Clinical cut scores for the Persian version of the personality inventory for DSM-5.
AMPD
ICD-11
PID-5
cut point
diagnosis
personality assessment
Journal
Journal of clinical psychology
ISSN: 1097-4679
Titre abrégé: J Clin Psychol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 0217132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
21 Oct 2023
21 Oct 2023
Historique:
revised:
27
08
2023
received:
17
05
2023
accepted:
11
10
2023
medline:
21
10
2023
pubmed:
21
10
2023
entrez:
21
10
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
The cut points of psychological tools to diagnose clinical conditions are not universal and depend on the region and prevalence of the disorder. Thus, we aimed to identify the cutoff points of the Persian original version of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; 220 items) that would optimally distinguish nonclinical from clinical groups. Both nonclinical (N = 634, 73% female, 34.0 ± 10.8 years) and clinical (N = 454, 29% female, 29.5 ± 7.4 years) samples from the West of Iran participated in the study. Data were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Youden's index was used to determine the cutoff scores across the PID-5 domains and facets. The means and standard deviations of both the clinical male and female were compared with the nonclinical group using Cohen's d and independent t-tests. All the PID-5 algorithms and facets significantly distinguished clinical from nonclinical samples with some unique findings for male and female samples. The mean score of all the PID-5 algorithms and facets in the clinical male and female samples were respectively 1.0-2.0 SD and 0.5-1.0 SD above the mean for the nonclinical counterparts. A score higher than 1.5 on ranging from 0 to 3 in each domain or facet indicated clinical status. Raw cutting scores throughout the PID-5 algorithms can be well used to diagnose any pathology of personality and the severity of the disorder in clinical patients. The cut scores provide a useful tool for the clinical use of the original version of PID-5 in Iran.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The cut points of psychological tools to diagnose clinical conditions are not universal and depend on the region and prevalence of the disorder. Thus, we aimed to identify the cutoff points of the Persian original version of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; 220 items) that would optimally distinguish nonclinical from clinical groups.
METHODS
METHODS
Both nonclinical (N = 634, 73% female, 34.0 ± 10.8 years) and clinical (N = 454, 29% female, 29.5 ± 7.4 years) samples from the West of Iran participated in the study. Data were analyzed using receiver operating characteristic (ROC) and Youden's index was used to determine the cutoff scores across the PID-5 domains and facets. The means and standard deviations of both the clinical male and female were compared with the nonclinical group using Cohen's d and independent t-tests.
RESULTS
RESULTS
All the PID-5 algorithms and facets significantly distinguished clinical from nonclinical samples with some unique findings for male and female samples. The mean score of all the PID-5 algorithms and facets in the clinical male and female samples were respectively 1.0-2.0 SD and 0.5-1.0 SD above the mean for the nonclinical counterparts. A score higher than 1.5 on ranging from 0 to 3 in each domain or facet indicated clinical status.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Raw cutting scores throughout the PID-5 algorithms can be well used to diagnose any pathology of personality and the severity of the disorder in clinical patients. The cut scores provide a useful tool for the clinical use of the original version of PID-5 in Iran.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2023 Wiley Periodicals LLC.
Références
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
American Psychiatric Association. (2013a). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders: DSM-5 (Vol. 5, p. 5). American psychiatric association.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013b). The personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5)-Adult. Retrieved December 2, 2016, from https://www.psychiatry.org/FileLibrary/Psychiatrists/Practice/DSM/APA_DSM5_The-Personality-Inventory-For-DSM-5-Full-Version-Adult.pdf
Amini, M., Motevalizade, S., Dabaghi, P., Shiasi, Y., & Lotfi, M. (2021). Psychometric properties and factor structure of original, short and brief forms of personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in an Iranian sample of adolescents. Journal of Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, 30(194), 86-99.
