Rivard Geneviève, Le Corff Yann, Lapalme Mélanie, Forget Karine
The Group for Research and Intervention on Children's Social Adjustment (GRISE), Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Département d'orientation Professionnelle, Faculté d'éducation, Université de Sherbrooke, Sherbrooke, QC, Canada.
Front Psychiatry. 2024 Mar 8;15:1328937. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2024.1328937. eCollection 2024.
There has been an international movement towards dimensional models of personality disorders (PDs) in the last decades, which culminated in the publication of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) in the Emerging Measures and Models section of the DSM-5. This model was accompanied by a APA-sanctioned Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) for the assessment of the AMPD pathological personality traits. One major issue with the assessment of personality disorders pertains to sex differences, and measurement invariance across sex in assessment instruments for PDs is necessary in order to ensure non-biased evaluations and to make valid comparisons between men and women. This study aimed to provide more information on measurement invariance across sex for the PID-5, using both the original scoring approach provided by the authors of the instrument and the scoring approach suggested by the APA in the published version of the PID-5.
This study was conducted with a sample of 2273 participants from the general Québec (Canada) adult population aged 18 to 90 years (M = 46.59; SD = 16.32; 51.8% women).
The original scoring approach model showed good fit to data after freeing paths between certain traits and reached strict invariance. The APA scoring approach also showed good fit to data and reached strict invariance, but needed an adjustment (path freed between Emotional lability and Impulsivity in men) to reach scalar invariance.
In line with previous research, the PID-5 is invariant across sex and the five-factor structure adjusts well to data. The APA scoring approach appears to attenuate the cross-loading problem observed with the original scoring approach. In light of these results, we recommend using the APA scoring approach to derive domain scores.
在过去几十年里，国际上出现了一种向人格障碍（PDs）维度模型发展的趋势，这一趋势在《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第5版（DSM - 5）的“新兴测量与模型”部分发布的人格障碍替代模型（AMPD）中达到了顶峰。该模型还附带了一个经美国心理学会（APA）批准的用于评估AMPD病理性人格特质的DSM - 5人格量表（PID - 5）。人格障碍评估中的一个主要问题涉及性别差异，为确保评估无偏差并能在男性和女性之间进行有效比较，PDs评估工具在性别间的测量不变性是必要的。本研究旨在利用该工具作者提供的原始计分方法以及APA在已发布的PID - 5版本中建议的计分方法，提供更多关于PID - 5在性别间测量不变性的信息。
本研究以来自加拿大魁北克普通成年人群的2273名参与者为样本，年龄在18至90岁之间（M = 46.59；SD = 16.32；51.8%为女性）。
原始计分方法模型在放宽某些特质之间的路径后显示出对数据的良好拟合，并达到了严格不变性。APA计分方法也显示出对数据的良好拟合并达到了严格不变性，但需要进行调整（放宽男性情绪不稳定和冲动性之间的路径）以达到标量不变性。
与先前的研究一致，PID - 5在性别间具有不变性，且五因素结构能很好地适应数据。APA计分方法似乎减弱了原始计分方法中观察到的交叉负荷问题。鉴于这些结果，我们建议使用APA计分方法来得出领域分数。
