Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Age-Neutrality of the Trait Facets Proposed for Personality Disorders in DSM-5: A DIFAS Analysis of the PID-5

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An age-neutral measurement system is one of the basic conditions for an accurate personality assessment across the lifespan, both longitudinally and cross-sectionally. In this study the age-neutrality of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 PID-5; Krueger et al. (Psychological Medicine 42, 1879–1890, 2012) was investigated. Potential Differential Item Functioning (DIF) was examined for the 25 trait facets in older versus younger adults. Overall, 33 items displayed large DIF, according to the adjusted Bonferroni corrected cutoffs (Mantel Chi-square, Liu-Agresti Cumulative Common Log-Odds Ratio [L-A LOR], and Cox’s Noncentrality Parameter Estimator [Cox’s B]). In a next step, the implications of the item level DIF across age groups was investigated on scale (i.e., facet) level. These Differential Test Functioning (DTF) analyses revealed large DTF for four of the 25 PID-5 facets (i.e., Withdrawal, Attention Seeking, Rigid Perfectionism and Unusual Beliefs). Current initial results show that most PID-5 traits are measured equally well across age, however, further research is needed to further refine this instrument and make it entirely age-neutral.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The exact cutoff values for each of the three DIF indicators for each analysis can be obtained on requested from the first author.

  2. In deriving their thresholds Penfield and Algina (2006) argued that a collective large level of DIF in a group of items exist if 25 % or more of the items are categorized as having moderate or large magnitudes of DIF based on the ETS classification scheme (i.e. if 25 % or more of the items have an absolute value of log(αMH) greater than or equal to .43. They also suggest that MH and L-A LOR have similar meanings in terms of DIF magnitude. Because we wanted to reduce the Type I error, a Bonferroni correction was applied and adjusted L-A LOR cut-off values were used to flag items with large DIF (depending on the number of items per scale). In line, we made a similar adjustment for the DTF thresholds. For example: Penfield and Algina consider the variance of DIF effect large when weighted v2 > .14, using an L-A LOR value of .43 as critical value. Since we adhere to stringent L-A LOR critical values (for example > .92 for Anhedonia) we adjusted this to v2 > .35 (i.e., .14/.43*.92).

References

  • Agronin, M. E., & Maletta, G. (2000). Personality disorders in later life. Understanding and overcoming the gap in research. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 8, 4–18.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Bagby, M. R., Quilty, L. C., Veltri, C. O. C., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). On the convergence between PSY-5 domains and PID-5 domains and facets: implications for assessment of DSM-5 personality traits. Assessment. doi:10.1177/1073191112471141.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baer, R. A., Samuel, D. B., & Lykins, E. L. B. (2011). Differential item functioning on the five facet mindfulness questionnaire is minimal in demographically matched mediators and nonmediators. Assessment, 18(1), 3–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Balsis, S., Gleason, M. E. J., Woods, C. M., & Oltmanns, T. F. (2007). An item response theory analysis of DSM-IV personality disorder criteria across younger and older age groups. Psychology and Aging, 22(1), 171–185.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Camilli, G., & Congdon, P. (1999). Application of a method of estimating DIF for polytomous test items. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 323–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen, L. L. (1991). Selectivity theory: social activity in life-span context. Annual Review of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 11, 195–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Mervielde, I., Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. (2011). Dutch translation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5).

  • Edwards, M. C., & Edelen, M. O. (2009). Special topics in item response theory. In R. E. Millsap & A. Maydeu-Olivares (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of quantitative methods in psychology (pp. 178–185). London: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Harkness, A. R., & McNulty, J. L. (1994). The personality psychopathology five (PSY-5): Issue from the pages of a diagnostic manual instead of a dictionary. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 291–315). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holmén, K., & Furukawa, H. (2002). Loneliness, health and social network among elderly people—a follow-up study. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 35, 261–274.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332–346.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM-IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 424–432.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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, 1879–1890.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, I. M., & Agresti, A. (1996). Mantel-Haenszel-type inference for cumulative odds ratio with a stratified ordinal response. Biometrics, 52, 1223–1234.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazor, K. M., Clauser, B. E., & Hambleton, R. K. (1992). The effect of sample size on the functioning of the Mantel-Haenszel statistic. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 443–451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Millsap, R. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oltmanns, T. F., & Balsis, S. (2011). Personality disorders in later life: questions about the measurement, course, and impact of disorders. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 7, 321–349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Penfield, R. D. (2005). DIFAS: differential item functioning analysis system. Applied Psychological Measurement, 29, 150–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penfield, R. D. (2007). DIFAS 4.0. Differential item functioning analysis system: user’s manual. Unpublished manuscript.

  • Penfield, R. D. (2010). Distinguishing between net and global DIF in polytomous items. Journal of Educational Measurement, 47, 129–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penfield, R. D., & Algina, J. (2006). A generalized DIF effect variance estimator for measuring unsigned differential test functioning in mixed format tests. Journal of Educational Measurement, 43(4), 295–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, A. E., & Carstensen, L. L. (2012). The theory behind the age-related positivity effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 3, doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00339.

  • Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E., & Viechtbauer, W. (2006). Patterns of mean-level change in personality traits across the life course: a meta-analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 3–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Segal, D. L., Coolidge, F. L., & Rosowsky, E. (2000). Personality disorders. In S. Krauss (Ed.), Psychopathology in later adulthood (pp. 89–115). Wiley: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tackett, J. L., Balsis, S., Oltmanns, T. F., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). A unifying perspective on personality pathology across the life span: developmental considerations for the fifth edition of the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 687–713.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Terracciano, A., McCrae, R. R., Brant, L. J., & Costa, P. T., Jr. (2005). Hierarchical linear modeling analyses of NEO PI-R scales in the Baltimore longitudinal study of aging. Psychology and Aging, 20(3), 493–506.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F., Wright, A. G. C., Markon, K. E., & Hopwood, C. J. (2012). The convergent structure of DSM-5 personality trait facets and Five Factor Model trait domains. Assessment.

  • Van Alphen, S. P. J., Engelen, G. J. J. A., Kuin, Y., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2006). The relevance of a geriatric sub-classification of personality disorders in the DSM-V. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21, 205–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. doi:10.1037/a0027669.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Clinical and Lifespan Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Joke Van den Broeck, Leen Bastiaansen, Gina Rossi & Eva Dierckx

  2. Department of Developmental, Personality and Social Psychology, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium

    Barbara De Clercq

  3. Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, Department of Clinical and Lifespan Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, 1050, Brussels, Belgium

    Joke Van den Broeck

Authors
  1. Joke Van den Broeck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Leen Bastiaansen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gina Rossi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Eva Dierckx
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Barbara De Clercq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joke Van den Broeck.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Van den Broeck, J., Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G. et al. Age-Neutrality of the Trait Facets Proposed for Personality Disorders in DSM-5: A DIFAS Analysis of the PID-5. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 35, 487–494 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9364-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-013-9364-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation