Nadia al-Dajani

Shifts in the conceptualization of psychopathology have favored a dimensional approach, with the five-factor model (FFM) playing a prominent role in this research. However, reservations about the utility of the FFM in differentiating disorders have risen. In the current investigation, a "bottom-up" analytical method was used to ascertain the hierarchical structure of personality, with investigation of the specificity of the traits in categorizing diagnostic categories across an expanded array of psychiatric disorders. Following earlier investigations, which used a hierarchical structural approach, this study presents new results relating to the differentiation of several forms of psychopathology not included in these earlier analyses-bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, problem gambling, posttraumatic stress disorder, and somatoform disorders-across distinct levels of a personality hierarchy based on the FFM. These results bolster the argument for the use of FFM personality traits in characterizing and differentiating psychiatric diagnostic groups.

The paradigm of personality psychopathology is shifting from one that is purely categorical in nature to one grounded in dimensional individual differences. Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed. [DSM–5]; American Psychiatric Association, 2013), for example, includes a hybrid categorical/dimensional model of personality disorder classification. To inform the hybrid model, the DSM–5 Personality and Personality Disorders Work Group developed a self-report instrument to assess pathological personality traits—the Personality Inventory for the DSM–5 (PID–5). Since its recent introduction, 30 papers (39 samples) have been published examining various aspects of its psychometric properties. In this article, we review the psychometric characteristics of the PID–5 using the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing as our framework. The PID–5 demonstrates adequate psychometric properties, including a replicable factor structure, convergence with existing personality instruments, and expected associations with broadly conceptualized clinical constructs. More research is needed with specific consideration to clinical utility, additional forms of reliability and validity, relations with psychopathological personality traits using clinical samples, alternative methods of criterion validation, effective employment of cut scores, and the inclusion of validity scales to propel this movement forward.