectations. The current study though was focused in particular on discriminant validity. Cross-domain correlations have not yet been identified for the PID-5. Cross-domain correlation was consistently highest for Psychoticism, albeit Negative Affectivity correlated substantially with Detachment across all three samples (.62 to .65). These cross-domain correlations were considerably higher than was obtained by the measures of general personality structure. In the current study, the average cross-domain correlation was .22 for the NEO PI-R, .28 for the IPIP-NEO, .34 for the IPC, .21 for the HEXACO PI-R, and .20 for the 5DPT, in comparison to PID-5 averages of .57 (student sample), .42 (MTurk), and .47 (MTurk clinical). Discriminant validity though was generally good for some of the PID-5 scales with respect to their relationship with the five measures of general personality structure, particularly for Emotional Lability, Separation Insecurity, Submissiveness, and Anxiousness (from negative affectivity); Manipulativeness and Grandiosity (from antagonism); Withdrawal (from detachment), and Impulsivity and perhaps Distractibility and Irresponsibility (from disinhi-


328

Table 4 Correlations of PID-5 Trait Scales With IPC Domains



NE

PE

A

D

C

ADV

.53ⴱⴱ .60ⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .40ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱ

⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱ ⫺.37ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱ

⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.52ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ

⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ

⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ .00 ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ .12ⴱ

.13 .19 .36 .09 .39 .27 .13

.29ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱ

⫺.69ⴱⴱ ⫺.66ⴱⴱ ⫺.54ⴱⴱ ⫺.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ

⫺.37ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.37ⴱⴱ ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ

⫺.44ⴱⴱ ⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.52ⴱⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ

⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ

.35 .39 .43 .32 .38

.04 .22ⴱⴱ .03 .04 .12

⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ .10ⴱ ⫺.47ⴱⴱ

⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱ

⫺.28ⴱⴱ ⫺.48ⴱⴱ ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ

⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ

.17 .34 .14 .16 .35

.31ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱ

⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ .11ⴱ

⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ

⫺.65ⴱⴱ ⫺.53ⴱⴱ .12ⴱ ⫺.56ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ

⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ .08 ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ

.41 .26 .12 .39 .20

.18ⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ

⫺.37ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ

⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ

⫺.41ⴱⴱ ⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.50ⴱⴱ

⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.54ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ

.34 .31 .41

Note. n ⫽ 445. PID-5 ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012); IPC ⫽ Inventory of Personal Characteristics (IPC; Almagor et al., 1995); NE ⫽ Negative Emotionality, PE ⫽ Positive Emotionality; A ⫽ Agreeableness; D ⫽ Dependability; C ⫽ Conventionality; ADV ⫽ averaged discriminant validity (i.e., average correlation with scales within other domains). ⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

bition). However, problematic discriminant validity was evident for other PID-5 scales (Quilty et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013), particularly Restricted Affectivity and Hostility, and perhaps as well Perseveration (from neuroticism); Suspiciousness, Depressivity, and Intimacy Avoidance (from detachment); Deceitfulness (from antagonism); Risk-Taking and perhaps Rigid Perfectionism (from disinhibition); and Perceptual Dysregulation and Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, and perhaps as well Eccentricity (from psychoticism). Concerns with respect to discriminant validity are somewhat ironic, given that a long-recognized failing of the existing diagnostic categories has been their lack of discriminant validity (Clark, 2007; Krueger & Eaton, 2010; Widiger & Trull, 2007). As expressed by Skodol (2012), a primary reason for the proposed deletion of DSM–IV diagnostic categories (and a shift toward a dimensional model) was excessive co-occurrence. A presumed strength of a factor analytically– based dimensional model of personality disorder would be discriminant validity (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Trull, 2007). If the dimensional trait model is to ultimately replace the diagnostic categories (rather than simply reproduce them), a purported advantage or strength of this shift would be an improvement in discriminant validity. However, the PID-5 domains of negative affectivity and detachment appear to be

substantially correlated with one another and at a level that is commonly reported for DSM–IV–TR diagnostic categories (Trull, Sheiderer, & Tomko, 2013). Some of the problematic discriminant validity is in fact acknowledged in DSM–5. Four of the 25 DSM–5 traits are crosslisted in two domains. Depressivity, suspiciousness, and restricted affectivity are cross-listed in detachment and negative affectivity; hostility is cross-listed in negative affectivity and antagonism (APA, 2013, p. 779). The results of the current study could be said to support the cross-listing for depressivity, hostility, and suspiciousness (but not for restricted affectivity). However, this does not necessarily suggest that the cross-listings are desirable or acceptable. They can also be understood as acknowledgments of problematic discriminant validity, comparable with overlapping diagnostic criteria across different DSM–IV categories (e.g., social withdrawal included for both the avoidant and schizoid personality disorders; APA, 2013). No other dimensional model of maladaptive personality functioning includes the cross-listing of scales (e.g., Clark, Simms, Wu, & Casillas, in press; Simms et al., 2011), although Livesley and Jackson (2009) do acknowledge that suspiciousness tends to load on both the emotional dysregulation and dissocial behavior domains for the DAPP-BQ. In addition, if the results of the current study were to be used as a guide for cross-


