Thimm et al.

BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61

DOI 10.1186/s40359-016-0169-5

RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short

Form (PID-5-SF): psychometric properties
and association with big five traits and
pathological beliefs in a Norwegian
population
Jens C. Thimm1*, Stian Jordan2 and Bo Bach3

Abstract
Background: With the publication of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-5), an alternative model for personality disorders based on personality dysfunction and pathological personality
traits was introduced. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is a 220-item self-report inventory designed to assess
the personality traits of this model. Recently, a short 100-item version of the PID-5 (PID-5-SF) has been developed. The
aim of this study was to investigate the score reliability and structure of the Norwegian PID-5-SF. Further, criterion
validity with the five factor model of personality (FFM) and pathological personality beliefs was examined.
Methods: A derivation sample of university students (N = 503) completed the PID-5, the Big Five Inventory (BFI), and
the Personality Beliefs Questionnaire – Short Form (PBQ-SF), whereas a replication sample of 127 students completed
the PID-5-SF along with the aforementioned measures.
Results: The short PID-5 showed overall good score reliability and structural validity. The associations with FFM traits
and pathological personality beliefs were conceptually coherent and similar for the two forms of the PID-5.
Conclusions: The results suggest that the Norwegian PID-5 short form is a reliable and efficient measure of the trait
criterion of the alternative model for personality disorders in DSM-5.
Keywords: PID-5, DSM-5 Section III, Personality disorders, Personality traits, Personality beliefs, Five-factor model

Background categories, and a weak scientific base of most categories

In the revision of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and (for reviews see [37, 53]). However, the Scientific Review
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; [3]), the Committee of the DSM-5 refused to adopt the proposed
DSM-5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work- PD model, but it was decided to include it in Section III
group developed a model for the diagnosis of personality as “Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders”
disorders (PD) based on a dimensional conceptualization (DSM-5 AMPD) for further investigation while the cat-
to address the criticisms against the categorical approach egorical approach of DSM-IV-TR [2] was retained verba-
to personality disorders of the DSM-IV-TR [2]. Some of tim in DSM-5 Section II (for an account of the revision
the well-acknowledged problems of the DSM-IV-TR process see [58]).
approach are high comorbidity across PD diagnoses, in- According to the DSM-5 AMPD, PDs are character-
adequate coverage of personality pathology, arbitrary ized by impairment of personality functioning (Criterion
thresholds, temporal instability, heterogeneity within A) and the presence of pathological personality traits
(Criterion B). Additionally, the alternative DSM-5 model
* Correspondence: [email protected] offers an opportunity to diagnose six retained PD types
1
Department of Psychology, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway (Antisocial, Avoidant, Borderline, Narcissistic, Obsessive-
Full list of author information is available at the end of the article

© The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to
the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver
(http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 2 of 11

compulsive, and Schizotypal PD) conceptualized as com- Danish [15], Dutch [12], and Norwegian [50]. In a previ-
binations of impairments in specific domains of personal- ous study [47], the Norwegian version of the original
ity functioning and personality traits. Criterion B of the 220 items PID-5 showed adequate to high internal
DSM-5 AMPD comprises 25 pathological personality trait consistency with alphas ranging from .72 (Irresponsibil-
facets that are organized into five broad higher order trait ity) to .95 (Eccentricity) in a university student sample.
domains (i.e., Negative affectivity, Detachment, Psychoti- An exploratory factor analysis with CF-Equamax oblique
cism, Antagonism, and Disinhibition) [3]. For a detailed rotation confirmed five higher factors that were congru-
description of the personality trait facets and domains of ent with other international findings. Deviating from the
the DSM-5 AMPD, we refer to Section III of the DSM-5 expected pattern, though in line with previous findings,
[3] and to Krueger and Markon [31]. A similar model for perseveration and rigid perfectionism loaded on psycho-
the diagnosis of PDs based on the assessment of the sever- ticism instead of Negative affectivity and Disinhibition,
ity of personality disturbance and five traits domain is respectively. Findings further indicated measurement in-
proposed for the 11th revision of the International Classifi- variance across a matched sample of US students [47].
cation of Diseases, which is due by 2018 [49]. However, despite its established reliability and validity,
The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; [4]) is a the length of the PID-5 may limit its use in clinical prac-
self-report inventory that was developed simultaneously tice and research. On the other hand, the brief form of
with the DSM-5 AMPD pathological personality trait the PID-5 assesses only the broad domains of the trait
taxonomy to aid the assessment of these traits. The PID- model, but does not cover the trait facets, which are par-
5 is the result of three waves of data collection in which ticularly informative for the clinician. Using item re-
37 maladaptive personality traits were reduced to 25 sponse theory, Maples et al. [33] developed an abridged
traits to be included in the instrument [30]. These traits form of the PID-5 with a smaller set of items (four items
are measured with 220 items. In addition, a brief 25- per scale). The shortened PID-5 (hereafter referred to as
item form measuring only the five trait domains [5] and PID-5-SF) showed adequate internal consistency with
an informant report form of the PID-5 [34] are available. alpha coefficients ranging from .89 to .91 (trait domains)
Despite the short time since its publication, the re- and .74 to .88 (trait facets) with means of .90 and .83, re-
search on the psychometric properties of the PID-5 in spectively. The factor structure of the PID-5-SF was
terms of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and highly similar to the original form (congruency coeffi-
validity has been extensive and reviewed by Krueger and cients from .93 to .99). The convergent correlations
Markon [31] and Al-Dajani, Gralnick, and Bagby [1]. ranged for the domains from .96 to .98 (mean .97) and
The scale development study [30] and subsequent exam- from .89 to 1.0 (mean .94) for the facets. The similarity
inations showed that the internal consistency of the of the discriminant validity of the original and shortened
PID-5 trait domains and facets is acceptable. The PID-5 PID-5 (the pattern of the correlations of a given domain
scale scores have further shown stability over an average with the four other domains) was .98. Finally, the criter-
of 1.44 years in a clinical sample [54]. Few et al. [21] ion validity with the FFM, interviewer-rated Section II
found a high convergence between self-reported and and Section III scores, and internalizing and externaliz-
clinician rated PID-5 traits. A number of studies have ing outcomes was nearly identical for both forms of the
examined how the domains and facets of the five-factor PID-5. These findings suggest that the DSM-5 AMPD
model of personality (FFM) are related to the PID-5 traits can be reliably and validly measured with a re-
(e.g., [18, 21, 27, 46, 55]). The results demonstrate that duced set of PID-5 items without loss of information
the PID-5 largely converges with the FFM. Concerning [33]. Recently, comparing all three forms of the PID-5,
psychopathology, it has been shown that PID-5 traits [10] largely replicated these findings for the Danish ver-
predict symptom counts of DSM-IV/DSM-5 section II sion of the PID-5. The Danish PID-5-SF showed satisfac-
PD categories (e.g., [6, 8, 13, 56]). Further, a high degree tory reliability and structural validity as well as a high
of overlap between common mental health problems profile agreement with the original form regarding correla-
and PID-5 traits has been found (e.g., [25, 59]). It has tions with interviewer-rated DSM-5 Section II PD symptom
also been demonstrated that the PID-5 traits are associated counts. In addition, all three forms discriminated between
with psychosocial and functional impairment [29, 55, 59]. psychiatric patients and community-dwelling adults [9].
Finally, constructs from cognitive therapy and schema Extending previous research on the original PID-5 in
therapy that are assumed the core of personality pathology Norway, the present study aimed to investigate the psy-
(dysfunctional beliefs, early maladaptive schemas, schema chometric properties of the Norwegian PID-5-SF by
modes; [14, 57]) can be well integrated with the PID-5 examining the score reliability of its scales, its factor
model [10, 24]. structure (structural validity), as well as the associations
The PID-5 has been translated into several languages, with normal FFM traits and core beliefs associated with
including Spanish [26], French [43], German [59], the DSM-IV/DSM-5 PD categories (criterion validity).
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 3 of 11