Bach, B., Sellbom, M., Kongerslev, M., Simonsen, E., Krueger, R. F., & Mulder, R. (2017). Deriving ICD-11 personality disorder domains from dsm-5 traits: Initial attempt to harmonize two diagnostic systems. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 136(1), 108-117. https://doi.org/10.1111/acps.12748
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
Bagby, R. M., Keeley, J. W., Williams, C. C., Mortezaei, A., Ryder, A. G., & Sellbom, M. (2022). Evaluating the measurement invariance of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Black Americans and White Americans. Psychological Assessment, 34(1), 82-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001085
Bergeron, L., Smolla, N., Valla, J. P., St-Georges, M., Berthiaume, C., Piché, G., & Barbe, C. (2010). Psychometric properties of a pictorial instrument for assessing psychopathology in youth aged 12 to 15 years: The dominic interactive for adolescents. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 55(4), 211-221. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371005500404
de Beurs, E., Boehnke, J. R., & Fried, E. I. (2022). Common measures or common metrics? A plea to harmonize measurement results. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(5), 1755-1767. https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2742
Bo, S., Bach, B., Mortensen, E. L., & Simonsen, E. (2016). Reliability and hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological traits in a Danish mixed sample. Journal of Personality Disorders, 30(1), 112-129. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2015_29_187
Caspi, A. (1996). Behavioral observations at age 3 years predict adult psychiatric disorders: Longitudinal evidence from a birth cohort. Archives of General Psychiatry, 53(11), 1033-1039. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpsyc.1996.01830110071009
Coelho, O., Pires, R., Ferreira, A. S., Gonçalves, B., Alkhoori, S. A., Sayed, M. A., ElRasheed, A., Belhoul, S., AlJassmi, M., & Stocker, J. (2020). The Arabic version of the personality inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) in a clinical sample of United Arab Emirates (UAE) nationals. American Journal of Health Behavior, 44(6), 794-806. https://doi.org/10.2174/1745017902016010180
d'Huart, D., Seker, S., Bürgin, D., Birkhölzer, M., Boonmann, C., Schmid, M., & Schmeck, K. (2023). The stability of personality disorders and personality disorder criteria: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 102, 102284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2023.102284
Díaz-Batanero, C., Ramírez-López, J., Domínguez-Salas, S., Fernández-Calderón, F., & Lozano, Ó. M. (2019). Personality inventory for DSM-5-short form (PID-5-SF): Reliability, factorial structure, and relationship with functional impairment in dual diagnosis patients. Assessment, 26(5), 853-866. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117739980
Drill, R., Nakash, O., DeFife, J. A., & Westen, D. (2015). Assessment of clinical information: Comparison of the validity of a structured clinical interview (the SCID) and the clinical diagnostic interview. Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease, 203(6), 459-462. https://doi.org/10.1097/NMD.0000000000000300
Fang, S., Ouyang, Z., Zhang, P., He, J., Fan, L., Luo, X., Zhang, J., Xiong, Y., Luo, F., Wang, X., Yao, S., & Wang, X. (2021). Personality inventory for DSM-5 in China: Evaluation of DSM-5 and ICD-11 trait structure and continuity with personality disorder types. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 635214. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.635214
Few, L. R., Lynam, D. R., Maples, J. L., MacKillop, J., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Comparing the utility of DSM-5 section II and III antisocial personality disorder diagnostic approaches for capturing psychopathic traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6(1), 64-74. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000096
Fluss, R., Faraggi, D., & Reiser, B. (2005). Estimation of the Youden index and its associated cutoff point. Biometrical Journal, 47(4), 458-472. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200410135
Fowler, J. C., Madan, A., Allen, J. G., Patriquin, M., Sharp, C., Oldham, J. M., & Frueh, B. C. (2018). Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model for borderline personality disorder: Differential diagnostic accuracy of the BFI, SCID-II-PQ, and PID-5. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 80, 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.comppsych.2017.09.003
Habibzadeh, F., Habibzadeh, P., & Yadollahie, M. (2016). On determining the most appropriate test cut-off value: The case of tests with continuous results. Biochemia Medica, 26(3), 297-307. https://doi.org/10.11613/BM.2016.034
Hemmati, A., Rahmani, F., & Bach, B. (2021). The ICD-11 personality disorder trait model fits the Kurdish population better than the DSM-5 trait model. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 635813. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.635214
Hemmati, A., Rezaei Mirghaed, S., Rahmani, F., & Komasi, S. (2019). The differential profile of social anxiety disorder (SAD) and avoidant personality disorder (APD) on the basis of Criterion B of the DSM-5-AMPD in a college sample. Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, 26(5), 74-87. https://doi.org/10.21315/mjms2019.26.5.7