329

Table 5 Correlations of PID-5 Trait Scales With 5DPT Domains



N

E

I

O

A

ADV

.52ⴱⴱ .65ⴱⴱ .04 .41ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ

⫺.06 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱ

.23ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱ .08

⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.10ⴱ ⫺.02 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ ⫺.11ⴱ .02

.28ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .05

.17 .14 .21 .10 .23 .24 .07

.33ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱ

⫺.52ⴱⴱ ⫺.51ⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ

.34ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ

⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱ

.27ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱ

.27 .31 .36 .24 .31

.09 .25ⴱⴱ .08 .05 .16ⴱⴱ

.07 ⫺.10ⴱ ⫺.06 .27ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ

.44ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ

⫺.11ⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.01 ⫺.12ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱ

.16ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ

.11 .21 .08 .15 .20

.33ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱⴱ

⫺.21ⴱⴱ .12ⴱ .00 ⫺.13ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ

.43ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ

⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱ ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ

.27ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱ

.31 .20 .16 .25 .18

.21ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱ

⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ

.35ⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱ

⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ

.40ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱ

.23 .25 .31

Note. n ⫽ 445. PID-5 ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012); 5DPT ⫽ 5 Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT; van Kampen, 2012); N ⫽ Neuroticism; E ⫽ Extraversion; I ⫽ Insensitivity; O ⫽ Orderliness; A ⫽ Absorption; ADV ⫽ averaged discriminant validity (i.e., average correlation with scales within other domains). ⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

listing traits, then many more should also be cross-listed, such as intimacy avoidance, perseveration, anhedonia, risk-taking, unusual beliefs and experience, eccentricity, and perceptual dysregulation, as well as additional cross-listing for restricted affectivity, depressivity, and suspiciousness. The cross-listing for restricted affectivity is worth noting in particular. In the initial presentation of the dimensional trait model, restricted affectivity was placed solely within negative affectivity (Krueger et al., 2011). In the initial and the primary citation for the PID-5, restricted affectivity was again placed solely within negative affectivity (i.e., Krueger et al., 2012). However, in DSM–5 its primary location appears to be within detachment (APA, 2013), as suggested as well perhaps by Krueger and Markon (2014). Some studies have placed it within negative affectivity (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2012); other studies have placed it within detachment (e.g., Hopwood et al., 2013); and still other studies place it within both domains (e.g., Watson et al., 2013). This would appear to make it ambiguous or inconsistent in how researchers have been scoring the PID-5 for the domain scales. However, it is now recommended on the DSM–5 website to not actually include the Restricted Affectivity scale when scoring for the domain of negative affectivity or detachment. Left out of the scoring for any domain are the four scales whose traits are cross-listed (i.e., Depressivity, Hostil-

ity, Restricted Affectivity, and Suspiciousness). In fact, six additional scales are also excluded from the DSM–5 scoring of the domain scales (i.e., Submissiveness, Attention-Seeking, Perseveration, Rigid Perfectionism, Callousness, and Risk-Taking). There are perhaps three possible explanations for the current results. One might be simply the psychometric properties of the scales. The PID-5 may not have been constructed with an eye toward maximizing discriminant validity. Clark and Watson (1995) provided an authoritative guide to the construction of personality scales. The approach taken by Krueger et al. (2012) was for the most part consistent with their recommendations, including the selection of items on the basis of factor and item response theory (IRT) analysis. However, Clark and Watson (1995) suggested that “a well-designed factor analysis also can play a crucial role in enhancing the discriminant validity of a new measure” (p. 317). They provided a hypothetical illustration in which the test author is attempting to create a new measure (e.g., Detachment) that would be sufficiently distinct from neuroticism, or in this case negative affectivity. “The easiest way to avoid creating yet another neuroticism measure is to subject the items of the provisional [Detachment] scale—together with a roughly equal number of neuroticism items—to a joint factor analysis” (p. 317). Items for the Detachment scale that loaded on neuroticism would


330

Table 6 Correlations of PID-5 Trait Scales With HEXACO PI-R Domains



Em

Ex

Ag

H-H

Al

C

O

ADV

.56ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ ⫺.50ⴱⴱ .51ⴱⴱ .07 .26ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ

⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.52ⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ

⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.74ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.09

⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱ

⫺.03 ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ .01 ⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.09

⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ

⫺.03 ⫺.07 ⫺.09 ⫺.10 ⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.08

.17 .26 .25 .17 .42 .25 .14

⫺.09 .16ⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .15ⴱⴱ

⫺.74ⴱⴱ ⫺.74ⴱⴱ ⫺.62ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ

⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ ⫺.34ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ

⫺.11 ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.06 ⫺.36ⴱⴱ

⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ

⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.10 ⫺.17ⴱⴱ

⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.10 ⫺.08

.23 .28 .23 .14 .26

⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.08 ⫺.19ⴱⴱ .08 ⫺.34ⴱⴱ

.10 ⫺.20ⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ

⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.43ⴱⴱ

⫺.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.55ⴱⴱ ⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ

⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.44ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ ⫺.67ⴱⴱ

⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.40ⴱⴱ ⫺.04 ⫺.10 ⫺.28ⴱⴱ

.14ⴱ .04 .04 .17ⴱⴱ ⫺.15ⴱⴱ

.14 .18 .11 .18 .25

.00 .02 .17ⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱ ⫺.43ⴱⴱ

⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.09 ⫺.15ⴱⴱ ⫺.41ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱ

⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ .04

⫺.30ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ ⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ

⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ ⫺.14ⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ

⫺.54ⴱⴱ ⫺.58ⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱ ⫺.59ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱⴱ

.00 ⫺.04 .01 ⫺.04 .17ⴱⴱ

.17 .17 .14 .24 .22

.16ⴱⴱ .05 .26ⴱⴱ

⫺.00 ⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ

⫺.17ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ

⫺.18ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ

⫺.14ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱ

⫺.13ⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.26ⴱⴱ

.24ⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱ .09

.13 .20 .24

Note. n ⫽ 330. PID-5 ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012); HEXACO PI-R ⫽ HEXACO Personality Inventory (Lee & Ashton, 2004); Em ⫽ Emotionality, Ex ⫽ Extraversion; Ag ⫽ Agreeableness; H-H ⫽ Honesty-Humility; Al ⫽ Altruism; C ⫽ Conscientiousness; O ⫽ Openness; ADV ⫽ averaged discriminant validity (i.e., average correlation with scales within other domains). ⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

be subject to deletion and/or replacement. “This procedure can be followed for any construct that needs to be differentiated from the target scale” (Clark & Watson, 1995, p. 317). In sum, “if issues of convergent and discriminant validity have been considered from the outset, then it will be far easier to delineate the construct boundaries precisely and to achieve the important goal of knowing exactly what the scale measures and what it does not” (Clark & Watson, 1995, p. 318). Item selection and/or scale evaluation for the PID-5, however, did not include cross-domain factor analyses. The initial item pool for the PID-5 consisted of 296 items: eight items for each of 37 facet scales. The eight items for each respective scale, considered independently of all other scales, were submitted to a factor analysis. If the factor analysis “indicated that a one-factor solution fit the data best, all items were retained” (Krueger et al., 2012, p. 1882). If the analysis indicated the presence of more than one factor, then “we selected items loading on the largest factor . . . and reran the exploratory factor analysis to confirm that a one-factor solution fit best” (p. 1882). Each scale was then potentially reduced further by fitting each set of respective items to a one-factor solution. “If any items had standardized loadings on their facet of less than 0.5, those items were dropped” (Krueger et al., 2012, pp. 1882–1883). Each resulting scale was then submitted to an independent IRT analysis. Test information curves indicated a problem for six of the scales. As a result, additional items were dropped.

In the second round of scale development, 231 of the original items were considered, plus 85 new items. Each set of items within a respective scale was again evaluated (independently from any other scale) using exploratory factor and IRT analyses. This round of item analysis though did include an additional consideration of “all items within each of the proposed domains” (Krueger et al., 2012, p. 1884), but not across domains. This resulted in a reconfiguration of scales within a respective domain. “The results of item-level within-domain exploratory factor analyses . . . suggested that the 37 facets could be collapsed into a more parsimonious set of 25 traits” (Krueger et al., 2012, p. 1885). Additional factor analyses for each respective facet scale, considered alone, then led to further scale reduction. “We were left with a set of 220 items that reliably measured all 25 traits, with four to 14 items included within each facet” (Krueger et al., 2012, p. 1885). In sum, items were not evaluated with respect to discriminant validity across domains. The factor and IRT analyses were confined to either the items within a respective facet scale or within a respective domain. It is possible that alternative sets of items might have been selected if consideration had been given to between-domain discriminant validity. In defense of the construction of the PID-5, though, discriminant validity is not often a focus of consideration in scale construction. For example, discriminant validity was not a focus in the construction of the Five Factor Obsessive-Compulsive Inventory (FFOCI;


331

Table 7 Correlations of PID-5 Trait Scales With IPIP-NEO Domains



N

E

A

C

O

AVD

.71ⴱⴱ .77ⴱⴱ ⫺.08 .41ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱ

⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.01 ⫺.12 ⫺.18ⴱ ⫺.10

⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 ⫺.43ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.59ⴱⴱ ⫺.30ⴱⴱ .08

