Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in a Romanian Community Sample

IF 0.8 4区心理学 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies Pub Date : 2021-03-01 DOI:10.24193/JEBP.2021.1.1

Ticu Constantin, E. G. Nicuță, D. Grădinaru

{"title":"Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in a Romanian Community Sample","authors":"Ticu Constantin, E. G. Nicuță, D. Grădinaru","doi":"10.24193/JEBP.2021.1.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) evaluates 25 maladaptive personality traits proposed in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders. The questionnaire has been extensively investigated and validated in several languages. The current research sought to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument in a sample of nonclinical Romanian participants (N = 1276). Results indicated excellent internal consistency for the domain level, and very good reliability for the facet level. The assumption of unidimensionality was supported at both the domain and facet levels, apart from Risk Taking. Two domain scoring methods were also compared. One of them takes into consideration all the 25 lower order facets, whereas the other uses only 15 facets. Results show that mean differences across the two scoring methods were small, except for Disinhibition. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses revealed slightly better fit indices for the model which uses 15 facets only. Lastly, the hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits was explored. Results are discussed in the light of previous literature.","PeriodicalId":43042,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24193/JEBP.2021.1.1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 4

Abstract

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) evaluates 25 maladaptive personality traits proposed in the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders. The questionnaire has been extensively investigated and validated in several languages. The current research sought to examine the psychometric properties of the instrument in a sample of nonclinical Romanian participants (N = 1276). Results indicated excellent internal consistency for the domain level, and very good reliability for the facet level. The assumption of unidimensionality was supported at both the domain and facet levels, apart from Risk Taking. Two domain scoring methods were also compared. One of them takes into consideration all the 25 lower order facets, whereas the other uses only 15 facets. Results show that mean differences across the two scoring methods were small, except for Disinhibition. Moreover, confirmatory factor analyses revealed slightly better fit indices for the model which uses 15 facets only. Lastly, the hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits was explored. Results are discussed in the light of previous literature.

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

罗马尼亚社区样本DSM-5中人格量表的心理测量特征

DSM-5的人格量表(PID-5)评估了人格障碍替代模型中提出的25种适应不良人格特征。问卷已用几种语文进行了广泛调查和验证。目前的研究试图在非临床罗马尼亚参与者样本(N = 1276)中检查该仪器的心理测量特性。结果表明，在域水平上具有良好的内部一致性，在关节突水平上具有良好的可靠性。除了风险承担之外，在领域和方面水平上都支持单维性假设。并对两种域评分方法进行了比较。其中一个考虑了所有25个低阶面，而另一个只使用了15个面。结果表明，除了去抑制外，两种评分方法的平均差异很小。此外，验证性因子分析显示，仅使用15个方面的模型的拟合指标略好。最后，探讨了适应不良人格特质的层次结构。根据以往的文献对结果进行了讨论。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文去求助

来源期刊

Journal of Evidence-Based Psychotherapies PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-

CiteScore

1.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： The journal is devoted to the advancement of the clinical theory and practice of evidence-based psychotherapies (EBP) (e.g., evidence-based psychological assessments, evidence-based psychological treatments). The journal publishes original papers dealing with EBP and psychology, psychiatry, the medical and mental specialties, and allied areas of science.