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.
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.