⫺.35ⴱⴱ ⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.15 ⫺.27ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱ

.11 .05 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.10 ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ ⫺.17ⴱ

.22 .18 .22 .14 .31 .27 .13

.48ⴱⴱ .68ⴱⴱ .75ⴱⴱ .14 .50ⴱⴱ

⫺.67ⴱⴱ ⫺.57ⴱⴱ ⫺.45ⴱⴱ ⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.24ⴱⴱ

⫺.23ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.16ⴱ ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.51ⴱⴱ

⫺.20ⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱ ⫺.27ⴱⴱ

⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.18ⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.26ⴱⴱ ⫺.13

.28 .38 .40 .22 .36

.03 .29ⴱⴱ ⫺.12 .05 .08

.35ⴱⴱ .12 .37ⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱ .08

⫺.55ⴱⴱ ⫺.60ⴱⴱ ⫺.49ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ ⫺.74ⴱⴱ

⫺.22ⴱⴱ ⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.05 ⫺.25ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ

.01 ⫺.10 ⫺.08 .08 ⫺.32ⴱⴱ

.16 .25 .16 .22 .32

.39ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ ⫺.07

⫺.04 .14 ⫺.06 ⫺.21ⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱ

⫺.46ⴱⴱ ⫺.47ⴱⴱ ⫺.29ⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ

⫺.69ⴱⴱ ⫺.55ⴱⴱ .11 ⫺.61ⴱⴱ ⫺.31ⴱⴱ

⫺.12 ⫺.07 ⫺.12 ⫺.07 .14

.26 .25 .19 .27 .27

.10 ⫺.09 ⫺.03

⫺.32ⴱⴱ ⫺.33ⴱⴱ ⫺.42ⴱⴱ

⫺.21ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ ⫺.39ⴱⴱ

.08 .21ⴱⴱ ⫺.08

.20 .31 .32

.17ⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱ

Note. n ⫽ 296. PID-5 ⫽ Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (Krueger et al., 2012); IPIP-NEO ⫽ International Personality Item Pool-NEO (Goldberg et al., 2006); N ⫽ Neuroticism; E ⫽ Extraversion; A ⫽ Agreeableness; C ⫽ Conscientiousness; O ⫽ Openness; ADV ⫽ averaged discriminant validity (i.e., average correlation with scales within other domains). ⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

Samuel et al., 2012). Item selection for the FFOCI was based largely on convergence with respective “parent” FFM facet scales and measures of obsessive– compulsive personality disorder. Crego, Samuel, and Widiger (2015) did indeed indicate that the two of the 12 FFOCI may have some problematic discriminant validity across FFM domains (i.e., the Constricted and Inflexible scales from low openness). A second possible explanation is the potentially questionable placements for some of the facet scales. Watson et al. (2013), for example, suggested that “standard trait models typically do not place either depressivity or suspiciousness with the extraversion domain” (p. 323). They indicated that suspiciousness is typically placed within antagonism (suspiciousness though is cross-listed in DSM–5 within negative affectivity rather than antagonism). Watson et al. reanalyzed PID-5 results after shifting a couple of scales to what they considered to be more appropriate placements. They did find that the correlation of Detachment with Neuroticism decreased somewhat, but not substantially. In addition, this explanation would not appear to have any bearing on most of the weak discriminant validity findings of the current study, such as those for Perseveration, Intimacy Avoidance, Rigid Perfectionism, RiskTaking, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, Eccentricity, and Perceptual Dysregulation.

A third possible explanation is that cross-domain correlations are an inherent, necessary, and/or unavoidable reflection of a general factor of maladaptivity that is common to all of the PID-5 scales (Krueger et al., 2012; Quilty et al., 2013). The NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, IPC, HEXACO PI-R, and 5DPT are themselves assessing, in part, maladaptive personality traits. NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, and 5DPT Neuroticism, HEXACO PI-R Emotionality, and IPC Negative Emotionality all align conceptually and empirically with PID-5 Negative Affectivity. The NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, IPC, and HEXACO PI-R Antagonism scales, along with 5DPT Insensitivity, do similarly assess for maladaptive antagonism in a manner quite comparable to PID-5 Antagonism. There is also a good deal of support for a general factor of personality (Musek, 2007), which may reflect a nonspecific social effectiveness (Loehlin, 2012; Rushton & Irwing, 2011), or perhaps just an evaluative, social desirability (Ashton, Lee, Goldberg, & de Vries, 2009). The general factor of personality is likely to align well with the general factor of psychopathology. Of course, if this general factor of personality does exist (see Hopwood, Wright, & Donnellan, 2011, though for an argument against its existence), it did not appear to seriously impair the discriminant validity of the NEO PI-R, IPIPNEO, IPC, 5DPT, or HEXACO PI-R in the current study. Perfect simple structure is an unrealistic expectation for personality trait


