The underlying structure of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): a general factor of personality psychopathology
More details
Hide details
CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
Faculty of Psychology, National University of Mar del Plata, Mar del Plata, Argentina
Submission date: 2022-04-07
Final revision date: 2023-03-02
Acceptance date: 2023-04-12
Online publication date: 2023-06-01
Corresponding author
Silvana A. Montes   

CONICET (National Scientific and Technical Research Council), Buenos Aires, Argentina
The psychopathology of personality is currently undergoing a paradigm shift from a categorical to a dimensional approach. This work aimed to study the underlying structure of pathological personality traits of the DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders (AMPD). For this purpose, the internal structure of a version of the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) was examined by a confirmatory factor analysis. This version assesses the five higher-order pathological personality domains (negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, and psychoticism) and the 25 lower-order pathological personality facets through a reduced number of items. Four alternative models were compared: five-factor oblique; second-order (five first-order factors and one second-order factor); bifactor (five specific factors and a general fac-tor), and one-factor.

Participants and procedure:
We worked with an Argentinean sample of N = 525 subjects from the general population who answered the Argentine ver-sion of the PID-5.

The five-factor model was slightly superior to the second order model, and the bifactor model presented the best fit.

These findings, while preliminary, suggest that the PID-5 facets could reflect five specific pathological personality traits (which correspond to AMPD domains) but also a general factor (which would reflect a general propensity for psycho-pathology).

Al-Dajani, N., Gralnick, T. M., & Bagby, R. M. (2016). A psychometric review of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): Current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 62–81.
APA (1952). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. APA Publishing.
APA (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. DSM-5 (5th ed.). APA Publishing.
Bagby, R. M., Keeley, J. W., Williams, C. C., Mortezaei, A., Ryder, A. G., & Sellbom, M. (2022). Evaluating the measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Black Americans and White Amer-icans. Psychological Assessment, 34, 82–90.
Bastiaens, T., Wilderjans, T. F., Bogaerts, A., Lowyck, B., Luyckx, K., De Hert, M., Vanwalleghem, D., & Claes, L. (2021). Model-based PID-5 domain clusters and levels of impairment in self and interpersonal functioning. Per-sonality and Individual Differences, 171, 110477.
Bonifay, W., Lane, S. P., & Reise, S. P. (2017). Three concerns with applying a bifactor model as a structure of psychopathology. Clinical Psychological Science, 5, 184–186.
Bonifay, W. E., Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., & Meijer, R. R. (2015). When are multidimensional data unidimensional enough for structural equation modeling? An evaluation of the DETECT multidimensionality index. Structural Equation Modeling, 22, 504–516.
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. Sociological Methods & Research, 21, 230–258.
Caspi, A., Houts, R. M., Belsky, D. W., Goldman-Mellor, S. J., Harrington, H., Israel, S., Meier, M. H., Ramrakha, S., Shalev, I., Poulton, R., & Moffitt, T. E. (2014). The p factor: One general psychopathology factor in the struc-ture of psychiatric disorders? Clinical Psychological Science, 2, 119–137.
Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2018). All for one and one for all: Mental disorders in one dimension. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 175, 831–844.
Coelho, O., Pires, R., Ferreira, A. S., Gonçalves, B., Alkhoori, S. A., Sayed, M., El-Rasheed, A., Al-Jassmi, M., Hen-riques-Calado, J., & Stocker, J. (2022). Cross-cultural Study of the Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) across the Portuguese and the United Arab Emirates (UAE) community and clinical populations. Clinical Prac-tice and Epidemiology in Mental Health, 18.
Conway, C. C., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Fried, E. I., Hallquist, M. N., Kotov, R., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Shackman, A. J., Skodol, A. E., South, S. C., Sunderland, M., Waszczuk, M. A., Zald, D. H., Afzali, M. H., Bor-novalova, M. A., Carragher, N., Docherty, A. R., Jonas, K. G., Krueger, R. F., Patalay, P., … Eaton, N. R. (2019). A hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology can transform mental health research. Perspectives on Psychologi-cal Science, 14, 419–436.
DeYoung, C. G., Chmielewski, M., Clark, L. A., Condon, D. M., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Lynam, D. R., Markon, K. E., Miller, J. D., Mullins‐Sweatt, S. N., Samuel, D. B., Sellbom, M., South, S. C., Thomas, K. M., Watson, D., Watts, A. L., Widiger, T. A., & Wright, A. G. C. (2020). The distinction between symptoms and traits in the hier-archical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP). Journal of Personality, 90, 20–33.