Method present study, the Cronbach’s alphas for the scales

Participants and procedure ranged from .75 (antisocial and narcissistic beliefs) to .91
This study used the same sample as the previous investi- (paranoid beliefs). The PBQ-SF was translated into Nor-
gation on the Norwegian PID-5 [47] comprising students wegian by the first author with permission by A. T. Beck
from a large Norwegian university, invited by email to and back-translated by a professional translator unfamil-
participate in the study. The sample consisted of 503 iar with the English version. Discrepancies between the
participants (76% female) with a mean age of 25.4 years back-translation and the original were discussed until
(SD = 6.9, range 18 to 66 years). In addition, a replication consensus on the Norwegian translation was reached.
sample comprising 127 students (mean age = 27.5 years,
SD = 8.8, range 19 to 67 years; 65% female) was recruited Data analytic procedures
for the present investigation in order to test psychomet- A series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) was con-
ric features of the PID-5-SF as a standalone measure. ducted to test the unidimensionality of the PID-5-SF
scales. The PID-5-SF items were treated as ordinal vari-
Measures ables, and the robust weighted least squares (WLSMW)
The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; [4]) is a estimator was used. Model fit was evaluated using the
220-item self-report inventory designed to assess the 25 comparative fit index (CFI). The reliability of the Norwe-
pathological personality trait facets and the five higher- gian PID-5-SF was examined by calculating the internal
order domains of the criterion B of the DSM-5 AMPD. consistencies of the facet and domain scores (Cronbach’s
The 25 scales are comprised of four (Submissiveness) to alpha), mean inter-item correlations, and item-total cor-
14 items (Callousness, Depressiveness, and Risk taking). relations. According to Clark and Watson [17], mean
Items are rated on a four-point Likert scale from 0 (very inter-item correlations should generally fall between .15
false or often false) to 3 (very true or often true). In the and .50. In order to inspect item-discrimination for each
present study, the 100 items of the PID-5-SF (four items scale, we estimated and averaged their item-total corre-
per scale) were extracted from the original PID-5 by lations. To investigate the factor structure of the Norwe-
means of the scoring algorithm provided by Maples et gian PID-5-SF, an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with
al. [33]. Domain scores of the original PID-5 and the CF-Equamax oblique rotation was performed using ro-
PID-5-SF were calculated by adding scores of the three bust maximum likelihood estimator. Congruency coeffi-
scales that contribute primarily to the respective domain, cients with the factor loadings obtained in the study on
i.e., Emotional lability, Anxiousness, Separation insecur- the Norwegian version of the original PID-5 [47], with
ity (Negative affectivity), Withdrawal, Anhedonia, Intim- the loading matrix of the original PID-5 in the construc-
acy avoidance (Detachment), Unusual beliefs and tion study by Krueger et al. [30], and the loading matrix
experiences, Eccentricity, Perceptual dysregulation (Psy- of the PID-5-SF presented by Maples et al. [33] were
choticism), Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, Grandiosity computed. The relationships of the original and the
(Antagonism), and Irresponsibility, Impulsivity, Distract- short PID-5 with the BFI and the PBQ-SF were explored
ibility (Disinhibition) [4]. As the associations between using correlation analyses. Double entry intraclass cor-
the original PID-5 and the PID-5-SF and the similarity relation coefficients (ICC; [35]) were calculated to exam-
of correlations of the two forms with external variables ine the profile agreement between the original PID-5
are likely to be inflated when the PID-5-SF scales are de- and the PID-5-SF across the associations with the FFM
rived from the original PID-5 (cf. [45]), the replication and dysfunctional beliefs.
sample completed the PID-5-SF as a standalone The confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses were
measure. conducted in MPlus 7.03 [40]. Factor congruence coeffi-
The Big Five Inventory (BFI; [20, 28]) assesses the per- cients and Fisher’s r to z and z to r transformations to
sonality dimensions of Neuroticism, Extraversion, Open- calculate mean correlations were computed with the
ness, Agreeableness, and Conscientiousness with 44 psych package for R [42]. SPSS 23.0 was used for the
items, scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 1 remaining analyses.
(disagree strongly) to 5 (agree strongly). In the present
study, the Cronbach’s alphas for the five scales ranged Results
from .73 (Agreeableness) to .86 (Extraversion). Derivation study using PID-5-SF data extracted from the
The Personality Beliefs Questionnaire – Short Form original PID-5
(PBQ-SF; [16]) is a 65-item self-report inventory de- In the derivation sample, alpha coefficients for the PID-
signed to assess dysfunctional cognitions associated with 5-SF domain scores ranged from .85 (Antagonism) to .98
the DSM-IV/DSM-5 PD categories. The response items (Negative affectivity) and for the facet scores from .60
are scored on a five-point Likert scale ranging from 0 (I (Perceptual dysregulation) to .90 (Depressivity). The
don’t believe it at all) to 4 (I believe it totally). In the mean alpha was .87 for the domain scores and .80 for
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 4 of 11

