The ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders delineates five trait domain qualifiers (i.e., negative affectivity, detachment, dissociality, disinhibition, and anankastia), whereas the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders also delineates a separate domain of psychoticism. These six combined traits not only characterize individual stylistic features, but also the severity of their maladaptive expressions. It was, therefore, the aim of this study to investigate the utility of ICD-11 and DSM-5 trait domains to differentiate patients with personality disorders (PD) from patients with other mental disorders (non-PD). The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form Plus (PID5BF+M) was administered to a sample of patients diagnosed with a personality disorder (N = 124, M_age = 42.21, 42.7% females) along with a sample of patients diagnosed with other mental disorders (N = 335, M_age = 44.83, 46.6% females). Group differences were explored using the independent sample t test or the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples, and discriminant factor analysis was used to maximize group differences for each trait domain and facet score. The PD group showed significantly higher scores for the total PID5BF+M composite score, for the trait domains of negative affectivity, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition and for the trait facets of emotional lability, manipulativeness, deceitfulness, and impulsivity. The trait domains of disinhibition, negative affectivity, and antagonism/dissociality as well as the trait facets of impulsivity, deceitfulness, emotional lability, and manipulativeness were the best discriminators between PD and non-PD patients. The global PID5BF+M composite score was also one of the best discriminators supporting its potential as a global severity index for detecting personality dysfunction. Finally, high scores in three or more of the 18 PID5BF+M facets suggested the possible presence of a PD diagnosis. Despite some limitations, our findings suggest that the ICD-11 and DSM-5 traits have the potential to specifically describe the stylistic features that characterize individuals with PD, including the severity of their maladaptive expressions.

Background: Section III of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) proposes a model for conceptualizing personality disorders in which they are characterized by impairments in personality functioning and maladaptive personality traits. The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is a self-report measure that assesses the presence and severity of these maladaptive personality traits. Objective: The current study examined the reliability and validity of the Arabic version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) to measure maladaptive personality traits in the Emirati population of the United Arab Emirates. Methods: The Arabic version of the PID-5 was administered to a community sample of 1,090 United Arab Emirates nationals (89.5% female and 10.5% male, mean age = 22.44 years old). The descriptive measures, internal consistency, test-retest reliability, convergent validity with NEO – Five Factor Inventory, as well as PID-5’s factor structure, were all addressed. Results: The PID-5facets and domains mean scores were higher in the Emirati sample compared to the original US sample. Internal consistency of the PID-5 scales was acceptable to high and test-retest coefficients ranged from 0.84 (facets) to 0.87 (domains). As expected, the five domains of the Arabic version of the PID-5 correlated significantly with all Five-Factor Model domains of personality. Additionally, the Arabic version of the PID-5 confirmed a five-factor structure that resembles the PID-5 domains. Conclusion: The findings of this study provided initial support for the use of the Arabic version of the PID-5 to assess maladaptive personality traits in the Emirati population of the United Arab Emirates.

The DSM-5 Section III proposes a hybrid dimensional-categorical model of conceptualizing personality and its disorders that includes assessment of impairments in personality functioning (criterion A) and maladaptive personality traits (criterion B). The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 is a new dimensional tool, composed of 220 items organized into 25 facets that delineate five higher order domains of clinically relevant personality differences, and was developed to operationalize the DSM-5 model of pathological personality traits. The current studies address the internal consistency (study 1), the test-retest reliability (study 2) and the criterion validity (studies 3 and 4) of the Portuguese version of the PID-5 in samples of native speaking psychology students. Results indicated good internal consistency reliabilities and good temporal stability reliabilities for the majority of the PID-5 traits. The correlational pattern of the PID-5 traits with two measures of personality was in accordance with theoretical expectations and showed its concurrent validity.

Introduction: In both the ICD-11 Classification of Personality Disorders and the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) personality disorders (PD) are characterized by impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning which distinguish the various levels of dysfunction. Moreover, pathological traits are used by these classification systems to define the stylistic expression of personality dysfunction. Negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism/dissociality, and disinhibition feature as trait domains in each of these models. However, there are also differences between the two models, namely, in the psychoticism domain, which does not feature as a personality trait domain in the ICD-11, and in the anankastia domain, corresponding to compulsivity in the DSM-5, which was removed from the final AMPD model. Furthermore, facets are acknowledged by the DSM-5 within each trait domain, while this does not occur in the ICD-11. In view of the similarity between these classification systems, their harmonization would be beneficial for the clinical profession. With this goal in mind, the PID5BF + M, an algorithm that assesses the DSM-5 and ICD-11 six trait domains and 18 facets, was developed and has proven to adequately characterize the ICD-11 trait domains by means of DSM-5 trait facets.Methods: The current study compares a community sample (N = 280, M_age = 48.01, 53.2% females) with a PD sample (N = 131, M_age = 42.66, 45.0% females) along with the PID5BF + M, the LPFS-SR and the PID-5. Given that the PID5BF + M total can be seen as a measure of the level of personality dysfunction, strong relations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total are expected. Strong relations between the trait specifiers measured by the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 are also expected. Finally, the community and clinical samples are expected to differentiate by means of the dimensions assessed through the three afore-mentioned measures. The Spearman rank-order correlation coefficient was used to measure the strength and direction of associations between the PID5BF + M total and the LPFS-SR total and between the PID5BF + M and the PID-5 traits. Group differences were explored using the Mann–Whitney U test for independent samples.Results: As expected, there were strong, significant, and positive relations between the measures. Furthermore, higher scores were observed in all the variables for the PD group against the community group.Discussion: Although this study has limitations, its findings sustain that the PID5BF + M has potential to assess the severity of personality disfunction and to characterize the stylistic features of PD as they are conceived by both the ICD-11 and the DSM-5. Although more research is needed regarding the convergent validity of the PID5BF + M, this new test contributes to the harmonization of both systems and to parsimony in the assessment of PD, which is the main objective of clinical practice.

The number of computerized and reliable performance validity tests are scarce. This study aims to address this issue by validating a free and computerized performance validity test: the Coin in Hand–Extended Version (CIH-EV). The CIH-EV test was administered in four countries (Colombia, Spain, Portugal, and the United States) and performance was compared with other commonly used validated tests. Results showed that the CIH-EV has at least 95% specificity and 62% sensitivity, and performance was highly correlated with scores on the Test of Memory Malingering, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, and Digit Span of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. There were no significant differences in scores across countries, suggesting that the CIH-EV performs similarly in a variety of cultures. Our findings suggest that the CIH-EV has the potential to serve as a valid validity test either alone or as a supplement to other commonly used validity tests.