332


models as interstitial correlations is a natural reflection of the complexity of personality structure (Hopwood & Donnellan, 2010; Marsh, Morin, Parker, & Kaur, 2014). Nevertheless, the average cross-domain correlations obtained in the current study for the general personality measures were considerably lower than was obtained for the PID-5. In contrast to the PID-5, though, the NEO PI-R, IPIP-NEO, IPC, and HEXACO PI-R include a substantial number of items assessing adaptive functioning typically keyed in the opposite direction of the items assessing maladaptive functioning (the 5DPT places somewhat more emphasis on maladaptive functioning; van Kampen, 2012), whereas all of the PID-5 scales and most of its items (when keyed positively) are assessing for maladaptive functioning. This may then contribute to a much stronger general factor of maladaptivity. “The PID-5 scales tend to be positively correlated because they all involve content with negative valence; that is, maladaptive content particularly pertinent to personality disorder” (Krueger & Markon, 2014, p. 489). There is support for a general factor of psychopathology that could provide an explanation for some of the substantial disorder co-occurrence throughout the entire diagnostic manual. Caspi et al. (2014) refer to this as a “p factor” (comparable with the common g factor of intelligence; Deary, 2001; and perhaps as well the demoralization factor suggested by Tellegen et al., 2006). “Most common psychiatric disorders are unified by a single psychopathology dimension representing lesser-to-greater severity of psychopathology” (Caspi et al., 2014, p. 120). Wright et al. (2012) indeed identified a single common factor across all of the 25 PID-5 scales. “In the one-factor solution, each of the 25 primary facets loaded at ⬎.40, with the exception of Submissiveness (.35), Attention-Seeking (.35), Grandiosity (.39), and Risk-Taking (.21), suggesting that this single factor captures overall ‘personality pathology’ well” (Wright et al., 2012, p. 954). To the extent that a p factor is the explanation for the current findings, one might then in turn suggest that perhaps the longstanding criticism of the weak discriminant validity for the DSM–IV–TR personality disorders (e.g., Clark, 2007; Trull et al., 2013; Widiger & Trull, 2007) has been to some degree overstated or misunderstood. A p factor of personality pathology though might not provide a complete explanation for the cross-domain correlations. A number of the PID-5 scales obtained good to excellent discriminant validity, such as Emotional Lability, Separation Insecurity, Manipulativeness, Withdrawal, Impulsivity, and Grandiosity. These scales are assessing maladaptive personality functioning, yet managed to consistently obtain good to excellent discriminant validity, at least with respect to their relationship with general personality functioning. It would be useful to compare the current findings obtained for the PID-5 with results obtained for other measures of maladaptive personality functioning that are comparable with the PID-5, such as the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality-2 (SNAP-2; Clark et al., in press), and the DAPP-BQ (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). However, no prior study has reported the crossdomain correlations for the DAPP-BQ (correlations among the three higher-order domain scales of the SNAP-2 [or SNAP]) have been reported, but this would not be a fair comparison because the higher-order scales of the SNAP-2 are typically understood to be the normal personality scales that are comparable to the NEO PI-R and IPC).

However, correlations among the lower-order trait scales are provided within the respective test manuals of the DAPP-BQ and SNAP. Whereas the average discriminant validity coefficients for the PID-5 trait scales ranged from .17 (Risk Taking) to .48 (Perseveration, Submissiveness, and Perceptual Dysregulation), with a median value of .37, for the DAPP-BQ general population sample, they ranged from .09 (Compulsivity) to .40 (Low Affiliation), with a median of .25 (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). This might though not be an entirely fair comparison because DAPP-BQ Suspiciousness and Self-Harm were necessarily excluded from this analysis because they are not located within any domain, precisely because they lack adequate discriminant validity (Livesley & Jackson, 2009). A discriminative validity comparison is even more striking with the SNAP (SNAP-2 values are not yet available; Clark et al., in press). For a student sample, they ranged from .08 (Dependency) to .20 (Detachment), with a median value of only .12 (Clark, 1994). For a clinical sample, the median value was .19 for male patients and .17 for female. None of the averaged discriminant validity coefficients reached a medium effect size for the SNAP (above .30; Cohen, 1992), whereas 20 (80%) were above .30 for the PID-5 (see Table 2). This is perhaps a reflection that the construction of the SNAP (Clark, 1994) did follow closely the recommendations of Clark and Watson (1995) for the maximization of discriminant validity. It would be of interest for future research though to compare within the same sample the crossdomain correlations obtained for the maladaptive trait scales of the PID-5, DAPP-BQ, and SNAP, as well as the CAT-PD (Simms et al., 2011). One can also compare the PID-5 discriminant validity results with respect to the relationship of the DAPP-BQ and SNAP with measures of general personality functioning. Clark (1994) reported the correlations of the SNAP maladaptive trait scales with two alternative measures of the FFM. With respect to their relationship with the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992), 5 of the 12 SNAP scales (42%) obtained at least one medium effect size relationship with a different domain (Cohen, 1992). With respect to their relationship with the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, 1999), only one of the 12 SNAP scales obtained at least one medium effect size relationship with a different domain. Livesley and Jackson (2009) reported the correlations of all 18 DAPP-BQ scales with the NEO-FFI domains. Only 7 of the 18 scales (39%) obtained a median effect size relationship with another domain of the FFM. In contrast, 22 of the 25 PID-5 scales (88%) obtained a median effect size relationship with another FFM domain as assessed by the IPIP-NEO; 68% when the FFM was assessed by the NEO PI-R. One can also compare these instruments with respect to the total number of medium effect size relationships outside of a respective domain. For the SNAP, only 5 of the 41 total possible discriminant validity coefficients (12%) were at the level of a median effect size for the NEO-FFI results and only one of 41 (2%) for the BFI. For the DAPP-BQ, only 8 of the 72 were median effect size relationships (11%). For the PID-5, 29% of the 100 possible discriminant validity coefficients obtained a medium effect size relationship with NEO PI-R scales from other domains, and 34% when the IPIP-NEO was considered. In sum, the SNAP and the DAPP-BQ involve scales comparable with the PID-5, but they do appear to obtain better discriminant validity in their relationships with gen-