the facet scores. The mean inter-item correlations for (Negative affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism) for the
the PID-5-SF ranged from .32 (Antagonism) to .39 domains and -.30 (Perceptual dysregulation) to 1.00 (Sep-
(Negative affectivity) for the domains, and from .28 (Ir- aration insecurity) for the facets. (The beta weights from
responsibility) to .70 (Depressivity) for the facets with an the regression analyses predicting PID-5 and PID-5-SF
average of .35 (domains) and .51 (facets), respectively. trait domains and facets from the BFI and PBQ-SF scales,
With regard to mean item-total correlations, the values respectively, are included in the online Additional file 1).
for the domains ranged from .52 (Antagonism) to .59
(Negative affectivity), and for the facets from .39 (Irre- Replication study using the PID-5-SF as a standalone
sponsibility) to .84 (Attention seeking) with an average of measure
.55 (domains) and .63 (facets), respectively. As shown in In the replication sample, Cronbach’s alpha for the PID-
Table 1, the CFI ranged from .98 to 1.00 for the PID-5-SF 5-SF domain scores ranged from .85 (Antagonism) to .89
scales, indicating good model fits and unidimensionality. (Negative affectivity) and from .59 (Irresponsibility) to
The results from EFA with CF-Equamax oblique rota- .90 (Distractibility) for the facet scores. The mean alphas
tion of the PID-5-SF are also displayed in Table 1. The were .87 and .79, respectively. The mean inter-item cor-
model fit the data reasonably well (χ2 = 543.83, p < .001, relations ranged from .32 (Antagonism) to .39 (Negative
df = 185; RMSEA = .06, CFI = .92, SRMR = .03). The fac- affectivity) for the domains, and from .27 (Irresponsibil-
tor loadings showed largely the expected pattern. Deviat- ity) to .69 (Distractibility) for the facets with an average
ing from the proposed factor structure of the PID-5, of .35 (domains) and .49 (facets), respectively. The mean
Perseveration, assumed to belong to the Negative item-total correlations ranged for the domains from .51
affectivity domain, had its highest loading on Disinhib- (Detachment) to .59 (Negative affectivity) and for the
ition. Suspiciousness (Detachment or Negative facets from .38 (Irresponsibility) to .77 (Distractibility)
affectivity) had its strongest loading on Psychoticism, At- with an average of .55 (domains) and .61 (facets), re-
tention seeking (Antagonism) negatively on Detachment, spectively. The CFI ranged from .95 to 1.00, indicating
and Rigid perfectionism (Disinhibition) on Negative good model fits and unidimensionality.
affectivity. Congruence coefficients of the factors of the Table 1 contains the results from EFA with CF-
original PID-5 and the PID-5-SF ranged from .92 (Psy- Equamax oblique rotation of the PID-5-SF in the repli-
choticism) to .98 (Negative affectivity and Antagonism) cation sample. The model fit was estimated (χ2 = 365.72,
with a mean of .96. Factor congruence with the loadings p < .001, df = 185; RMSEA = .09, CFI = .86, SRMR = .04).
matrix reported by Krueger et al. [30] for the original The following scales had their highest loadings on other
PID-5 ranged from .76 (Disinhibition) to .95 (Negative than the proposed factors: Perseveration (Negative
affectivity and Psychoticism). Congruency coefficients affectivity) on Disinhibition, Intimacy avoidance and
with the loadings presented by Maples et al. [33] for the Withdrawal (Detachment) on Psychoticism, Attention
PID-5-SF ranged from .86 (Detachment) to .90 seeking (Antagonism) on Disinhibition, and Rigid perfec-
(Antagonism). tionism (Disinhibition) on Negative affectivity. Congru-
To explore the relationships between the PID-5-SF ence coefficients of the factors of the Norwegian PID-5
and the FFM and personality beliefs, PID-5 traits were and the PID-5-SF in the replication sample ranged from
correlated with the BFI and PBQ-SF scales. Associations .80 (Antagonism) to .88 (Negative affectivity and Disin-
between the PID-5 domains and the BFI scales are pre- hibition) with a mean of .86. Factor congruence with the
sented in Table 2. Negative affectivity was highly corre- loadings matrix reported by Krueger et al. [30] for the
lated with Neuroticism, Detachment (negatively) with original PID-5 ranged from .66 (Disinhibition) to .90
Extraversion, Antagonism (negatively) with Agreeable- (Psychoticism). Congruency coefficients with the load-
ness, and Disinhibition (negatively) with Conscientious- ings presented by Maples et al. [33] for the PID-5-SF
ness. Psychoticism was moderately correlated with all ranged from .75 (Detachment) to .87 (Disinhibition).
BFI scales. Double entry ICCs indicated almost perfect Correlations between the PID-5-SF domains and the
profile agreement between the domains of the two forms BFI in the replication sample are shown in Table 2. The
of the PID-5 (ranging from .99 to 1.00). profile agreement between the standalone PID-5-SF do-
The results of the correlations of the domain and facet main scores obtained in the replication sample and the
scores of the original and the short PID-5 with the PBQ- PID-5-SF domain scores obtained in the derivation sam-
SF scales are shown in Table 3. Results indicate that each ple ranged from .83 (Antagonism) to .97 (Negative
PBQ-SF had several significant associations with the affectivity) with a mean of .94.
scales of the original and shortened PID-5. The mean In Table 3, the correlations between the PID-5-SF and
profile agreement between the original PID-5 and PID- the PBQ-SF scales in the replication sample are shown.
5-SF across the PBQ-SF scales was .99 (domains) and .96 The mean profile agreement between the PID-5-SF in
(facets) with ranges from .82 (Psychoticism) to 1.00 the replication sample and the original PID-5 in the
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 5 of 11

Table 1 Factor loadings, item-level CFA, alpha coefficients, mean item-total correlations, and mean inter-item correlations of the PID-5-
SF scales
PID-5-SF scales NE DE PS AN DI CFI α MII MIT
D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S D S
Negative affectivity .89 .89 .39 .39 .59 .59
Anxiousness* .68 .71 .11 .18 .14 .18 .03 −.07 .04 −.05 .99 1.00 .84 .82 .57 .53 .67 .65
Emotional lability* .68 .55 −.08 .12 .18 .16 −.05 −.21 .16 .31 .95 .96 .81 .82 .53 .53 .64 .65
Hostility .51 .49 .04 .03 .10 .00 .21 .05 .08 .19 .99 .98 .80 .79 .49 .46 .65 .64
Perseveration .27 .23 .20 .31 .25 .16 −.04 .16 .36 .33 .99 .99 .77 .76 .47 .46 .59 .59
Restricted affectivity −.32 −.33 .62 .45 .15 .21 .22 .31 .10 −.02 .98 1.00 .80 .77 .50 .45 .61 .58
Seperation insecurity* .55 .61 .00 .27 .01 −.16 .01 .09 .11 .09 .99 1.00 .81 .80 .51 .49 .63 .62
Submissiveness .32 .32 .23 .18 −.12 .18 .10 −.13 .22 .20 1.00 1.00 .81 .79 .51 .48 .62 .60
Detachment .87 .88 .37 .38 .57 .51
Anhedonia* .33 .17 .62 .71 .03 .03 −.04 .22 .22 .10 1.00 1.00 .76 .77 .46 .49 .58 .60
Depressivity .29 .07 .60 .81 .09 .08 −.10 −.02 .17 .05 1.00 .95 .90 .87 .70 .64 .78 .75
Intimacy avoidance* −.11 −.16 .39 .40 .29 .46 .10 .04 .04 −.15 1.00 1.00 .86 .86 .60 .60 .73 .71
Suspiciousness .26 .47 .29 .14 .32 .30 .25 .15 .04 .02 1.00 1.00 .68 .69 .36 .38 .47 .49
Withdrawal* .07 .01 .67 .37 .14 .46 .14 .23 −.03 −.25 1.00 1.00 .83 .84 .56 .57 .67 .69
Psychoticism .86 .86 .33 .33 .54 .54
Eccentricity* −.02 .03 .23 .04 .51 .76 .02 .16 .25 .08 1.00 1.00 .88 .84 .65 .58 .74 .68
Perceptual dysregulation* .07 .05 −.06 −.04 .70 .54 .03 .06 .03 .18 .99 .96 .60 .66 .29 .32 .40 .45
Unusual beliefs and exp.* .00 .12 −.15 −.18 .78 .60 −.03 −.16 .03 .11 .99 1.00 .72 .78 .40 .47 .52 .61
Antagonism .85 .85 .32 .32 .52 .53
Attention seeking .07 .22 −.41 −.33 .00 −.07 .40 .16 .23 .45 .99 1.00 .88 .88 .66 .66 .84 .76
Callousness −.14 −.11 .31 .11 .15 −.03 .58 .84 −.07 −.11 1.00 1.00 .83 .80 .59 .51 .68 .63
Deceitfulness* .07 .28 .05 −.09 .03 .09 .66 .48 .22 .30 1.00 1.00 .69 .71 .36 .39 .48 .48
Grandiosity* .00 .00 .01 −.12 .16 .15 .63 .64 −.11 .10 1.00 .99 .76 .75 .44 .43 .56 .56
Manipulativeness* .06 .27 −.13 −.17 .01 .04 .70 .40 .14 .37 .99 1.00 .77 .76 .45 .45 .57 .57
Disinhibition .86 .87 .33 .35 .54 .56
Distractibility* .19 .10 .18 .39 .11 −.01 −.12 .12 .56 .53 1.00 1.00 .88 .90 .64 .69 .74 .77
Impulsivity* −.05 −.13 −.12 .10 .06 .08 .03 −.01 .76 .77 1.00 1.00 .79 .74 .49 .42 .61 .54
Irresponsibility* .01 .08 .08 .28 .09 .13 .26 .12 .48 .47 1.00 1.00 .61 .59 .28 .27 .39 .38
Rigid perfectionism .32 .67 .20 −.16 .20 .23 .14 .13 −.02 .00 1.00 1.00 .83 .74 .55 .41 .67 .55
Risk taking −.31 −.09 −.05 −.14 .17 .28 .20 .18 .45 .60 1.00 .99 .80 .81 .50 .52 .62 .63
Factor congruence .98 .88 .97 .86 .92 .87 .98 .80 .94 .88
with the Norwegian
original form
Factor congruence .95 .87 .93 .79 .95 .90 .93 .77 .76 .66
with Krueger et al.’s
[30] original form
Factor congruence .89 .85 .86 .75 .89 .80 .90 .79 .89 .87
with Maples et al.’s
[33] shortened form
D derived short form; S standalone short form. Factor loadings above .40 are in bold. EFA with Oblique CF-Equamax rotation was used. * PID-5 scales used to
compute domain scores. NE negative affectivity, DE detachment, PS psychoticism, AN antagonism, DI disinhibition. CFI comparative fit index; α Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient, MII mean inter-item correlations, MIT mean item-total correlations
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 6 of 11

Table 2 Correlations between PID-5 domains and BFI scales

BFI scales R2 Profile
agreement
Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Agreeableness Conscientious-ness
PID-5-SF domains O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O-D O-S
Negative affectivity .77 .73 .76 -.24 −.22 −.10 −.10 −.11 .02 −.23 −.21 −.28 −.31 −.29 −.25 .60 .54 .59 1.00 .97
Detachment .44 .42 .41 −.69 −.61 −.54 −.10 −.07 .15 −.52 −.48 −.39 −.36 −.35 −.40 .59 .49 .49 .99 .93
Psychoticism .35 .27 .32 −.33 −.29 −.26 .26 .25 .35 −.43 −.39 −.24 −.41 −.33 −.29 .40 .31 .29 .99 .94
Antagonism .01 .02 .21 −.05 −.07 .10 .19 .15 .21 −.48 −.48 −.36 −.19 −.18 −.36 .29 .28 .30 1.00 .83
Disinhibition .40 .38 .34 −.23 −.19 .01 .08 .11 .19 −.36 −.34 −.33 −.72 −.69 −.78 .57 .53 .69 1.00 .95
R2 indicates the degree to which all BFI scales account for each PID-5 domain score (all ps < .001). O original form; D derived short form; S standalone short form.
Coefficients in bold are significant at p < 0.05

