Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Short Form (PID-5-SF)

The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – short form (PID-5-SF) is a measure designed to assess dysfunctional personality traits according to the conceptual framework proposed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). It is a concise version of the original PID-5 (Krueger et al., 2012) and consists of 100 items that measure five broad domains of personality dysfunction, which are then further divided into 25 facets, capturing specific aspects of personality functioning (Maples et al., 2015).

The PID-5-SF presents personality traits in two district methods. An empirically derived framework with five personality domains, and a seven personality domains framework that aligns with DSM-5-TR conceptualisation of personality pathology. 

The five empirically derived personality factors (and the facets that contribute to them) are:

  1. Negative affectivity: Emotional lability, Anxiousness, Separation insecurity
  2. Detachment: Withdrawal, Anhedonia, Intimacy avoidance
  3. Antagonism: Manipulativeness, Deceitfulness, Grandiosity
  4. Disinhibition: Irresponsibility, Impulsivity, Distractibility
  5. Psychoticism: Unusual beliefs and experiences, Eccentricity, Perceptual dysregulation

The DSM-5-TR aligning framework known as the Alternative Model of Personalities (AMPD), includes the following domains:

  • Schizotypal: (Facets: Perceptual Dysregulation, Unusual Beliefs And Experiences, Eccentricity, Restricted Affectivity, Withdrawal, and Suspiciousness.)
  • Antisocial: (Manipulativeness, Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Risk Taking, Impulsivity, and Irresponsibility facets.)
  • Antisocial with Psychopathy: (Manipulativeness, Callousness, Deceitfulness, Hostility, Risk Taking, Impulsivity, Irresponsibility, Attention Seeking, Anxiousness (inversed), and Withdrawal (inversed))
  • Borderline: (Emotional Lability, Anxiousness, Separation Insecurity, Depressivity, Impulsivity, Risk Taking, and Hostility.)
  • Narcissistic: (Attention Seeking and Grandiosity).
  • Avoidant: (Anxiousness, Withdrawal, Anhedonia, and Intimacy Avoidance).
  • Obsessive-Compulsive: (Rigid Perfectionism, Perseveration, Intimacy Avoidance, and Restricted Affectivity.)

The Alternative Model of Personalities (AMPD) composite scores align with the dimensional trait model proposed in Section III of the DSM-5 and DMS-5-TR.  The AMPD composite scores are derived from specific combinations of PID-5-SF facets that represent broader dimensions of personality functioning: The use of AMPD composite scores can be useful for clinicians in several ways. Firstly, it helps in diagnosing personality disorders in a more comprehensive, systematic and dimensional manner. By focusing on impairments in personality functioning and specific traits, clinicians can better capture the nuances and variations in personality pathology, leading to more accurate and personalised treatment planning. Research by Bach et al. (2015) supports the clinical utility of the AMPD model for diagnosing personality disorders in a dimensional approach.

Secondly, AMPD composite scores offer a standardised and quantifiable way of measuring personality dysfunction. This allows for easier comparison and communication among different clinicians and researchers, enhancing the consistency and reliability of personality assessment in both clinical and research settings.

Overall, the PID-5-SF enables a comprehensive evaluation of an individual’s personality traits and helps in identifying maladaptive patterns that may be indicative of various psychopathologies. By using a standardised measure like the PID-5-SF, clinicians can better assess and compare their clients’ personality traits across different diagnostic categories, leading to more accurate and reliable diagnoses. Additionally, the PID-5-SF offers a dimensional approach to personality assessment, allowing clinicians to capture the subtleties and variations in personality functioning rather than relying solely on categorical diagnoses. This dimensional approach is supported by research, such as that conducted by Krueger et al. (2012), which highlights the advantages of utilising personality trait measures for a more nuanced understanding of psychopathology.

As well as the major personality domains presented above, there are also 25 facets measured by the PID-5-SF. These facets represent specific dimensions of personality functioning, providing a detailed understanding of an individual’s personality traits and potential areas of concern. They are:

Anhedonia, Anxiousness, Attention Seeking, Callousness, Deceitfulness, Depressivity, Distractibility, Eccentricity, Emotional Lability, Grandiosity, Hostility, Impulsivity, Intimacy Avoidance, Irresponsibility, Manipulativeness, Perceptual Dysregulation, Perseveration, Restricted Affectivity, Rigid Perfectionism, Risk Taking, Separation Insecurity, Submissiveness, Suspiciousness, Unusual Beliefs and Experiences, and Withdrawal. 

Personality Inventory for DSM-5 – Short Form questions

 

Developer

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

References

Bach, B., Markon, K., Simonsen, E., & Krueger, R. F. (2015). Clinical utility of the DSM-5 alternative model of personality disorders: six cases from practice. Journal of psychiatric practice, 21(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.pra.0000460618.02805.ef

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

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, 13(5), 536–541. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000548

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