eral personality structure. It would again though be of interest for future research to directly compare in the same sample the PID-5 with the DAPP-BQ and SNAP-2 (as well as the CAT-PD) with respect to discriminant validity. It might even be useful to compare the PID-5 domain (and trait) scales with the DSM–IV syndromes. For example, Mullins-Sweatt and Widiger (2010) and Hopwood et al. (2009) demonstrated empirically that common problems in living have relatively more specific relationships with the different domains of the FFM than is generally obtained by the DSM–IV–TR diagnostic categories. Work-related impairments correlated specifically with conscientiousness, social-interpersonal problems with agreeableness and extraversion (albeit as well with neuroticism), and distress and dysphoria correlated specifically with neuroticism. Given the results of the current study, it would be of interest to determine whether comparably specific relationships with distinct areas of impairment are obtained as well with the PID-5 dimensional trait model. It is important to acknowledge though that the PID-5 has sufficient discriminant validity to yield a five-factor structure in 10 factor analytic studies. On the other hand, it should perhaps also be acknowledged that these studies have typically used exploratory factor analyses (e.g., Anderson et al., 2013; De Fruyt et al., 2013; Griffin & Samuel, 2014; Krueger et al., 2012; Morey et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2013; Wright & Simms, 2014; Wright et al., 2012). Gore and Widiger (2013) did obtain adequate fit indices with an exploratory structural equation modeling, but only by allowing for high correlations across domains that occurred within each measure. Fossati et al. (2013), however, did obtain adequate fit indices in a confirmatory factor analysis of the PID-5. Nevertheless, the results of the current study do suggest that improvement in discriminant validity might be possible. It is conceivable that a p factor of maladaptive personality will place a limit on how much improvement can occur (Caspi et al., 2014; Wright et al., 2012), but it does appear to be the case that alternative measures of maladaptive personality functioning have been relatively more successful, and in at least one case markedly more successful. Discriminant validity may not typically be an emphasis in scale construction, but a purported strength of the dimensional trait model relative to the DSM–IV diagnostic categories has been discriminant validity (Clark, 2007; Krueger & Eaton, 2010; Widiger & Trull, 2007) and it would be important to maximize this potential strength in future editions of the dimensional trait model.

Limitations and Future Directions A limitation of the current study was the absence of the ability to compare empirically within the same sample the discriminant validity of the PID-5 with comparable measures of maladaptive personality traits (e.g., DAPP-BQ, SNAP-2, and CAT-PD). The current study was the first to report the correlations among the PID-5 domain scales, and among only a few to report the correlations among the trait scales. Considered as well were the correlations of the 25 PID-5 scales with the domain scales from five alternative measures of general personality (i.e., NEO PI-R, IPIPNEO, HEXACO PI-R, 5DPT, and IPC). The results of the current study were compared with prior results from the SNAP and DAPP-BQ but it would be useful for future research to compare directly within the same sample the discriminant validity of the

333

PID-5 with other dimensional models of maladaptive personality as well as with the DSM–IV diagnostic categories. The current study reported results from three independent samples. However, an additional limitation is that only one sample was confined to persons who have been in some form of mental health treatment. This is not inconsistent with existing PID-5 research, but it would be important for future research to replicate and extend the current findings within additional clinical populations.