initial sample ranged from .44 (Antagonism) to .88 the Irresponsibility scale of the PID-5-SF (.63) was re-
(Negative affectivity) with a mean of .70 for the domains ported by Bach et al. [9, 10].
and from -.28 (Perceptual dysregulation) to .93 (Anx- The factor structure of the Norwegian PID-5-SF used
iousness and Anhedonia) for the facets (mean = .61). as a standalone instrument showed similarity with the
original PID-5 form. The factor congruence coefficients
were .88 (Negative affectivity), .86 (Detachment), .87
Discussion (Psychoticism), .80 (Antagonism), and .88 (Disinhibition)
It is widely recognized that the categorical approach to with an average of .86. According to Lorenzo-Seva and
PDs in DSM-5 [3] has serious flaws. However, with the Ten Berge [32], congruence coefficients in the range .85-
introduction of DSM-5, an alternative and dimensional .94 indicate fair similarity, and factors can be assumed
model of PDs based on pathological personality traits equal when the values are above .95. Thus, the results
and personality dysfunction is provided, which people suggest that the factors obtained in the analyses of the
are free to choose. The PID-5 [4] is currently the pri- short and original Norwegian PID-5 displayed adequate
mary instrument to assess the five trait domains and 25 similarity with the exception of Antagonism. Overall,
maladaptive personality trait facets of the DSM-5 fairly high factor congruency coefficients of the Norwe-
AMPD. This 220-item inventory has shown adequate gian PID-5-SF with the original PID-5 and the PID-5-SF
psychometric properties in clinical and nonclinical sam- in the US [30, 33] were found. Some scales of the PID-5-
ples, in different age groups and in different countries SF had their highest loadings on other factors than ex-
[1]. Recently, an abbreviated form of the PID-5 with 100 pected from the proposed structure of the inventory
items has been developed [33]. The goal of the present [30]. In both samples, Rigid perfectionism loaded on
study was to investigate the reliability, structure, and cri- Negative affectivity (instead of Disinhibition) and Persev-
terion validity of the PID-5-SF in two Norwegian sam- eration on Disinhibition (instead of Negative affectivity).
ples. In the first sample, the PID-5-SF was derived from Further, in the derivation sample, Suspiciousness loaded
the original PID-5, whereas in the second sample – the on Psychoticism (instead of Detachment or Negative
replication sample -, the PID-5-SF was used as a standa- affectivity) and Attention seeking on Detachment (in-
lone instrument to obtain validity estimates that are not stead of Antagonism). In the replication sample, Intim-
affected by biases caused by scoring the two forms from acy avoidance and Withdrawal loaded on Psychoticism
the same administration (cf. [45]). (instead of Detachment) and Attention seeking on Disin-
The score reliability of the Norwegian PID-5-SF was hibition. However, these deviations have previously been
overall good in terms of internal consistency, mean inter- observed in studies on the PID-5. Rigid perfectionism
item correlations, and mean item-total correlations. In the has repeatedly shown to load on Negative affectivity
derivation sample, the mean alpha coefficients were .87 [12, 13, 15, 34, 43, 55]. In the Wright and Simms
(domains) and .80 (facets), respectively. In the replication [55] study on the PID-5 and related measures, Persev-
sample, the mean Cronbach’s alphas were .87 for the do- eration loaded on Disinhibition almost as high as on
mains and .79 for the facets, respectively. This is remark- Negative affectivity (.35 and .37, respectively). With
able given the small number of items per scale and aligns regard to Suspiciousness, Bastiaens et al. [12, 13]
with previous findings [9, 10, 33]. However, in the present found that this facet loaded nearly equally high on
investigation, comparatively low internal consistencies Psychoticism, Negative affectivity and Detachment. As
were found for Perceptual dysregulation and Irresponsibil- in the present study, Attention seeking loaded about
ity (.60 and .61 in the derivation sample and .66 and .59 in equally high on Detachment (low) and Antagonism in the
the replication sample, respectively). A similar alpha for investigation by Wright and Simms [55]. Substantial cross
 Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61
Table 3 Correlations of PID-5 scales with Personality Beliefs scales
PID-5 scales PAR SCD ANT BDL HIS NAR AVD DPT OBS PAG R2 Profile
agreement
O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O D S O-D O-S
Negative .43 .43 .50 .14 .13 .24 .28 .28 .36 .73 .71 .74 .51 .52 .57 .17 .20 .34 .64 .62 .68 .73 .73 .76 .46 .45 .56 .29 .29 .43 .62 .61 .66 1.00 .88
affectivity
Anxiousness .47 .44 .44 .25 .22 .27 .30 .28 .27 .68 .63 .62 .44 .41 .39 .15 .16 .25 .61 .56 .57 .61 .57 .60 .47 .44 .52 .30 .27 .39 .50 .43 .48 .98 .93
Emotional lability .32 .35 .45 .12 .15 .28 .17 .21 .34 .59 .60 .65 .41 .44 .50 .13 .16 .36 .53 .54 .59 .56 .57 .65 .32 .33 .49 .25 .29 .45 .41 .41 .50 .99 .61
Perseveration .45 .41 .43 .43 .37 .42 .38 .34 .41 .56 .56 .60 .41 .40 .42 .24 .21 .40 .52 .52 .58 .48 .48 .54 .53 .41 .43 .48 .44 .55 .44 .38 .47 .86 .62
Hostility .46 .33 .28 .42 .29 .14 .53 .37 .34 .47 .45 .40 .41 .36 .31 .35 .22 .29 .49 .46 .40 .39 .41 .44 .36 .33 .44 .51 .34 .42 .40 .28 .32 .06 -.19
Restricted .45 .43 .23 .54 .51 .37 .41 .36 .22 .33 .31 .27 .19 .17 .08 .21 .18 .05 .34 .32 .24 .21 .19 .11 .30 .27 .02 .44 .40 .20 .36 .31 .25 .97 .16
affectivity
Separation .27 .27 .35 -.07 -.07 .06 .21 .21 .30 .55 .53 .59 .46 .44 .53 .15 .17 .25 .45 .43 .55 .68 .66 .67 .34 .33 .39 .15 .15 .23 .53 .50 .50 1.00 .92
insecurity
Submissiveness .21 .21 .32 .09 .09 .15 .22 .22 .13 .40 .40 .45 .36 .36 .44 .06 .06 .13 .40 .40 .40 .46 .46 .41 .32 .32 .33 .12 .12 .20 .28 .28 .31 1.00 .86
Detachment .56 .55 .51 .67 .65 .71 .40 .40 .30 .64 .63 .56 .28 .27 .15 .17 .17 .20 .64 .62 .56 .44 .43 .39 .45 .45 .25 .49 .47 .44 .66 .63 .70 1.00 .83
Anhedonia .46 .47 .41 .38 .35 .43 .30 .33 .32 .67 .68 .69 .33 .35 .41 .11 .12 .22 .60 .59 .58 .54 .56 .58 .36 .40 .30 .39 .38 .38 .50 .49 .56 .99 .93
Depressivity .52 .45 .28 .36 .33 .33 .32 .29 .21 .78 .72 .69 .42 .32 .38 .08 .07 .05 .67 .60 .53 .63 .55 .55 .45 .39 .26 .39 .34 .23 .65 .56 .62 .95 .77
Intimacy .40 .37 .32 .60 .59 .61 .31 .30 .14 .35 .33 .26 .14 .12 -.11 .13 .11 .07 .41 .38 .29 .20 .17 .13 .30 .28 .09 .34 .31 .26 .40 .39 .50 .99 .68
avoidance
Suspiciousness .77 .75 .67 .46 .47 .31 .54 .56 .44 .64 .65 .62 .38 .43 .37 .28 .35 .37 .55 .55 .45 .47 .48 .51 .39 .41 .49 .49 .51 .53 .63 .61 .55 .97 .74
Withdrawal .52 .47 .49 .67 .62 .65 .38 .34 .26 .56 .52 .42 .23 .19 .07 .18 .18 .20 .58 .53 .48 .36 .32 .25 .44 .41 .22 .48 .45 .41 .60 .51 .56 .96 .74
Psychoticism .59 .54 .44 .51 .49 .56 .44 .42 .34 .55 .47 .43 .38 .31 .28 .32 .32 .36 .48 .41 .36 .43 .35 .34 .39 .34 .38 .57 .54 .52 .47 .40 .44 .82 .46
Eccentricity .55 .53 .47 .49 .49 .63 .37 .36 .42 .53 .49 .45 .34 .30 .25 .27 .27 .37 .45 .42 .43 .39 .35 .36 .36 .34 .35 .54 .53 .54 .43 .41 .48 .96 .70
Perceptual .52 .35 .32 .43 .31 .36 .43 .37 .23 .56 .31 .34 .39 .22 .25 .25 .28 .21 .50 .27 .25 .46 .25 .30 .38 .23 .23 .49 .40 .34 .41 .21 .23 -.30 -.28
dysregulation
Unusual beliefs .44 .36 .24 .37 .32 .30 .38 .30 .14 .31 .28 .22 .23 .23 .20 .35 .25 .25 .25 .26 .15 .23 .21 .15 .26 .22 .31 .44 .35 .34 .27 .17 .25 .62 .01
Antagonism .43 .40 .51 .42 .42 .38 .63 .62 .63 .25 .24 .48 .42 .39 .54 .55 .57 .68 .26 .25 .40 .17 .16 .43 .27 .27 .40 .51 .52 .55 .49 .49 .60 1.00 .44
Attention .22 .13 .11 .14 .05 .05 .35 .27 .29 .12 .05 .17 .50 .46 .48 .42 .38 .40 .07 .00 .09 .17 .13 .22 .15 .10 .25 .29 .19 .17 .37 .34 .37 .87 .85
seeking
Callousness .47 .38 .44 .54 .47 .36 .61 .53 .47 .27 .23 .26 .16 .12 .10 .45 .40 .41 .25 .22 .21 .12 .12 .16 .19 .15 .11 .56 .47 .36 .55 .42 .35 .93 .79
Deceitfulness .45 .41 .47 .40 .38 .31 .58 .57 .56 .33 .31 .49 .42 .40 .52 .37 .39 .51 .34 .31 .38 .22 .20 .46 .26 .25 .33 .47 .45 .43 .40 .38 .45 .97 .28
Grandiosity .28 .28 .49 .32 .34 .39 .44 .47 .53 .10 .14 .31 .24 .25 .24 .64 .63 .76 .07 .13 .30 .09 .12 .26 .18 .18 .26 .41 .44 .57 .45 .44 .64 .99 .66
Manipulativeness .29 .29 .33 .29 .32 .25 .49 .49 .47 .10 .14 .38 .34 .32 .52 .42 .41 .45 .15 .18 .30 .07 .09 .34 .21 .22 .37 .38 .39 .37 .33 .31 .38 .99 .20
Disinhibition .39 .40 .49 .34 .32 .32 .37 .38 .47 .52 .51 .61 .44 .45 .44 .19 .20 .38 .47 .45 .54 .43 .43 .54 .24 .24 .24 .47 .45 .54 .40 .37 .51 .99 .64

