Comparing the Dependability

Comparing the Dependability and Associations With Functioning of the DSM–5 Section III Trait Model of Personality Pathology and the DSM–5

Section II Personality Disorder Model

Michael Chmielewski Southern Methodist University

Camilo J. Ruggero University of North Texas

Roman Kotov Stony Brook University

Keke Liu University of North Texas

Robert F. Krueger University of Minnesota

Two competing models of personality psychopathology are included in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013); the tradi- tional personality disorder (PD) model included in Section II and an alternative trait-based model included in Section III. Numerous studies have examined the validity of the alternative trait model and its official assessment instrument, the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). However, few studies have directly compared the trait-based model to the traditional PD model empirically in the same dataset. Moreover, to our knowledge, only a single study (Suzuki, Griffin, & Samuel, 2015) has examined the dependability of the PID-5, which is an essential component of construct validity for traits (Chmielewski & Watson, 2009; McCrae, Kurtz, Yamagata, & Terracciano, 2011). The current study directly compared the dependability of the DSM-5 traits, as assessed by the PID-5, and the traditional PD model, as assessed by the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (PDQ-4?), in a large undergraduate sample. In addition, it evaluated and compared their associations with functioning, another essential component of personality pathology. In general, our findings indicate that most DSM–5 traits demonstrate high levels of dependability that are superior to the traditional PD model; however, some of the constructs assessed by the PID-5 may be more state like. The models were roughly equivalent in terms of their associations with functioning. The current results provide additional support for the validity of PID-5 and the DSM–5 Section III personality pathology model.

Keywords: dependability, PID-5, functioning, personality disorders, DSM–5 Section III

The fifth edition the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013) includes two competing models of personality pathology: the traditional categorical personality disorder (PD) model from DSM–IV and an alternative trait-based model in Section III. Prob-

lems with the traditional PD model have been extensively re- viewed (Clark, 2007; Widiger & Samuel, 2005; Widiger & Trull, 2007). They include extreme heterogeneity (Chmielewski & Wat- son, 2008; Johansen, Karterud, Pedersen, Gude, & Falkum, 2004), high rates of diagnostic comorbidity (Oldham et al., 1992), arbi- trary boundaries with normality (Widiger & Samuel, 2005), low interrater reliability (Tyrer et al., 2007), poor convergent/discrim- inant validity (Clark, Livesley, & Morey, 1997), excessive not otherwise specified diagnosis (Verheul & Widiger, 2004), and low diagnostic stability (Shea et al., 2002; Skodol et al., 2005).

Considerable research has been conducted on the DSM–5 alter- native model and the official assessment instrument for the trait aspect of the model, the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012). Numerous studies have demonstrated the structural validity of the PID-5 (De Fruyt et al., 2013; Krueger et al., 2012; Wright et al., 2012; Zimmermann et al., 2014). Moreover, the DSM–5 traits capture the variance within the traditional PD model (Hopwood, Thomas, Markon, Wright, & Krueger, 2012; Miller, Few, Lynam, & MacK-

This article was published Online First September 12, 2016. Michael Chmielewski, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist

University; Camilo J. Ruggero, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas; Roman Kotov, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stony Brook University; Keke Liu, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas; Robert F. Krueger, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota.

Robert Krueger has served as a paid consultant to preValio LLC, developers of psychological reports based on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5).

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Michael Chmielewski, Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, PO Box 75275-0442, Dallas, TX 75275. E-mail: [email protected]

T hi

s do

cu m

en t

is co

py ri

gh te

d by

th e

A m

er ic

an Ps

yc ho

lo gi

ca l

A ss

oc ia