References Almagor, M., Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (1995). The Big Seven Model: A cross-cultural replication and further exploration of the basic dimensions of natural language trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 300 –307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .69.2.300 American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Quilty, L. C., Veltri, C. O., 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, 20, 286 –294. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/1073191112471141 Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327– 353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/per.417 Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Hendrickse, J., & Born, M. P. (2012). The maladaptive personality traits of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5) in relation to the HEXACO personality factors and schizotypy/dissociation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26, 641– 659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2012.26.5.641 Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Goldberg, L. R., & de Vries, R. E. (2009). Higher order factors of personality: Do they exist? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 79 –91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868309338467 Bagby, R. M., & Farvolden, P. (2004). The Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4). In M. J. Hilsenroth, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment, Vol. 2. Personality assessment (pp. 122–133). New York, NY: Wiley. Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., . . . Moffitt, T. E. (2014). The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the structure of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 119 –137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 2167702613497473 Clark, L. A. (1994). SNAP. Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota press. Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorder: Perennial issues and an emerging reconceptualization. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 227–257. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.57 .102904.190200 Clark, L. A., Simms, L. J., Wu, K. D., & Casillas, A. (in press). Manual for the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP-2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309 –319. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. Crego, C., Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2015). The FFOCI and other measures and models of OCPD. Assessment, 22, 135–151. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/1073191114539382


334


Deary, I. J. (2001). Intelligence, a very short introduction. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/actrade/ 9780192893215.001.0001 De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., De Bolle, M., Wille, B., Markon, K., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor framework for DSM–5 in a university student sample. Assessment, 20, 295–307. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113475808 Enders, C. K. (2006). A primer on the use of modern missing-data methods in psychosomatic medicine research. Psychosomatic Medicine, 68, 427– 436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.psy.0000221275.75056.d8 Fossati, A., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Borroni, S., & Maffei, C. (2013). Reliability and validity of the personality inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5): Predicting DSM–IV personality disorders and psychopathy in community-dwelling Italian adults. Assessment, 20, 689 –708. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/1073191113504984 Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C., & Gough, H. G. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84 –96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp .2005.08.007 Gore, W. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). The DSM–5 dimensional trait model and five-factor models of general personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 816 – 821. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032822 Griffin, S. A., & Samuel, D. B. (2014). A closer look at the lower-order structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Comparison with the Five-Factor Model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 406 – 412. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000074 Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 332–346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 1088868310361240 Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Ansell, E. B., Grilo, C. M., Sanislow, C. A., McGlashan, T. H., . . . Skodol, A. E. (2009). The convergent and discriminant validity of five-factor traits: Current and prospective social, work, and recreational dysfunction. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23, 466 – 476. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.5.466 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, 424 – 432. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0026656 Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G., & Donnellan, M. B. (2011). Evaluating the evidence for the general factor of personality across multiple inventories. Journal of Research in Personality, 45, 468 – 478. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.jrp.2011.06.002 Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G., Krueger, R. F., Schade, N., Markon, K. E., & Morey, L. C. (2013). DSM–5 pathological personality traits and the personality assessment inventory. Assessment, 20, 269 –285. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486286 John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Krueger, R. F. (2013). Personality disorders are the vanguard of the post-DSM-5.0 era. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 355–362. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000028 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. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002674 Krueger, R. F., & Eaton, N. R. (2010). Personality traits and the classification of mental disorders: Toward a more complete integration in DSM–5 and an empirical model of psychopathology. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 97–118. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/a0018990

Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., Markon, K. E., Derringer, J., . . . Livesley, W. J. (2011). Deriving an empirical structure of personality pathology for DSM–5. Journal of Personality Disorders, 25, 170 –191. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2011.25.2.170 Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM–5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/ annurev-clinpsy-032813-153732 Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2004). Psychometric properties of the HEXACO Personality Inventory. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 39, 329 –358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3902_8 Livesley, W. J., & Jackson, D. N. (2009). Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology- Basic Questionnaire technical manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems. Loehlin, J. C. (2012). The general factor of personality: What lies beyond? Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 463– 467. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.paid.2012.04.013 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy032813-153700 McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (2003). Personality in adulthood. A fivefactor theory perspective (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.4324/9780203428412 Morey, L. C., Krueger, R. F., & Skodol, A. E. (2013). The hierarchical structure of clinician ratings of proposed DSM–5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 836 – 841. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/a0034003 Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., & Widiger, T. A. (2010). Personality-related problems in living: An empirical approach. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 230 –238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ a0018228 Musek, J. (2007). A general factor of personality: Evidence for the Big One in the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1213– 1233. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.003 Quilty, L. C., Ayearst, L., Chmielewski, M., Pollock, B. G., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). The psychometric properties of the personality inventory for DSM–5 in an APA DSM–5 field trial sample. Assessment, 20, 362–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486183 Rojas, S. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2014). Convergent and discriminant validity of the Five Factor Form. Assessment, 21, 143–157. http://dx.doi .org/10.1177/1073191113517260 Rushton, J. P., & Irwing, P. (2011). The general factor of personality: Normal and abnormal. In T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of individual differences (pp. 132–161). West Sussex, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. http://dx.doi .org/10.1002/9781444343120.ch5 Samuel, D. B., Riddell, A. D. B., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). A five-factor measure of obsessive-compulsive personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 456 – 465. http://dx.doi .org/10.1080/00223891.2012.677885 Shapiro, D. N., Chandler, J., & Mueller, P. A. (2013). Using Mechanical Turk to study clinical populations. Clinical Psychological Science, 1, 213–220. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2167702612469015 Simms, E. E. (2009). Assessments of the facets of the five factor model: Further development and validation of a new personality measure (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Simms, L. J., Goldberg, L. R., Roberts, J. E., Watson, D., Welte, J., & Rotterman, J. H. (2011). Computerized adaptive assessment of personality disorder: Introducing the CAT-PD project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 380 –389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011 .577475