Page 7 of 11
Distractibility .35 .33 .43 .31 .27 .30 .27 .25 .42 .53 .50 .59 .39 .37 .41 .11 .12 .31 .47 .43 .54 .45 .43 .53 .28 .28 .27 .39 .36 .47 .35 .30 .43 .97 .66
Impulsivity .26 .29 .31 .17 .18 .23 .29 .30 .34 .25 .29 .36 .34 .34 .32 .15 .16 .22 .22 .24 .36 .22 .25 .33 .07 .09 .18 .33 .33 .40 .20 .21 .26 .96 .46
 Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61
Table 3 Correlations of PID-5 scales with Personality Beliefs scales (Continued)
Irresponsibility .35 .33 .46 .36 .34 .24 .40 .38 .37 .43 .40 .56 .35 .36 .41 .24 .22 .37 .42 .39 .48 .33 .32 .51 .18 .17 .17 .46 .41 .46 .34 .29 .46 .95 .52
Rigid .40 .41 .50 .39 .35 .27 .33 .31 .40 .44 .44 .47 .30 .31 .44 .26 .23 .40 .44 .43 .50 .38 .37 .45 .76 .77 .75 .35 .33 .42 .61 .60 .61 .99 .74
perfectionism
Risk taking .00 .21 .39 .09 .26 .30 .16 .34 .57 -.12 .12 .33 .09 .21 .27 .14 .26 .39 -.16 .08 .23 -.16 .04 .28 -.01 .17 .23 .21 .38 .52 .19 .21 .40 .20 -.41
Correlations in bold are significant at p < .05. R2 indicates the degree to which all PBQ scales account for each PID-5 score (all ps < .001). O original form; D derived short form; S standalone short form. Personality Beliefs
Questionnaire (PBQ-SF) scales: Paranoid (PAR), Schizoid (SCD), Antisocial (ANT), Borderline (BDL), Histrionic (HIS), Narcissistic (NAR), Avoidant (AVD), Dependent (DPT), Obsessive-Compulsive (OBS), and
Passive-Aggressive (PAG)

Page 8 of 11
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 9 of 11

loadings of Intimacy avoidance and Withdrawal on Psy- and .61 for the PID-5 facets. It should be noted that the
choticism have been previously reported by Maples et al. profile agreement was very low or even negative for sev-
[33] and Wight and Simms [55]. Maples et al. [33] also eral scales, including Hostility, Restricted affectivity, Per-
found that Attention seeking loaded on Disinhibition. ceptual dysregulation, Deceitfulness, Manipulativeness,
The criterion validity of the PID-5-SF was investigated and Risk taking.
by examining the relationships with the dimensions of Taken together, the findings of the present study regard-
the FFM and dysfunctional beliefs associated with the ing reliability, structure, and criterion validity suggest that
DSM-IV/DSM-5 PD categories. Further, the similarity of the Norwegian PID-5 short form is a parsimonious, overall
these associations between the original form of the Nor- internally consistent, and structurally valid measure of the
wegian PID-5 and the short form was examined to test if trait criterion of the DSM-5 AMPD. Fairly similar factor
the nomological network of the original PID-5 is main- structures of the original PID-5 and the PID-5-SF, and, for
tained by the short form (cf. [33]). In line with previous the majority of scales, similar associations with external cri-
studies on the PID-5 and FFM (e.g., [18, 23, 55]), the teria suggest that the knowledge base that has been built
PID-5 domains of the original and short form were around the original PID-5 can be largely applied to the
strongly associated with the FFM dimensions in both shortened version. These results are in accordance with
samples: Negative affectivity with Neuroticism, (low) De- and supplement the findings of previous investigations on
tachment with Extraversion, (low) Antagonism with the PID-5-SF [9, 10, 33] and support its use in research and
Agreeableness, and (low) Disinhibition with Conscien- clinical practice. The brevity of the PID-5-SF, while retain-
tiousness. In the present study, Psychoticism was signifi- ing the comprehensiveness of the original version, makes it
cantly related to Openness, but showed also significant easier to include the pathological personality traits of the
associations with the remaining FFM dimensions. Find- DSM-5 AMPD in clinical assessment. Widiger and Samuel
ings on the relationships between Psychoticism and [52] recommended for the assessment of the DSM-IV-TR
Openness have been mixed so far. In accordance with PDs to use first a self-report inventory for screening pur-
the results of the current study, Thomas et al. [48] and De poses, followed by a structured interview. In a similar way,
Fruyt et al. [19] reported significant Psychoticism- the PID-5-SF can serve as a short screening instrument
Openness associations in student samples. On the other used prior to an interview-based assessment, e.g., the struc-
hand, several other studies have found only weak or near tured interview that is currently being developed for the as-
zero correlations between Psychoticism and Openness sessment of the traits system (criterion B) along with rating
(e.g., [41, 51, 59]). Importantly for the purpose of the of functioning (criterion A; [22]). Although concerns re-
present study, when used as a standalone instrument, the garding the clinical utility of the DSM-5 AMPD have been
profile agreement of the PID-5-SF with the original form raised when the model was developed [58], findings support
across the FFM-dimensions was high with a mean of .94. its clinical usefulness and acceptability in routine clinical
Further, strong conceptually meaningful associations practice. In a field trial of the DSM-5, the clinical utility rat-
between the PID-5 scales of the original and short form ings of the proposed diagnostic criteria for PDs were
and pathological personality beliefs were found in both among the highest [39]. The pathological traits of the
samples. For example, paranoid beliefs were strongly re- DSM-5 AMPD have been found to be superior to the
lated to Suspiciousness and Schizoid beliefs to Intimacy DSM-IV-TR/DSM-5 PD categories with respect to clini-
avoidance. Antisocial beliefs predicted highly Callous- cians’ ratings of ease of use, communication with patients,
ness and Deceitfulness. Borderline beliefs had significant usefulness for describing an individual’s personality prob-
relationships with PID-5 facets from all domains, but lems and global personality, and treatment planning [38].
were especially associated with Depressivity, Anxious- Furthermore, the DSM-5 AMPD predicts treatment deci-
ness, Anhedonia, Emotional lability, and Suspiciousness. sions (e.g., level of treatment, type of psychotherapeutic or
Histronic beliefs were associated with Attention seeking. pharmacological treatment) better than the DSM-IV-TR/
Narcissistic beliefs predicted primarily Grandiosity. DSM-5 PD categories [36]. Examples of how the DSM-5
Avoidant beliefs were most strongly related to Depres- AMPD can be used in clinical practice are provided by Sko-
sivity and Anxiousness. Dependent beliefs were primarily dol, Morey, Bender, and Oldham [44] and Bach, Markon,
associated with Separation insecurity. Obsessive- Simonsen, and Krueger [11].
compulsive beliefs were a strong predictor of Rigid per- A limitation of the present study is the use of a
fectionism. These results are in line with the findings of convenient nonclinical sample consisting of university
Hopwood et al. [24, 25] and suggest that the cognitive students. This group is obviously rather homogeneous
perspective on PDs can be integrated with the DSM-5 with respect to age, educational level, and socioeco-
section III trait model. In the replication sample, the nomic status. Although the DSM-5 AMPD personality
profile agreement of the original and short form of the traits are assumed to be continuously distributed [3], the
PID-5 was high, averaging .70 for the PID-5 domains variance of the distribution of these traits is likely
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 10 of 11

restricted in university student samples, which may Competing interests

affect the generalizability of the findings. Ideally, the The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

