Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.

Fikret Poyraz Çökmüş, Orkun Aydin, Serra Yüzeren, Didem Sücüllüoğlu Dikici, Siğnem Öztekin, Emine Özge Çöldür, Pınar Ünal Aydin, Ertuğrul Köroğlu, Ömer Aydemir
{"title":"Reliability and Validity of the Turkish Form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5.","authors":"Fikret Poyraz Çökmüş, Orkun Aydin, Serra Yüzeren, Didem Sücüllüoğlu Dikici, Siğnem Öztekin, Emine Özge Çöldür, Pınar Ünal Aydin, Ertuğrul Köroğlu, Ömer Aydemir","doi":"10.5080/u27791","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to establish the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the DSM-5 Personality Inventory (PID-5) and to evaluate it by comparing it with categorical personality assessments obtained through the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Axis II Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The sample consisted of 1736 participants, including 560 psychiatric patients diagnosed through clinical evaluation according to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in a psychiatry outpatient clinic and 1176 healthy controls. In addition to the PID-5, a sociodemographic data form and the SCID-II-PQ were administered. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach&rsquo;s alpha coefficients for both domains and facets. Given the inventory&rsquo;s predefined domains and facets, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine structural validity. Convergent validity was tested through correlations between PID-5 domain and facet scores and both the dimensional scores and self-report questionnaire scores of the SCID-II-PQ.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall Cronbach&rsquo;s alpha coefficient for the inventory was 0.932, indicating high internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the findings of the present study demonstrated a structure consistent with the personality domains identified in the original PID-5 study. At the facet level, higher RMSEA values were observed for the facets of &lsquo;emotional lability&rsquo; and &lsquo;manipulativeness&rsquo; , whereas the &lsquo;risk-taking&rsquo; facet showed lower fit indices compared to the other facets. In terms of discriminant validity, all domains and all facets except &lsquo;manipulativeness&rsquo; yielded higher mean scores among the patient group compared to healthy controls.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The findings of this study indicate that the Turkish version of the PID-5 demonstrates generally acceptable levels of validity and reliability and may be used as an assessment tool for the dimensional evaluation of personality traits.</p>","PeriodicalId":94262,"journal":{"name":"Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry","volume":"36 ","pages":"227-235"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turk psikiyatri dergisi = Turkish journal of psychiatry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5080/u27791","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This study aimed to establish the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the DSM-5 Personality Inventory (PID-5) and to evaluate it by comparing it with categorical personality assessments obtained through the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Axis II Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-II-PQ).

Methods: The sample consisted of 1736 participants, including 560 psychiatric patients diagnosed through clinical evaluation according to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria in a psychiatry outpatient clinic and 1176 healthy controls. In addition to the PID-5, a sociodemographic data form and the SCID-II-PQ were administered. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for both domains and facets. Given the inventory’s predefined domains and facets, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was conducted to examine structural validity. Convergent validity was tested through correlations between PID-5 domain and facet scores and both the dimensional scores and self-report questionnaire scores of the SCID-II-PQ.

Results: The overall Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the inventory was 0.932, indicating high internal consistency. Confirmatory factor analysis indicated that the findings of the present study demonstrated a structure consistent with the personality domains identified in the original PID-5 study. At the facet level, higher RMSEA values were observed for the facets of ‘emotional lability’ and ‘manipulativeness’ , whereas the ‘risk-taking’ facet showed lower fit indices compared to the other facets. In terms of discriminant validity, all domains and all facets except ‘manipulativeness’ yielded higher mean scores among the patient group compared to healthy controls.

Conclusions: The findings of this study indicate that the Turkish version of the PID-5 demonstrates generally acceptable levels of validity and reliability and may be used as an assessment tool for the dimensional evaluation of personality traits.

DSM-5土耳其语人格量表的信度与效度。
目的:本研究旨在建立土耳其版DSM-5人格量表(PID-5)的效度和信度,并将其与DSM-III-R轴II型人格障碍问卷(SCID-II-PQ)结构化临床访谈获得的分类人格评估进行比较。方法:共纳入1736名被试,其中560名在精神科门诊根据DSM-5诊断标准经临床评估诊断的精神科患者和1176名健康对照者。除PID-5外,还进行了社会人口统计数据表和SCID-II-PQ。使用Cronbach&rsquo;s alpha系数对两个域和面进行可靠性评估。鉴于该量表的预定义域和方面,验证性因子分析(CFA)进行了检验结构效度。通过PID-5域和facet得分与SCID-II-PQ维度得分和自述问卷得分的相关性检验收敛效度。结果:量表的Cronbach&rsquo;s alpha系数为0.932,具有较高的内部一致性。验证性因素分析表明,本研究的结果显示了与原始PID-5研究中确定的人格域一致的结构。在关节面水平上,“情绪易动性”和“操纵性”的RMSEA值较高,而“冒险性”的RMSEA值较低。在区分效度方面,除“操纵性”外,患者组在所有领域和所有方面的平均得分均高于健康对照组。结论:本研究结果表明,土耳其版人格特征量表具有普遍可接受的效度和信度水平,可作为人格特征维度评价的评估工具。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书