DISCRIMINANT VALIDITY OF THE PID-5 Skodol, A. E. (2012). Personality disorders in DSM–5. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 8, 317–344. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurevclinpsy-032511-143131 Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, M., Arbisi, P. A., McNulty, J. L., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Further evidence on the validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Addressing questions raised by Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, and Jordan and Nichols. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 148 –171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_04 Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent structure of DSM–5 personality trait facets and five-factor model trait domains. Assessment, 20, 308 –311. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191112457589 Trull, T. J., Scheiderer, E. M., & Tomko, R. L. (2013). Axis II comorbidity. In T. A. Widiger (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality disorders (pp. 219 –236). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. van Kampen, D. (2012). The 5-Dimensional Personality Test (5DPT): Relationships with two lexically based instruments and the validation of the absorption scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94, 92–101. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011.627966 Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Ro, E., & Clark, L. A. (2013). Integrating normal and pathological personality: Relating the DSM–5 traitdimensional model to general traits of personality. Assessment, 20, 312–326. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191113485810

335

Widiger, T. A., Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (2013). Diagnosis of personality disorder using the five-factor model and the proposed DSM–5. In T. A. Widiger & P. T. Costa (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (3rd ed., pp. 285–310). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/13939-019 Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). The American Psychiatric Association’s research agenda for the DSM–V. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19, 103–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.19.2.103 .62626 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. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62 .2.71 Wright, A. G. C., & Simms, L. J. (2014). On the structure of personality disorder traits: Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5, 43–54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000037 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, 121, 951–957. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0027669

Convergent and discriminant validity of the Five Factor Form.

Measuring suicidality using the personality assessment inventory: a convergent validity study with federal inmates.

Convergent and discriminant validity of FIRO-B questionnaire.

Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity of the Student School Engagement Measure.

Factorial structure and convergent and discriminant validity of the E (Empathy) scale.

Bilingual advantages in executive functioning: problems in convergent validity, discriminant validity, and the identification of the theoretical constructs.

Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: a new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders.

Obsessions and compulsions: dimensional structure, reliability, convergent and divergent validity of the Padua Inventory.

Factor structure, convergent validity, and discriminant validity of the NIH Toolbox Cognitive Health Battery (NIHTB-CHB) in adults.

Incarcerated youth with personality disorders: prevalence, comorbidity and convergent validity.

Developing the yearning in situations of loss scale: convergent and discriminant validity for bereavement, romantic breakup, and homesickness.

The Construct Validity of the Dutch Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (PID-5) in a Clinical Sample.

Private self-consciousness: does it influence convergent and discriminant validity of self-reported anxiety and depression?

Analysis of the convergent and discriminant validity of the CBCL, TRF, and YSR in a clinic-referred sample.

Establishing the validity and reliability of the Project Talent Personality Inventory.

The factorial and discriminant validity of the German version of the Post-traumatic Growth Inventory in stroke patients.

Convergent Validity of the PUTS.

Elucidating the Construct Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory Triarchic Scales.

Denial and the discrepancy between heart rate and reported negative affect: a study of convergent and discriminant validity.

Rotation to Maximize the Construct Validity of Factors in the NEO Personality Inventory.

Evaluating the Validity Indices of the Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent Version.

Relationship between the basic personality inventory and the NEO-Personality Inventory in a nonpatient sample.

[Convergent validity of the preliminary Spanish version of the Child Abuse Potential Inventory: depression and marital adjustment].

Motor competence assessment in children: convergent and discriminant validity between the BOT-2 Short Form and KTK testing batteries.