Linguistic Measurement Invariance and Stability-Equivalence of the Personality Inventory for <i>DSM-5</i> Among Bilingual Participants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The linguistic equivalence of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) has never been investigated using a within-subject design, that is, among bilingual individuals. Also, the stability-equivalence of the PID-5 using two linguistic versions is unknown. Thus, this within-subject, test-retest study aims at (a) establishing the measurement invariance of the PID-5 among bilinguals, and (b) providing indices of stability-equivalence using distinct versions with tight confidence intervals. Data from a sample of bilingual participants (N = 605), who were administered the PID-5 over a 1-2-week interval in French and English, were utilized. The PID-5 reached the (full) strong invariance level using longitudinal invariance analyses, indicating that the PID-5 structure is the same and that scores are interchangeable, while controlling for sampling confounds. The indices of stability-equivalence were high across traits. The PID-5 yields scores reflective of genuine differences, at least at the domain level, providing solid ground to study personality across societies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".