present study is extended and replicated in more hetero-

geneous samples, including patients within mental Consent for publication
Not applicable.
health care. Another limitation of the current investigation
is the relatively low sample size of the replication sample.
Further, this study used only self-reported data, which may Ethics approval and consent to participate
Because participation in the study was anonymous, the Regional committee
have involved a risk for artificially high correlations between for medical and health research ethics (REC North) decided that an approval
measures due to shared method variance. Importantly, as from this entity was not necessary. All participants gave informed consent to
few items of the original PID-5 and none of the PID-5-SF take part in the study.
items are reversed scored and the items describe undesir- Author details
able traits, these instruments are particularly prone to the 1
Department of Psychology, University of Tromsø, 9037 Tromsø, Norway.
2
effects of acquiescence responding and social desirability Sámi Norwegian National Advisory Unit on Mental Health and Substance
Use, Finnmark Hospital Trust, Karasjok, Norway. 3Centre of Excellence on
responding [7]. As a consequence, the alpha reliabilities Personality Disorder, Region Zealand, Denmark.
and the associations with other self-report measures can
be inflated [7]. It is therefore possible that the results of Received: 16 July 2016 Accepted: 30 November 2016
the present study would have been different if reports
from multiple informants (e.g., spouse, parents, or sib-
lings) had been available. More definitive findings would References
1. Al-Dajani N, Gralnick TM, Bagby RM. A psychometric review of the
likely have been obtained if it had been possible to also ad- Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5): current status and future
minister structured interviews, informant-reports or clin- directions. J Pers Assess. 2016;98:62–81. doi:10.1080/00223891.2015.1107572.
ician ratings of DSM-5 traits. Thus, we recommend that 2. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington: Author; 2000.
ongoing research on the Norwegian PID-5 use informant 3. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
or clinician reports of DSM-5 traits, which are currently Mental Disorders. 5th ed. Washington: Author; 2013a.
available and free to use [5, 38]. 4. American Psychiatric Association. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-
5)—Adult. 2013b. Retrieved from https://www.psychiatry.org/File Library/
Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM5_The-Personality-Inventory-For-DSM-5-
Conclusion Full-Version-Adult.pdf. Accessed 02 Dec 2016.
5. American Psychiatric Association (2013c). The Personality Inventory for DSM-
The results of this study suggest that the Norwegian PID- 5—Brief Form (PID-5-BF)—Adult. Retrieved from https://www.psychiatry.
5-SF is an overall reliable, valid, and efficient measure of org/File Library/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM5_The-Personality-
the DSM-5-AMPD trait system that can be considered Inventory-For-DSM-5-Brief-Form-Adult.pdf. Accessed 02 Dec 2016.
6. Anderson J, Snider S, Sellbom M, Krueger R, Hopwood C. A comparison of
largely equivalent to the original form of the PID-5. the DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality disorder structures.
Psychiatry Res. 2014;216:363–72. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2014.01.007.
Additional file 7. Ashton MC, de Vries RE, Lee K. Trait variance and response style variance in
the scales of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5). J Pers Assess. In
press. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1208210.
Additional file 1: Beta weights from the regression analyses predicting 8. Bach, B., Anderson, J, Simonsen, E. Continuity between interview-rated
PID-5 and PID-5-SF trait domains and facets from the BFI and PBQ-SF personality disorders and self-reported DSM–5 traits in a Danish psychiatric
scales in the derivation sample. (DOCX 33 kb) sample. Pers Disord. In press. doi: 10.1037/per0000171.
9. Bach B, Lee C, Mortensen EL, Simonsen E. How do DSM-5 personality traits
align with schema therapy constructs? J Personal Disord. 2016;30:502–29.
Abbreviations
doi:10.1521/pedi_2015_29_212.
BFI: Big Five Inventory; DSM-5: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
10. Bach B, Maples-Keller JL, Bo S, Simonsen E. The alternative DSM–5
Disorders 5th edition; DSM-5 AMPD: Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality
personality disorder traits criterion: A comparative examination of three self-
Disorders; FFM: Five-factor model of personality; PBQ-SF: Personality Beliefs
report forms in a danish population. Pers Disord. 2016;7:124–35. doi:10.
Questionnaire – Short Form; PID-5: Personality Inventory for DSM-5; PID-5-
1037/per0000162.
SF: Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Short Form
11. Bach B, Markon K, Simonsen E, Krueger RF. Clinical utility of the DSM-5
alternative model of personality disorders: Six cases from practice. J
Acknowledgements Psychiatr Pract. 2015;21:3–25. doi:10.1097/01.pra.0000460618.02805.ef.
The authors wish to thank the students who participated in the study. 12. Bastiaens T, Claes L, Smits D, De Clercq B, De Fruyt F, Rossi G, Claes S. The
construct validity of the Dutch Personality Inventory for DSM-5 personality
Funding disorders (PID-5) in a clinical sample. Assessment. 2016;23:42–51. doi:10.
This research was conducted without funding. 1177/1073191115575069.
13. Bastiaens T, Smits D, De Hert M, Vanwalleghem D, Claes L. DSM-5 Section III
Availability of data and materials personality traits and Section II personality disorders in a Flemish
The data are available from the first author upon request. community sample. Psychiatry Res. 2016;238:290–8. doi:10.1016/j.psychres.
2016.02.056.
Authors’ contributions 14. Beck AT, Freeman A, Davis DD, Ass. Cognitive therapy of personality
SJ, JCT, and BB designed the study. SJ and JCT collected the data. BB and disorders. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford; 2004.
JCT conducted the statistical analyses. SJ, BB, and JCT interpreted the data. 15. Bo S, Bach B, Mortensen EL, Simonsen E. Reliability and hierarchical
JCT drafted the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final structure of DSM-5 pathological traits in a danish mixed sample. J Personal
manuscript. Disord. 2015;30:112–29. doi:10.1521/pedi_2015_29_187.
Thimm et al. BMC Psychology (2016) 4:61 Page 11 of 11

