Evaluating the measurement invariance of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in Black Americans and White Americans.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Personality Inventory for the DSM-5 (PID-5) assesses the five pathological personality trait domains that comprise the descriptive core of the DSM-5 Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). The PID-5 five-domain factor structure is aligned with the AMPD and is reported as replicable across samples in the U.S., in other countries, and in different languages. In this study, the PID-5 factor structure is examined in two distinct racial groups within the U.S.-White Americans (WA) and Black Americans (BA). Student participants from four universities in the U.S. (N = 1,834)-composed of groups of WA (n = 1,274) and BA (n = 560)-were proportionally parsed into derivation and replication subsamples. The "traditional" PID-5 five-factor structure emerged for the WA group in the derivation subsample and was subsequently confirmed in the WA replication subsample. In the BA group derivation subsample, a single-factor solution emerged, which was also confirmed in the BA replication sample. This single-factor solution in the BA group reflects large shared covariation across all pathological personality domains, suggesting an undifferentiated, broadly based level of demoralization represented by the item pool of the PID-5. We argue that this structure can be construed as mirroring a racialized and prejudice-based living experience for many BAs in a predominantly non-Black society. Based on the results with the samples employed in the present study, we conclude that the PID-5 is not an equivalent measure of pathological personality traits across Black Americans and White Americans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".