The Development and Psychometric Properties of an Informant-Report Form of the Personality Inventory for <i>DSM-5</i> (PID-5)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current article reports on the development, psychometric properties, and external validity of an informant-report form of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (the PID-5-IRF). Using data from two nationally representative samples, as well as an elevated-risk community sample, we report on the PID-5-IRF item characteristics, scale properties, superordinate factor structure, and correlations with other measures. The PID-5-IRF replicates the factor structure of the self-report form and has relationships with other measures (including the PID-5 self-report form and a widely used Big Five measure) that are consistent with previous research and theory. We believe that the PID-5-IRF is a useful measure for a number of scenarios, such as when additional sources of information are desired, where informant measures are expected to provide incremental validity over self-report, where relationships or social perception is a focal interest, or when response bias is a salient concern. Areas for future research are also discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it