Faculty of Psychology.
Department of Psychology.
Psychol Assess. 2022 Mar;34(3):281-293. doi: 10.1037/pas0001084. Epub 2021 Dec 2.
At present, there are two models of pathological personality represented in two measurement instruments, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) and the Personality Inventory for (PiCD). Although both instruments have shown high convergence, the PID-5 has the advantage of including facets that might offer greater predictive capacity. An alternative to the PiCD has recently been proposed to overcome this drawback, namely the Five-Factor Personality Inventory for (FFiCD). The present study aims to explore its internal structure and to offer additional validity evidence. Data were collected for a total of 1,409 community individuals from two populations in Spain. They responded to the FFiCD, PiCD, the PID-5/SF, and measures of personality functioning and personality disorder screening (Level of Personality Functioning Scale Self-Report [LPFS-SR] and International Personality Disorder Examination [IPDE]). The internal structure of the FFiCD was analyzed through exploratory factor analysis with oblique and bifactor rotations. The predictive capacity of the domains and facets was examined. The structure reported in the original study was replicated, as were the convergent validity data with respect to the PID-5/SF and the PiCD. Facets were grouped into four factors corresponding to the theoretical domains, including a bipolar Anankastia/Disinhibition factor. High correlations were found with the LPFS-SR, and the patterns of relationships with the IPDE shed light on which aspects of pathological personality contribute most to the 10 traditional personality disorders. In general, validity evidence is provided to support the use of the FFiCD, though four of the 20 facets merit revision so that a simpler factor structure can be obtained. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
目前,有两种病理性人格模型在两种测量工具中得到体现,分别是DSM-5 人格量表(PID-5)和人格障碍检查表(PiCD)。虽然这两种工具都表现出了较高的一致性,但 PID-5 具有纳入可能提供更大预测能力的方面的优势。为克服这一缺点,最近提出了 PiCD 的替代方案,即用于 的五因素人格量表(FFiCD)。本研究旨在探索其内部结构,并提供额外的有效性证据。数据是从西班牙的两个群体中收集的,共 1409 名社区个体参与了研究。他们回答了 FFiCD、PiCD、PID-5/SF,以及人格功能和人格障碍筛查的测量(人格功能水平量表自评[LPFS-SR]和国际人格障碍检查[IPDE])。FFiCD 的内部结构通过斜交和双因素旋转的探索性因素分析进行分析。检验了各领域和方面的预测能力。报告的结构与原始研究相同,与 PID-5/SF 和 PiCD 的收敛有效性数据相同。在四个与理论领域相对应的因素中,将方面分为四个因素,包括一个双极的强迫/抑制因素。与 LPFS-SR 高度相关,与 IPDE 的关系模式揭示了病理性人格的哪些方面对 10 种传统人格障碍的贡献最大。总的来说,提供了有效性证据支持使用 FFiCD,但需要修订其中的 20 个方面中的 4 个,以便获得更简单的因素结构。(PsycInfo 数据库记录(c)2022 APA,保留所有权利)。