DeYoung, C. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2018). A cybernetic theory of psychopathology. Psychological Inquiry, 29, 117–138.
Dueber, D. M. (2017). Bifactor Indices Calculator: a Microsoft Excel-based tool to calculate various indices relevant to bifactor CFA models.
First, M. B., Bell, C. C., Cuthbert, B., Krystal, J. H., Malison, R., Offord, D. R., Reiss, D., Shea, M. T., Widiger, T., & Wisner, K. L. (2002). Personality disorders and relational disorders: a research agenda for addressing crucial gaps in DSM. In D. J. Kupfer, M. B. First, & D. A. Regier (Eds.), A research agenda for DSM-5 (pp. 123–199). APA Publishing.
Forbes, M. K., Greene, A. L., Levin-Aspenson, H. F., Watts, A. L., Hallquist, M., Lahey, B. B., Markon, K. E., Pat-rick, C. J., Tackett, J. L., Waldman, I. D., Wright, A. G. C., Caspi, A., Ivanova, M., Kotov, R., Samuel, D. B., Eaton, N. R., & Krueger, R. F. (2021). Three recommendations based on a comparison of the reliability and va-lidity of the predominant models used in research on the empirical structure of psychopathology. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 130, 297–317.
Greene, A. L., Eaton, N. R., Li, K., Forbes, M. K., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Waldman, I. D., Cicero, D. C., Conway, C. C., Docherty, A. R., Fried, E. I., Ivanova, M. Y., Jonas, K. G., Latzman, R. D., Patrick, C. J., Rein-inghaus, U., Tackett, J. L., Wright, A. G. C., & Kotov, R. (2019). Are fit indices used to test psychopathology structure biased? A simulation study. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128, 740–764.
Gomez, R., Watson, S., & Stavropoulos, V. (2020). Personality inventory for DSM-5, brief form: Factor structure, reliability, and coefficient of congruence. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 11, 69–77.
Gutiérrez, F., Aluja, A., Peri, J. M., Calvo, N., Ferrer, M., Baillés, E., Gutiérrez-Zotes, J. A., Gárriz, M., Caseras, X., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2017). Psychometric properties of the Spanish PID-5 in a clinical and a community sample. Assessment, 24, 326–336.
Gutiérrez, F., Peri, J. M., Gárriz, M., Vall, G., Arqué, E., Ruiz, L., Condomines, J., Calvo, N., Ferrer, M., & Sureda, B. (2021). Integration of the ICD-11 and DSM-5 dimensional systems for personality disorders into a unified tax-onomy with non-overlapping traits. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 12, 591934.
Hancock, G. R. (2001). Effect size, power, and sample size determination for structured means modeling and MIMIC approaches to between-groups hypothesis testing of means on a single latent construct. Psy-chometrika, 66, 373–388.
Haslam, N., Holland, E., & Kuppens P. (2012). Categories versus dimensions in personality and psychopathology: a quantitative review of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 42, 903–920.
Haslam, N., McGrath, M. J., Viechtbauer, W., & Kuppens, P. (2020). Dimensions over categories: a meta-.
analysis of taxometric research. Psychological Medicine, 50, 1418–1432.
Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., Ansell, E. B., Bach, B., Michael Bagby, R., Blais, M. A., Bornovalova, M. A., Chmielewski, M., Cicero, D. C., Conway, C., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Docherty, A. R., Eaton, N. R., Edens, J. F., Forbes, M. K., … Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12, 82–86.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional crite-ria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (2006). LISREL 8.80. Scientific Software International.
Kessler, R. C., Chiu, W. T., Demler, O., Merikangas, K. R., & Walters, E. E. (2005). Prevalence, severity, and comorbidity of twelve-month DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). Ar-chives of General Psychiatry, 62, 617–627.
Koster, N., Laceulle, O. M., Van der Heijden, P. T., Klimstra, T., De Clercq, B., Verbeke, L., De Caluwé, E. A. L., & Van Aken, M. A. G. (2020). A psychometric evaluation of a reduced version of the PID-5.
in clinical and non-clinical adolescents. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, 758–766.
Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., Brown, T. A., Carpenter, W. T., Caspi, A., Clark, L. A., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Goldberg, D., Hasin, D., Hyman, S. E., Ivanova, M. Y., Lynam, D. R., Markon, K., Miller, J. D., … Zimmerman, M. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): a dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psycholo-gy, 126, 454–477.
Kotov, R., Jonas, K. G., Carpenter, W. T., Dretsch, M. N., Eaton, N. R., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Hobbs, K., Reininghaus, U., Slade, T., South, S. C., Sunderland, M., Waszczuk, M. A., Widiger, T. A., Wright, A. G. C., Zald, D. H., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., & HiTOP Utility Workgroup (2020). Validity and utility of Hierarchical Tax-onomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): I. Psychosis superspectrum. World Psychiatry, 19, 151–172.
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.
Krueger, R. F., Kotov, R., Watson, D., Forbes, M. K., Eaton, N. R., Ruggero, C. J., Simms, L. J., Widiger, T. A., Achenbach, T. M., Bach, B., Bagby, R. M., Bornovalova, M. A., Carpenter, W. T., Chmielewski, M., Cicero, D. C., Clark, L. A., Conway, C., DeClercq, B., DeYoung, C. G., Docherty, A. R., … Zimmermann, J. (2018). Pro-gress in achieving quantitative classification of psychopathology. World Psychiatry, 17, 282–293.
Krueger, R. F., & Markon, K. E. (2014). The role of the DSM-5 personality trait model in moving toward a quantitative and empirically based approach to classifying personality and psychopathology. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 477–501.
Kupfer, D. J., First, M. B., & Regier, D. A. (Eds.). (2002). A research agenda for DSM-5. APA Publishing.
Labancz, E., Balázs, K., & Kuritárné Szabó, I. (2022). The psychometric properties of the Hungarian version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in a clinical and a community sample. Current Psychology, 41, 3236–3246.
Lahey, B. B., Applegate, B., Hakes, J. K., Zald, D. H., Hariri, A. R., & Rathouz, P. J. (2012). Is there a general factor of prevalent psychopathology during adulthood? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 971–977.
Lahey, B. B., Krueger, R. F., Rathouz, P. J., Waldman, I. D., & Zald, D. H. (2017). A hierarchical causal taxonomy of psychopathology across the life span. Psychological Bulletin, 143, 142–186.
Li, C. H. (2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and di-agonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48, 936–949.
Livesley, J. (2012). Tradition versus empiricism in the current DSM-5 proposal for revising the classification of personality disorders. Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health, 22, 81–90.
Mardia, K. V. (1970). Measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis with applications. Biometrika, 57, 519–530.
Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., Williamson, R. L., Lynam, D. R., Widiger, T. A., Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Miller, J. D. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality dis-order trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: an item response theory investigation of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27, 1195–1210.
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: a unified approach. Erlbaum.
Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology: a biosocial approach to maladaptive learning and functioning. Saunders.
Mîndrilă, D. (2010). Maximum likelihood (ML) and diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) estimation proce-dures: a comparison of estimation bias with ordinal and multivariate non-normal data. International Journal of Digital Society, 1, 60–66.
Montes, S. A., & Sánchez, R. O. (2019). El factor p. ¿La estructura subyacente a la psicopatología? [The p factor. The structure underlying psychopathology?]. Revista Evaluar, 19, 20–41.
Reise, S. P. (2012). The rediscovery of bifactor measurement models. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 47, 667–696. https//
Reise, S. P., Bonifay, W. E., & Haviland, M. G. (2013a). Scoring and modeling psychological measures in the pres-ence of multidimensionality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95, 129–140.
Reise, S. P., Scheines, R., Widaman, K. F., & Haviland, M. G. (2013b). Multidimensionality and structural coeffi-cient bias in structural equation modeling: a bifactor perspective. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 73, 5–26.
Reise, S. P., Kim, D. S., Mansolf, M., & Widaman, K. F. (2016). Is the bifactor model a better model or is it just better at modeling implausible responses? Application of iteratively reweighted least squares to the Rosenberg Self-Esteem scale. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 51, 818–838.
Ringwald, W. R., Beeney, J. E., Pilkonis, P. A., & Wright, A. G. (2019). Comparing hierarchical models of personali-ty pathology. Journal of Research in Personality, 81, 98–107.
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016a). Applying bifactor statistical indices in the evaluation of psy-chological measures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98, 223–237.