Hong, T. H., Kim, Y. R., & Hwang, S. T. (2018). Construction and validation of the Korean version of the personality inventory for DSM-5 short form (K-PID-5-SF). Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 37(3), 396-410. https://doi.org/10.15842/kjcp.2018.37.3.010
Jakubczyk, A., Trucco, E. M., Kopera, M., Kobyliński, P., Suszek, H., Fudalej, S., Brower, K. J., & Wojnar, M. (2018). The association between impulsivity, emotion regulation, and symptoms of alcohol use disorder. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 91, 49-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsat.2018.05.004
Keeley, J. W., Flanagan, E. H., & McCluskey, D. L. (2014). Functional impairment and the DSM-5 dimensional system for personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(5), 657-674. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_133
Komasi, S. (2021). Status of epidemiological data related to personality disorders in Iranian clinical and general populations. Middle East Journal of Rehabilitation and Health Studies, 8(2), 1-2. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh.109891
Komasi, S., Hemmati, A., Rezaei, F., Rahmani, K., Miettunen, J., Amianto, F., & Hopwood, C. J. (2022). Comparison of the relative sensitivity of two dimensional personality models to the psychopathological symptoms: The section III DSM-5 maladaptive traits versus affective temperaments. BMC Psychiatry, 22(1), 503. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-022-04156-y
Komasi, S., Jananeh, M., Mahdavi, S., Shademan, T., Vaysi, A., Shahlaee, M., Mirani, A., Chamandoust, Z., & Saeidi, M. (2023). The maladaptive domains according to the alternative model of personality disorders (AMPD) criterion B in patients with affective disorders and temperamental triads related to these domains: Two unique profiles. BMC Psychology, 11(1), 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-023-01122-5
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
Krueger, R. F., Hicks, B. M., Patrick, C. J., Carlson, S. R., Iacono, W. G., & McGue, M. (2002). Etiologic connections among substance dependence, antisocial behavior, and personality: Modeling the externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 111(3), 411-424. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.111.3.411
Krueger, R. F., & Hobbs, K. A. (2020). An overview of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders. Psychopathology, 53(3), 126-132. https://doi.org/10.1159/000508538
Kyranides, M. N., Fanti, K. A., Sikki, M., & Patrick, C. J. (2017). Triarchic dimensions of psychopathy in young adulthood: Associations with clinical and physiological measures after accounting for adolescent psychopathic traits. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 8, 140-149. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000193
Lotfi, M., Bach, B., Amini, M., & Simonsen, E. (2018). Structure of DSM-5 and ICD-11 personality domains in Iranian community sample. Personality and Mental Health, 12(2), 155-169. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1409
Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., Williamson, R. L., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the personality inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195-1210. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000120
Martin, S., Zabala, C., Del-Monte, J., Graziani, P., Aizpurua, E., Barry, T. J., & Ricarte, J. (2019). Examining the relationships between impulsivity, aggression, and recidivism for prisoners with antisocial personality disorder. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 49, 101314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2019.07.009
Miller, J. D., Bagby, R. M., Hopwood, C. J., Simms, L. J., & Lynam, D. R. (2022). Normative data for PID-5 domains, facets, and personality disorder composites from a representative sample and comparison to community and clinical samples. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(5), 536-541. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000548
Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. (2001). Structural models of personality and their relation to antisocial behavior: A meta-analytic review. Criminology, 39(4), 765-798. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00940.x
Miller, J. D., Lyman, D. R., Widiger, T. A., & Leukefeld, C. (2001). Personality disorders as extreme variants of common personality dimensions: Can the five-factor model adequately represent psychopathy? Journal of Personality, 69(2), 253-276. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00144
Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., DeShong, H. L., Lengel, G. J., Helle, A. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Disinhibition as a unifying construct in understanding how personality dispositions undergird psychopathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 80, 55-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2019.04.006
Nigg, J. T., Silk, K. R., Stavro, G., & Miller, T. (2005). Disinhibition and borderline personality disorder. Development and Psychopathology, 17, 1129-1149. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0954579405050534
Pelletier, D. (2006). Theoretical considerations related to cutoff points. Food and nutrition bulletin, 27(4_Suppl), S224-S236. https://doi.org/10.1177/15648265060274S506
