Skip to main content
Search
Search
    Quick Search anywhere
    Quick search in Citations
Advanced Search
Skip main navigationClose Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Previous article
Next article

Validity of an Inconsistency Scale for the PID-5 in Community-Dwelling Younger and Older Adults

Published Online:November 06, 2023https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000802

Abstract

Abstract: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; Krueger et al., 2012) is a self-report questionnaire measuring pathological traits of personality disorders. Keeley and colleagues (2016) developed an Inconsistency Scale for the PID-5 (PID-5-INC) to detect random responses. We examined the ability of the PID-5-INC to detect inconsistent responders in a new linguistic context (Dutch) and age group (older adults). The Dutch PID-5 version (van der Heijden et al., 2014) was administered to two Dutch community-dwelling younger (18–64 years old: N = 439) and older adults (65 years or older: N = 251). The PID-5-INC item pairs showed large interitem correlations in the younger adult sample and at least medium interitem correlations, except for one item pair, in the older adult sample. Similarly to Keeley and colleagues, a cut-off score of 17 was the optimal cut-off point for both the younger and older adult samples. However, for the younger adult sample, a cut-off score of 16 provided an even better balance between specificity and sensitivity. We concluded that our results support the use of the PID-5-INC in Dutch-speaking community-dwelling younger and older adults and point out the importance of including validity scales for self-report questionnaires.

