Ana Maria Barchi-Ferreira Bel1, Flávia L Osório. 1. From the Medical School of Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo University; National Institute for Science and Technology (INCT-TM, CNPq), Brasília, Brazil (Dr. Osório).
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature on the psychometric characteristics of different versions of the Personality Inventory for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (PID-5) and to integrate the current findings with those of previous reviews by Al Dajani and colleagues (2015) and Watters and Bagby (2018). METHODS: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses protocol. PubMed, PsycINFO, SciELO, Web of Science, and LILACS were searched using two keywords: personality AND DSM-5. Studies published from 2015 to 2018 were included. RESULTS: Sixty-four new studies were evaluated. The PID-5-self-report form (SRF) was concluded to have a factorial structure consisting of five factors and 25 facets, as well as excellent indicators of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity with different personality instruments and with other clinical constructs. The form also has predictive and discriminative potential, warranting further exploration in studies with samples of personality disorders in relation to different parameters and not only the diagnostic algorithm of DSM-5 Section III. The brief and informant versions, although less studied, also showed good psychometric indicators, comparable to the original version. CONCLUSIONS: The PID-5 showed psychometric suitability for use in different cultures and contexts. The form's use in clinical practice and as a means of operationalizing the diagnostic evaluation of the DSM-5 dimensional model is promising and should be encouraged.
OBJECTIVE: To perform a systematic review of the literature on the psychometric characteristics of different versions of the Personality Inventory for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition (PID-5) and to integrate the current findings with those of previous reviews by Al Dajani and colleagues (2015) and Watters and Bagby (2018). METHODS: This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses protocol. PubMed, PsycINFO, SciELO, Web of Science, and LILACS were searched using two keywords: personality AND DSM-5. Studies published from 2015 to 2018 were included. RESULTS: Sixty-four new studies were evaluated. The PID-5-self-report form (SRF) was concluded to have a factorial structure consisting of five factors and 25 facets, as well as excellent indicators of internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and convergent validity with different personality instruments and with other clinical constructs. The form also has predictive and discriminative potential, warranting further exploration in studies with samples of personality disorders in relation to different parameters and not only the diagnostic algorithm of DSM-5 Section III. The brief and informant versions, although less studied, also showed good psychometric indicators, comparable to the original version. CONCLUSIONS: The PID-5 showed psychometric suitability for use in different cultures and contexts. The form's use in clinical practice and as a means of operationalizing the diagnostic evaluation of the DSM-5 dimensional model is promising and should be encouraged.