Rodriguez, A., Reise, S. P., & Haviland, M. G. (2016b). Evaluating bifactor models: Calculating and interpreting statistical indices. Psychological Methods, 21, 137–150.
Ruggero, C. J., Kotov, R., Hopwood, C. J., First, M., Clark, L. A., Skodol, A. E., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Patrick, C. J., Bach, B., Cicero, D. C., Docherty, A., Simms, L. J., Bagby, R. M., Krueger, R. F., Callahan, J. L., Chmielewski, M., Conway, C. C., De Clercq, B., Dornbach-Bender, A., Eaton, N. R., … Zimmermann, J. (2019). Integrating the Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP) into clinical practice. Journal of Consulting and Clini-cal Psychology, 87, 1069–1084.
Sánchez, R. O. (2019). Modelos dimensionales para los trastornos de la personalidad: un proceso inconcluso [Di-mensional models for personality disorders: an unfinished process]. Revista Argentina de Clínica Psicológica, 28, 714–726.
Sanchez, R., Montes, S., Galarza, A., Somerstein, D., & Gainza, M. (2023). Una versión reducida y modificada del Inventario de Personalidad para el DSM-5 (PID-5) en la Argentina [A reduced and modified version of the Per-sonality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) in Argentina]. Revista Interdisciplinaria, 40, 115–136.
Sanchez, R., Montes, S., & Somerstein, D. (2020). Inventario de personalidad para el DSM-5: Propiedades psicométricas en población argentina. Estudio preliminar [Personality Inventory for the DSM-5: Psychometric properties in Argentine population. Preliminary study]. Revista Interdisciplinaria, 37, 55–76.
Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1990). Model conditions for asymptotic robustness in the analysis of linear relations. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 10, 235–249.
Shedler, J., Beck, A., Fonagy, P., Gabbard, G., Gunderson, J., Kernberg, O., Michels, R., & Westen, D. (2010). Per-sonality disorders in DSM-5. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 1026–1028.
Simonsen, E., Ronningstam, E., & Millon, T. (2008). A synopsis of the WPA educational program on personality disorders. World Psychiatry, 7, 119–125.
Shields, A. N., Giljen, M., España, R. A., & Tackett, J. L. (2021). The p factor and dimensional structural models of youth personality pathology and psychopathology. Current Opinion in Psychology, 37, 21–25.
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika, 74, 107–120.
Smits, I. A. M., Timmerman, M. E., Barelds, D. P. H., & Meijer, R. R. (2015). The Dutch symptom checklist-90-revised: Is the use of the subscales justified? European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 31, 263–271.
Stucky, B. D., Thissen, D., & Edelen, M. O. (2013). Using logistic approximations of marginal trace lines to develop short assessments. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37, 41–57.
Ten-Berge, J. M., & Sočan, G. (2004). The greatest lower bound to the reliability of a test and the hypothesis of unidimensionality. Psychometrika, 69, 613–625.
Tyrer, P. (2005). The problem of severity in the classification of personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disor-ders, 19, 309–314. pedi.2005.19.3.309.
Van de Schoot, R., Lugtig, P., & Hox, J. (2012). A checklist for testing measurement invariance. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 486–492.
Verheul, R. (2012). Personality disorder proposal for DSM-5: a heroic and innovative but nevertheless fundamen-tally flawed attempt to improve DSM-IV. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 19, 369–371.
Waters, C. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2018). A meta-analysis of the five-factor internal structure of the Personality Inven-tory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 30, 1255–1260.
Widiger, T. (2013). A postmortem and future look at the personality disorders in DSM-5. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 382–387.
Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus, A. L., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierar-chical structure of DSM-5 pathological personality traits. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 951–957.
Zinbarg, R. E., Yovel, I., Revelle, W., & McDonald, R. P. (2006). Estimating generalizability to a latent variable common to all of a scale’s indicators: a comparison of estimators for ωh. Applied Psychological Measurement, 30, 121–144.
Zimmermann, J., André Kerber, A., Rek, K., Hopwood, C. J., & Krueger, R. F. (2019). A brief but comprehensive review of research on the Alternative DSM-5 Model for Personality Disorders. Current Psychiatry Reports, 21, 92.
Copyright: © Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk This is an Open Access journal, all articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-SA 4.0) License (, allowing third parties to copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format and to remix, transform, and build upon the material, provided the original work is properly cited and states its license.