References

  • Al-Dajani, N., Gralnick, T. M., & Bagby, R. M. (2016). A psychometric review of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): Current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 62–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1107572 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Ashton, M. C., de Vries, R. E., & Lee, K. (2017). Trait variance and response style variance in the scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 192–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1208210 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bagby, R. M., & Sellbom, M. (2018). The validity and clinical utility of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Response Inconsistency Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(4), 398–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1420659 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bastiaens, T., Claes, L., Smits, D., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Rossi, G., Vanwalleghem, D., Vermote, R., Lowyck, B., Claes, S., & De Hert, M. (2016). The construct validity of the Dutch Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Personality Disorders (PID-5) in a clinical sample. Assessment, 23(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115575069 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Bastiaens, T., Smits, D., De Hert, M., Vanwalleghem, D., & Claes, L. (2016). DSM-5 section III personality traits and section II personality disorders in a Flemish community sample. Psychiatry Research, 238, 290–298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.02.056 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Beullens, K., Loosveldt, G., & Vandenplas, C. (2019). Interviewer effects among older respondents in the European Social Survey. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 31(4), 609–625. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edy031 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdle. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Coste, J., Quinquis, L., Audureau, E., & Pouchot, J. (2013). Non response, incomplete and. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11(1), Article 44. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-44 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Debast, I., Rossi, G., & Van Alphen, S. P. J. (2017). Construct validity of the DSM-5 section III maladaptive trait domains in older adults. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31(5), 671–688. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_274 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Debast, I., Rossi, G., & Van Alphen, S. P. J. (2018). Age-neutrality of a brief assessment of the section III alternative model for personality disorders in older adults. Assessment, 25(3), 310–323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118754706 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., Van Hiel, A., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2014). The hierarchical structure and construct validity of the PID-5 trait measure in adolescence. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 158–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12042 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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(3), 295–307. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113475808 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • DeRight, J., & Jorgensen, R. S. (2015). I just want my research credit: Frequency of suboptimal effort in a non-clinical healthy undergraduate sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(1), 101–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2014.989267 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dhillon, S., Bagby, R. M., Kushner, S. C., & Burchett, D. (2017). The impact of underreporting and overreporting on the validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): A simulation analog design investigation. Psychological Assessment, 29(4), 473–478. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000359 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Dubois, A., Sellbom, M., & Rossi, G. (2023). Validity of an Inconsistency Scale for the PID-5 in community-dwelling younger and older adults [Data set], https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/26ZHS First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • George, D., & Mallery, P. (2003). SPSS for Windows step by step: A simple guide and reference. 11.0 update (4th ed.). Allyn & Bacon. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Keeley, J. W., Webb, C., Peterson, D., Roussin, L., & Flanagan, E. H. (2016). Development of a Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(4), 351–359. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1158719 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Knäuper, B., Carrière, K., Chamandy, M., Xu, Z., Schwarz, N., & Rosen, N. O. (2016). How aging affects self-reports. European Journal of Ageing, 13(2), 185–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10433-016-0369-0 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • 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/S0033291711002674 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Le Corff, Y., Gingras, V., & Busque-Carrier, M. (2017). Equivalence of unproctored internet testing and proctored paper-and-pencil testing of the Big Five. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 25(2), 154–160. https://doi.org/10.1111/ijsa.12168 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Lowmaster, S. E., Hartman, M. J., Zimmermann, J., Baldock, Z. C., & Kurtz, J. E. (2020). Further validation of the Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(6), 743–750. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1674320 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Maniaci, M. R., & Rogge, R. D. (2014). Caring about carelessness: Participant inattention and its effects on research. Journal of Research in Personality, 48, 61–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2013.09.008 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • McGee Ng, S. A., Bagby, R. M., Goodwin, B. E., Burchett, D., Sellbom, M., Ayearst, L. E., Dhillon, S., Yiu, S., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Baker, S. (2016). The effect of response bias on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 51–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2015.1096791 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identifying careless responses in survey data. Psychological Methods, 17(3), 437–455. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028085 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Orbons, I. M., Rossi, G., Verheul, R., Schoutrop, M. J., Derksen, J. L., Segal, D. L., & van Alphen, S. P. (2019). Continuity between DSM-5 Section II and III Personality Disorders in a Dutch clinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 274–283. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1467427 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Penders, K. A., Peeters, I. G., Metsemakers, J. F., & Van Alphen, S. P. (2020). Personality disorders in older adults: A review of epidemiology, assessment, and treatment. Current Psychiatry Reports, 22(3), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-020-1133-x First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Rossi, G., Debast, I., & Van Alphen, S. P. J. (2017). Measuring personality functioning in older adults: Construct validity of the Severity Indices of Personality Functioning – Short Form (SIPP-SF). Aging & Mental Health, 21(7), 703–711. https://doi.org/10.1080/13607863.2016.1154012 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Schneider, S., May, M., & Stone, A. A. (2018). Careless responding in Internet-based quality of life assessments. Quality of Life Research, 27(4), 1077–1088. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1767-2 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Sellbom, M., Dhillon, S., & Bagby, R. M. (2018). Development and validation of an Overreporting Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Psychological Assessment, 30(5), 582–593. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000507 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Somma, A., Borroni, S., Kelley, S. E., Edens, J. F., & Fossati, A. (2018). Further evidence for the validity of a Response Inconsistency Scale for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in Italian community-dwelling adolescents, community-dwelling adults, and clinical adults. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 929–940. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000547 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van den Broeck, J., Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Dierckx, E., & De Clercq, B. (2013). Age-neutrality of the trait facets proposed for personality disorders in DSM-5: A DIFAS analysis of the PID-5. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 35(4), 487–494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9364-3 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Van den Broeck, J., Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Dierckx, E., De Clercq, B., & Hofmans, J. (2014). Hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits in older adults: Joint factor analysis of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(2), 198–211. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2013_27_114 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • van der Heijden, P. T., Ingenhoven, T., Berghuis, H., & Rossi, G. (2014). DSM-5 persoonlijkheidsvragenlijst: PID-5-NL [DSM-5 Personality Inventory. Dutch translation of The Personality Inventory for DSM-5® (PID-5) – Adult, 2011 (American Psychiatric Association)]. Boom. First citation in articleGoogle Scholar

  • Weigold, A., Weigold, I. K., & Russell, E. J. (2013). Examination of the equivalence of self-report survey-based paper-and-pencil and Internet data collection methods. Psychological Methods, 18(1), 53–70. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031607 First citation in articleCrossref, Google Scholar

  • Zimmermann, J., Mayer, A., Leising, D., Krieger, T., grosse Holtforth, M., & Pretsch, J. (2017). Exploring occasion specificity in the assessment of DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 33(1), 47–54. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000271 First citation in articleLink, Google Scholar