Perrotta, G. (2020). Borderline personality disorder: Definition, differential diagnosis, clinical contexts and therapeutic approaches. Ann Psychiatry Treatm, 4(1), 43-56. https://doi.org/10.17352/apt.000020
Pocnet, C., Antonietti, J. P., Handschin, P., Massoudi, K., & Rossier, J. (2018). The many faces of personality: The DSM-5 dimensional and categorical models and the five-factor model. Personality and Individual Differences, 121, 11-18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.09.005
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(3), 362-369. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113486183
Rowiński, T., Kowalska-Dąbrowska, M., Strus, W., Cieciuch, J., Czuma, I., Żechowski, C., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). Measurement of pathological personality traits according to the DSM-5: A Polish adaptation of the PID-5. Part I-theoretical foundations. Psychiatrica Polska, 53(1), 23-48. https://doi.org/10.12740/PP/OnlineFirst/86477
Ruopp, M. D., Perkins, N. J., Whitcomb, B. W., & Schisterman, E. F. (2008). Youden index and optimal cut-point estimated from observations affected by a lower limit of detection. Biometrical Journal, 50(3), 419-430. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200710415
Samuel, D. B., Ansell, E. B., Hopwood, C. J., Morey, L. C., Markowitz, J. C., Skodol, A. E., & Grilo, C. M. (2010). The impact of NEO PI-R gender norms on the assessment of personality disorder profiles. Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 539-545. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019580
Samuel, D., & Widiger, T. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326-1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002
Scott, L. N., Stepp, S. D., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2014). Prospective associations between features of borderline personality disorder, emotion dysregulation, and aggression. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(3), 278-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000070
Sellbom, M., Solomon-Krakus, S., Bach, B., & Bagby, R. M. (2020). Validation of personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) algorithms to assess ICD-11 personality trait domains in a psychiatric sample. Psychological Assessment, 32(1), 40-49. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000746
Sharp, C., & Miller, J. D. (2022). Ten-year retrospective on the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorder: Seeing the forest for the trees. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(4), 301-304. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000595
Shojaei, Z., Mohammadi, A., & Zarei, M. (2020). Psychometric properties of the Persian version of personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in psychiatric patients. Iranian Journal of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, 14(4), e87974. https://doi.org/10.5812/ijpbs.87974
Thimm, J. C., Jordan, S., & Bach, B. (2016). 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. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 61. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0169-5
Venema, H., Spies, R., & De Beer, L. T. (2021). Psychometric properties of the personality inventory for DSM-5 brief form in an undergraduate sample of South African university students. SAGE Open, 11(1), 2158244020988724. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244020988724
Wall, T. D., Wygant, D. B., & Sellbom, M. (2015). Boldness explains a key difference between psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 22(1), 94-105. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2014.919627
Waugh, M. H., Hopwood, C. J., Krueger, R. F., Morey, L. C., Pincus, A. L., & Wright, A. G. C. (2017). Psychological assessment with the DSM-5 alternative model for personality disorders: Tradition and innovation. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(2), 79-89. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000071
Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Sleep, C. E., Wall, T. D., Applegate, K. C., Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2016). Examining the DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model operationalization of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy in a male correctional sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 7(3), 229-239. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000179
Zanarini, M. C., & Frankenburg, F. R. (2007). Pathways to the development of borderline personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(5), 534-546. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1997.11.1.93
Zhang, P., Ouyang, Z., Fang, S., He, J., Fan, L., Luo, X., Zhang, J., Xiong, Y., Luo, F., Wang, X., Yao, S., & Wang, X. (2021). Personality inventory for DSM-5 brief form (PID-5-BF) in Chinese students and patients: Evaluating the five-factor model and a culturally informed six-factor model. BMC Psychiatry, 21(1), 107. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-021-03080-x
Zimmermann, J., Kerber, A., Rek, K., Hopwood, C. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). A brief but comprehensive review of research on the alternative DSM-5 model for personality disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21, 92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11920-019-1079-z