Comparing two domain scoring methods for the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.
Journal
Psychological assessment
ISSN: 1939-134X
Titre abrégé: Psychol Assess
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8915253
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Sep 2019
Sep 2019
Historique:
pubmed:
25
6
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
entrez:
25
6
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The Personality Inventory for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-5 (PID-5) has become a popular measure of personality pathology, with widespread usage extending beyond its original purpose to aid in the diagnosis of personality disorders. There are 2 methods for scoring the 5 higher order domain scales (Negative Affect, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, Psychoticism) of this instrument, both of which are used with similar frequency. Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, and Skodol (2012) initially used a scoring method for the 5 domains that included all 25 of the lower order facets. In contrast, the American Psychiatric Association (2013) copyright and publicly available version instructs users to score the domain scales using only 15 of the 25 facets. Our aim in the current study was to compare these 2 scoring methods across various analyses by quantifying the magnitude of any differences in results. The results from both clinical (N = 388) and undergraduate (N = 492) samples supported that the results produced by the 2 domain scoring methods are more similar than different with respect to mean differences, convergent and discriminant correlations with external criteria, and intraclass correlations comparing the consistency between profiles of correlations produced by each scoring method. In contrast, the domain scale profiles for 2 individuals with a borderline personality diagnosis revealed substantive differences for 3 of the 5 domain scales across scoring methods, which has implications for clinical utility. Given these results, we recommend using the 15-facet domain scoring method for research contexts and that more research is needed to determine the optimal scoring method for clinical contexts. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
Identifiants
pubmed: 31233325
pii: 2019-35004-001
doi: 10.1037/pas0000739
doi:
Types de publication
Comparative Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1125-1134Subventions
Organisme : University of Minnesota Press
Organisme : American Psychiatric Association
Organisme : Vice President of Research Competitiveness Funds
Organisme : University of Toronto
Organisme : Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada