Detailed Information on Publication Record
2021
Psychometric Properties of the Independent 36-Item PID5BF+M for ICD-11 in the Czech-Speaking Community Sample
RIEGEL, Karel D., Albert KŠIŇAN and Lucia SCHLOSSEROVABasic information
Original name
Psychometric Properties of the Independent 36-Item PID5BF+M for ICD-11 in the Czech-Speaking Community Sample
Authors
RIEGEL, Karel D. (203 Czech Republic), Albert KŠIŇAN (203 Czech Republic, guarantor, belonging to the institution) and Lucia SCHLOSSEROVA (203 Czech Republic)
Edition
Frontiers in Psychiatry, Lausanne, Frontiers, 2021, 1664-0640
Other information
Language
English
Type of outcome
Článek v odborném periodiku
Field of Study
30215 Psychiatry
Country of publisher
Switzerland
Confidentiality degree
není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství
References:
Impact factor
Impact factor: 5.435
RIV identification code
RIV/00216224:14310/21:00122252
Organization unit
Faculty of Science
UT WoS
000658878600001
Keywords in English
ICD-11; DSM-5 AMPD; personality disorder classification; PID5BF+M; trait diagnosis; borderline pattern qualifier
Tags
Tags
International impact, Reviewed
Změněno: 4/9/2021 21:21, Mgr. Michaela Hylsová, Ph.D.
Abstract
V originále
Background: Empirical soundness and international robustness of the PID5BF+M, a shortened version of the PID-5 developed for simultaneous evaluation of maladaptive personality traits in the DSM-5 AMPD and ICD-11 models for personality disorders, was recently confirmed in 16 samples from different countries. Because the modified PID5BF+ scale (36 items) was extracted from the complete 220-item PID-5, an independent evaluation of psychometric properties of a stand-alone PID5BF+M is still missing. Objectives: The present study evaluated the validity and reliability of the 36-item PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. It also assessed associations between the Borderline Pattern qualifier and trait domain qualifiers. Methods: Two non-clinical samples meeting the inclusion criteria were employed in the study. Sample 1 (n = 614) completed the 220-item PID-5; Sample 2 (n = 1,040) completed the independent 36-item PID5BF+M. Participants were from all 14 regions of the Czech Republic. The Borderline Pattern qualifier was evaluated using a shortened IPDEQ screener. Results: The proposed latent structure of the independent PID5BF+M was confirmed, with an exception of the Disinhibition domain. The results confirmed good internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the measure, as well as some support for the measurement invariance of the independent PID5BF+M in comparison with the extracted version from the original PID-5. Significant associations between the Negative affectivity, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism qualifiers and the IPDEQ items for the emotionally unstable personality disorder of both impulsive and borderline types confirmed good predictive validity of the PID5BF+M in pursuing borderline psychopathology within the ICD-11 model. Conclusions: The independent PID5BF+M was found to be a valid and reliable tool for evaluation of the ICD-11 trait model. However, the Disinhibition domain deserves further investigation in clinical samples as well as in international community samples.