16. Butler AC, Beck AT, Cohen LH. The Personality Belief Questionnaire-Short 39. Mościcki EK, Clarke DE, Kuramoto SJ, Kraemer HC, Narrow WE, Kupfer DJ,
Form: Development and preliminary findings. Cogn Ther Res. 2007;31:357– Regier DA. Testing DSM-5 in routine clinical practice settings: Feasibility and
70. doi:10.1007/s10608-006-9041-x. clinical utility. Psychiatr Serv. 2013;64:952–60. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201300098.
17. Clark LA, Watson D. Constructing validity: basic issues in objective scale 40. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide. Seventh Ed. Los Angeles:
development. Psychol Assess. 1995;7:309. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.7.3.309. Muthén & Muthén; 1998-2012.
18. Crego C, Gore WL, Rojas SL, Widiger TA. The discriminant (and convergent) 41. Quilty LC, Ayearst L, Chmielewski M, Pollock BG, Bagby RM. The
validity of the Personality Inventory for DSM–5. Pers Disord. 2015;6:321–35. psychometric properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in an APA
doi:10.1037/per0000118. DSM-5 field trial sample. Assessment. 2013;20:362–9. doi:10.1177/
19. De Fruyt F, De Clercq B, De Bolle M, Wille B, Markon K, Krueger RF. General and 1073191113486183.
maladaptive traits in a five-factor framework for DSM-5 in a university student 42. Revelle W. Psych: Procedures for Personality and Psychological Research.
sample. Assessment. 2013;20:295–307. doi:10.1177/1073191113475808. Evanston: Northwestern University; 2015. http://CRAN.R-project.org/
20. Engvik H, Føllesdal H. The Big Five Inventory på norsk. Tidsskrift for Norsk package=psych Version = 1.5.8.
Psykologforening. 2005;42:128–9. 43. Roskam I, Galdiolo S, Hansenne M, Massoudi K, Rossier J, Gicquel L, Rolland
21. Few LR, Miller JD, Rothbaum AO, Meller S, Maples J, Terry DP, MacKillop J. J-P. The psychometric properties of the French version of the Personality
Examination of the Section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality Inventory for DSM-5. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0133413.
disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:1057. 44. Skodol AE, Morey LC, Bender DS, Oldham JM. The alternative DSM-5 model
doi:10.1037/a0034878. for personality disorders: A clinical application. Am J Psychiatr. 2015;172:
22. First MB, Skodol AE, Bender DS, Oldham JM. Structured clinical interview for 606–13. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14101220.
the DSM–5 alternative model for personality disorders (SCID–AMPD). New 45. Smith GT, McCarthy DM, Anderson KG. On the sins of short-form development.
York: New York State Psychiatric Institute; In press. Psychol Assess. 2000;12:102–11. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102.
23. Gore WL, Widiger TA. The DSM-5 dimensional trait model and five-factor 46. Suzuki T, Griffin SA, Samuel DB. Capturing the DSM-5 alternative personality
models of general personality. J Abnorm Psychol. 2013;122:816–21. doi:10. disorder model traits in the five-factor model’s nomological net. J Pers. In
1037/a0032822. press. doi: 10.1111/jopy.12235.
24. Hopwood CJ, Schade N, Krueger RF, Wright AG, Markon KE. Connecting DSM-5 47. Thimm JC, Jordan S, Bach B. Hierarchical structure and Cross-Cultural
personality traits and pathological beliefs: Toward a unifying model. J Measurement Invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in a Norwegian
Psychopathol Behav Assess. 2013;35:162–72. doi:10.1007/s10862-012-9332-3. sample. J Pers Assess. In press. doi: 10.1080/00223891.2016.1223682.
25. Hopwood CJ, Wright AG, Krueger RF, Schade N, Markon KE, Morey LC. DSM- 48. Thomas KM, Yalch MM, Krueger RF, Wright AG, Markon KE, Hopwood CJ.
5 pathological personality traits and the Personality Assessment Inventory. The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and five-factor
Assessment. 2013;20:269–85. doi:10.1177/1073191113486286. model trait domains. Assessment. 2013;20:308–11. doi:10.1177/
26. Gutierrez F, Aluja A, Peri JM, Calvo N, Ferrer M, Bailles E, Krueger RF. 1073191112457589.
Psychometric Properties of the Spanish PID-5 in a Clinical and a Community 49. Tyrer P, Reed GM, Crawford MJ. Classification, assessment, prevalence, and
Sample. Assessment. In press. doi: 10.1177/1073191115606518. effect of personality disorder. Lancet. 2015;385:717–26. doi:10.1016/S0140-
27. Helle AC, Trull TJ, Widiger TA, Mullins-Sweatt SN. Utilizing interview and self- 6736(14)61995-4.
report assessment of the five-factor model to examine convergence with 50. Urnes Ø, Perdersen G, Johansen M, Karterud S, Wilberg T, Kvarstein EH.
the alternative model for personality disorders. Pers Disord. In press. doi: 10. Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), Unpublished instrument. Oslo:
1037/per0000174. Nasjonal kompetansesenter for personlighetspsykiatri; 2013.
28. John OP, Srivastava S. The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and 51. Watson D, Stasik SM, Ro E, Clark LA. Integrating normal and pathological
theoretical perspectives. In: Pervin LA, John OP, editors. Handbook of personality. personality: Relating the DSM-5 trait-dimensional model to general traits of
Theory and research. 2nd ed. New York: Guilford Press; 1999. p. 102–38. personality. Assessment. 2013;20:312–26. doi:10.1177/1073191113485810.
29. Keeley JW, Flanagan EH, McCluskey DL. Functional impairment and the DSM-5 52. Widiger TA, Samuel DB. Evidence-based assessment of personality disorders.
dimensional system for personality disorder. J Personal Disord. 2014;28:657–74. Psychol Assess. 2005;17:278–87. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.278.
53. Widiger TA, Trull TJ. Plate tectonics in the classification of personality
30. Krueger RF, Derringer J, Markon KE, Watson D, Skodol AE. Initial construction
disorder - shifting to a dimensional model. Am Psychol. 2007;62:71–83.
of a maladaptive personality trait model and inventory for DSM-5. Psychol
doi:10.1037/0003-066x.62.2.71.
Med. 2012;42:1879–90. doi:10.1017/s0033291711002674.
54. Wright AG, Calabrese WR, Rudick MM, Yam WH, Zelazny K, Williams TF,
31. Krueger RF, Markon KE. The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in
Simms LJ. Stability of the DSM-5 Section III pathological personality traits
moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying
and their longitudinal associations with psychosocial functioning in
personality and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2014;10:477–501.
personality disordered individuals. J Abnorm Psychol. 2015;124:199–207.
doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153732.
doi:10.1037/abn0000018.
32. Lorenzo-Seva U, Ten Berge JM. Tucker’s congruence coefficient as a
55. Wright AG, Simms LJ. On the structure of personality disorder traits:
meaningful index of factor similarity. Methodology. 2006;2:57–64. doi:10.
Conjoint analyses of the CAT-PD, PID-5, and NEO-PI-3 trait models. Pers
1027/1614-1881.2.2.57.
Disord. 2014;5:43–54. doi:10.1037/per0000037.
33. Maples JL, Carter NT, Few LR, Crego C, Gore WL, Samuel DB, Markon KE.
56. Yam WH, Simms LJ. Comparing criterion-and trait-based personality
Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be
disorder diagnoses in DSM-5. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:802–8. doi:10.
measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory
1037/a0037633.
investigation of the personality inventory for DSM-5. Psychol Assess. 2015;
57. Young JE, Klosko JS, Weishaar ME. Schema therapy: A practitioner’s guide.
27:1195–210. doi:10.1037/pas0000120.
New York: Guilford Press; 2003.
34. Markon KE, Quilty LC, Bagby RM, Krueger RF. The development and
58. Zachar P, Krueger RF, Kendler KS. Personality disorder in DSM-5: An oral
psychometric properties of an informant-report form of the Personality
history. Psychol Med. 2016;46:1–10. doi:10.1017/S0033291715001543.
Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). Assessment. 2013;20:370–83. doi:10.1177/
59. Zimmermann J, Altenstein D, Krieger T, Holtforth MG, Pretsch J, Alexopoulos
1073191113486513.
J, Markon KE. The structure and correlates of self-reported DSM-5
35. McCrae RR. A note on some measures of profile agreement. J Pers Assess.
maladaptive personality traits: Findings from two German-speaking samples.
2008;90:105–9. doi:10.1080/00223890701845104.
J Personal Disord. 2014;28:518–40.
36. Morey LC, Benson KT. Relating DSM-5 Section II and Section III personality
disorder diagnostic classification systems to treatment planning. Compr
Psychiatry. 2016;68:48–55. doi:10.1016/j.comppsych.2016.03.010.
37. Morey LC, Benson KT, Busch AJ, Skodol AE. Personality disorders in DSM-5:
Emerging research on the alternative model. Curr Psychiatr Rep. 2015;17:1–9.
38. Morey LC, Skodol AE, Oldham JM. Clinician judgments of clinical utility: A
comparison of DSM-IV-TR personality disorders and the alternative model
for DSM-5 personality disorders. J Abnorm Psychol. 2014;123:398–405. doi:
10.1037/a0036481.