Acceso usuarios
Roberto Óscar Sánchez
, Silvana Andrea Montes, Aixa Lidia Galarza, Luis Daniel Somerstein, Martín Damián Gainza
El modelo dimensional alternativo para los trastornos de personalidad incluye 25 facetas (rasgos patológicos) organizadas en cinco dominios de orden superior (Desapego, Afectividad Negativa, Psicoticismo, Antagonismo y Desinhibición). Para evaluar este modelo, se desarrolló el Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5), que posee dos versiones:
una extensa (220 ítems) que evalúa dominios y facetas, y una breve (25 ítems) que evalúa solo los dominios. En un trabajo anterior, se brindó evidencia favorable para una versión breve (31 ítems) adaptada para ser utilizada en población argentina. En el presente trabajo se estudian las propiedades psicométricas de una versión reducida y modificada del PID-5 que permite evaluar ambos componentes por medio de una cantidad de ítems (108).
La validez convergente se evaluó a través de la relación con una medida de rasgos de personalidad normal del Modelo de los Cinco Grandes Factores. Se trabajó con una muestra de tipo no probabilística de n = 525 sujetos de población general, que respondieron la versión adaptada del PID-5 y el Listado de Adjetivos para Evaluar la Personalidad. Los resultados brindaron evidencia de validez y confiabilidad para el instrumento. El Análisis Factorial Exploratorio y Confirmatorio sugirió un buen ajuste de la estructura pentafactorial.
La consistencia interna resultó adecuada y los ítems presentaron buenos índices de discriminación. Se observaron diferencias de género y edad, y correlaciones con los factores correspondientes de los cinco grandes. Esta versión puede ser utilizada para evaluar el modelo, con fines tanto clínicos como de investigación, y con ventajas respecto al tiempo de administración respecto a la versión extensa original.
The official classification of personality disorders in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) remains categorical. However, a dimensional alternative for personality disorders is presented as an emerging model.
The model is organized in five higher order domains (Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition and Psychoticism), with relationships with the Big Five Model of Personality, strongly established within the Personality Psychology. The proposal also includes 25 facets or second-order traits, included within the main domains. Domains and facets represent psychopathological traits with clinical relevance. To assess this model, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was developed. PID-5 has two forms: extensive (220 items) that assesses domains and facets, and brief (25 items) that assesses only the domains. In a previous study, evidence for a short version (31 items) adapted to the Argentine population was provided, that overcomes some of the limitations of the original one. In this work, the psychometric properties of a reduced and modified version of the PID-5 are studied, which allows evaluating five domains and 25 facets, through a reduced number of items (108). We worked with a non-probabilistic sample of n = 525 subjects from the general population, who answered the adapted version of the PID-5 and the Adjectives Checklist to Assess the Big Five Personality Factors (AEP), a Big Five Model measure. The following data analyses were performed: (1) Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis to evaluate the internal structure of PID-5; (2) reliability analysis to assess the internal consistency of the PID-5 scales;
(3) item analysis to assess discriminating power; (4) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) to examine significant differences due to gender and age; and (5) bivariate correlation analysis to analyze PID-5 convergent validity. The results provided evidence of validity and reliability. Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analysis suggested a five-factor structure. The facets presented factor loadings in the domain theoretically expected, with some exceptions: Suspiciousness (loaded in Psychoticism), Hostility (loaded in Disinhibition), Depressivity (loaded in Detachment) and Insensitivity (loaded in Detachment). CFA also suggested a good model fit (CFI = .98; RMSEA = .04; SRMR = 0.083). Psychoticism, Detachment, and Disinhibition facets had their higher factor loadings in the expected domain. Negative affectivity showed higher correlations with the rest of the scales. Internal consistency was satisfactory, especially at the domain level, and the items had good discrimination indices. Correlations with the corresponding of the Big Five factors were observed, similar to previous studies.
The five PID-5 domains were also found positively correlated. Additionally, gender and age differences were found. In line with previous literature, results suggest that some facets scales are “pure” markers of these domains (e. g., Psychoticism and Antagonism facets), whereas others (e. g., Negative Affectivity facets such as Depressiveness, Suspicion, Hostility), are located “in between” domains since they share features of more than one domain. Psychoticism facets presented higher loadings in their domains and lower in the rest.
This is not surprising; although most of psychopathology cannot be understood as categories, schizophyte and Schizotypal Personality Disorder are exceptions, and Psychoticism would be the representation of these categories in the APA model. Findings also provide evidence of convergent validity for the instrument, as well as theorical evidence regarding the relationship between normal and pathological personality traits. This version can be used to evaluate the model, both in research and clinical practice. It has advantages over the original longer version, in terms of administration time and participants’ fatigue, while maintaining its psychometric properties. The results are also expected to contribute to the recent literature on the dimensional approach to personality psychopathology. However, complementary studies, particularly with a clinical population, are needed.
