Empirical evidence for a four factor framework of personality disorder organization: multigroup confirmatory factor analysis of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III personality disorder scales across Belgian and Danish data samples.
The factor structure of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006) personality disorder scales was analyzed using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis on data obtained from a Danish (N = 2030) and a Belgian (N = 1210) sample. Two-, three-, and four factor models, a priori specified using structures found by Dyce, O'Connor, Parkins, and Janzen (1997), were fitted to the data. The best fitting model was a four factor structure (RMSEA = .066, GFI = .98, CFI = .93) with partially invariant factor loadings. The robustness of this four-factor model clearly supports the efforts to organize future personality disorder description in a four-factor framework by corroborating four domains that were predominant in dimensional models (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005): Factor 1, 2, 3, and 4 respectively corresponded to emotional dysregulation versus stability, antagonism versus compliance, extraversion versus introversion, and constraint versus impulsivity.
Dysfunction in affect regulation is a prominent feature that grossly impairs behavioural and interpersonal domains of experience and underlies a great deal of the psychopathology in borderline personality disorder (BPD). However, no study has yet been published that evaluates the psychometric properties of the translated Danish version of self-report measures sensitive to the different aspects and dimensions of dysfunction in affect regulation prevalent in BPD.
This study comprised a group of women diagnosed with BPD (n = 29) and a comparison group of healthy subjects (n = 29) who reported psychopathology and levels of affective instability, aggression, impulsivity and alexithymia by self-report measures.
Our results demonstrated that women with BPD have significant psychopathology and report significantly higher levels of dysfunction in separate components of affect regulation by self-report measures than the comparison group of healthy subjects. Our results also provided partial support for the psychometric appropriateness and clinical relevance of the translated Danish version of affect regulation measures.
The normative reference range indicated by our results makes the measures useful as a practical assessment tool.
In this study we assessed the DSM-5 trait model in a large Danish sample (n = 1,119) with respect to reliability of the applied Danish version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) self-report form by means of internal consistency and item discrimination. In addition, we tested whether the five-factor structure of the DSM-5 trait model can be replicated in a Danish independent sample using the PID-5 self-report form. Finally, we examined the hierarchical structure of DSM-5 traits. In terms of internal consistency and item discrimination, the applied PID-5 scales were generally found reliable and functional; our data resembled the five-factor structure of previous findings, and we identified a hierarchical structure from one to five factors that was conceptually reasonable and corresponded with existing findings. These results support the new DSM-5 trait model and suggest that it can be generalized to other languages and cultures.
The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013a) offers an alternative model for Personality Disorders (PDs) in Section III, which consists in part of a pathological personality traits criterion measured with the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5). The PID-5 selfreport instrument currently exists in the original 220-item form, a short 100-item form, and a brief 25-item form. For clinicians and researchers, the choice of a particular PID- 5 form depends on feasibility, but also reliability and validity. The goal of the present study was to examine the psychometric qualities of all 3 PID-5 forms, simultaneously, based on a Danish sample (N = 1376) of 451 psychiatric outpatients and 925 community-dwelling participants. Scale reliability and factorial validity were satisfactory across all 3 PID-5 forms. The correlational profiles of the short and brief PID-5 forms with clinician-rated PD dimensions were nearly identical with that of the original PID-5 (rICC = .99 and .95, respectively). All 3 forms discriminated appropriately between psychiatric patients and community-dwelling individuals. This supports that all 3 PID-5 forms can be used to reliably and validly assess PD traits and provides initial support for the use of the abbreviated PID-5 forms in a European population. However, only the original 220-item form and the short 100-item form capture all 25 trait facets, and the brief 25-item form may be ideally limited to preliminary screening or situations with substantial time restrictions.