Journal of Personality Disorders, 28, 2014, 130

© 2014 The Guilford Press

THE STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES

OF SELF-­REPORTED DSM-­5 MALADAPTIVE
PERSONALITY TRAITS: FINDINGS FROM
TWO GERMAN-­SPEAKING SAMPLES
Johannes Zimmermann, PhD, David Altenstein,
Tobias Krieger, PhD, Martin Grosse Holtforth, PhD,
Johanna Pretsch, PhD, Johanna Alexopoulos, PhD,
Carsten Spitzer, MD, Cord Benecke, PhD, Robert F. Krueger, PhD,
Kristian E. Markon, PhD, and Daniel Leising, PhD

The authors investigated the structure and correlates of DSM-­5 mal-

adaptive personality traits in two samples of 577 students and 212 in-
patients using the German self-­report form of the Personality Inventory
for DSM-­5. They found that (a) the factor structure of DSM-­5 trait facets
is largely in line with the proposed trait domains of Negative Affectivity,
Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psychoticism; (b) all DSM-­
5 trait domains except Psychoticism are highly related to the respective
domains of the Five-­Factor Model of personality; (c) the trait facets are
positively associated with a self-­report measure of general personality
dysfunction; and (d) the DSM-­5 trait facets show differential associa-
tions with a range of self-­reported DSM-­IV Axis I disorders. These find-
ings give further support to the new DSM-­5 trait model and suggest that
it may generalize to other languages and cultures.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disor-
ders (DSM-­5) features a new model for the diagnosis of personality disor-
ders (PDs) that includes a dimensional assessment of maladaptive person-

This article was accepted under the editorship of Robert F. Krueger and John Livesley.
From Department of Psychology, University of Kassel, Germany (J. Z., C. B.); Department of
Psychology, University of Zurich, Switzerland (D. A., T. K., M. G. H.); Department of Psychol-
ogy, University of Landau, Germany (J. P.); Department of Psychoanalysis and Psychothera-
py, Medical University of Vienna, Austria (J. A.); Asklepios Clinic Tiefenbrunn, Germany
(C S.); Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, USA (R. F. K.); Department of
Psychology, University of Iowa, USA (K. E. M.); and Department of Psychology, Technical
University of Dresden, Germany (D. L.).
This research was supported by a grant from the University of Kassel awarded to the first
author. We thank Oliver Masuhr and Paula Schicktanz for their help with data collection, Les
Morey for sharing unpublished data, and Nils Pfeiffer for helpful comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
Address correspondence to Johannes Zimmermann, Department of Psychology, University of
Kassel, Holländische Str. 36-38, 34127 Kassel, Germany; E-mail: johannes.zimmermann
@uni-kassel.de

jpd130_R.indd 1 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 2 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

ality traits (American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2013). Specifically,

the new PD model in DSM-­5 Section III (“Emerging Measures and Models”)
requires both impairments in personality functioning (Criterion A) and
maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B) to be present when diagnosing
a PD. The trait taxonomy in DSM-­5 comprises five broad domains, namely,
Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psy-
choticism, and further specifies these domains in terms of 25 lower-­order
trait facets (Krueger et al., 2011). In the course of devising this taxonomy,
members of the DSM-­5 Work Group on Personality and Personality Disor-
ders developed a self-­and informant-­ report instrument for assessing
the 25 trait facets: the Personality Inventory for DSM-­5 (PID-­5; Krueger,
Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012; Markon, Quilty, Bagby, &
Krueger, 2013). A growing body of research shows that the PID-­5 is a psy-
chometrically sound measure of the DSM-­5 trait model, and that it is
meaningfully related to a range of well-­established constructs, such as
general personality traits (Ashton, Lee, de Vries, Hendrickse, & Born,
2012; de Fruyt et al., 2013; Gore & Widiger, 2013; Markon et al., 2013;
Quilty, Ayearst, Chmielewski, Pollock, & Bagby, 2013; Thomas et al.,
2013; Watson, Stasik, Ro, & Clark, 2013), alternative conceptualizations
of maladaptive personality traits (Anderson et al., 2013; van den Broeck et
al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013), the DSM-­IV PDs (Hopwood, Thomas, Mar-
kon, Wright, & Krueger, 2012; Samuel, Hopwood, Krueger, Thomas, &
Ruggero, 2013), interpersonal problems (Wright, Pincus, et al., 2012),
pathological beliefs (Hopwood, Schade, Krueger, Wright, & Markon, 2013),
pathological narcissism (Miller, Gentile, Wilson, & Campbell, 2013; Wright
et al., 2013), and psychopathy (Strickland, Drislane, Lucy, Krueger, &
Patrick, 2013). The aim of the present study is to build on and extend
these findings by investigating the structure and correlates of DSM-­5 mal-
adaptive personality traits in two German-­speaking samples.
It has often been noted that the PD sections in DSM-­IV-­TR (APA, 2000)
and in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-­10; World Health
Organization, 1992) have various shortcomings, and that, for several rea-
sons, integrating a dimensional assessment of maladaptive personality
traits would constitute an important step forward (Clark, 2007; Leising &
Zimmermann, 2011; Trull & Durrett, 2005; Tyrer et al., 2011; Widiger &
Simonsen, 2005; Widiger & Trull, 2007). For example, doing so might help
reduce the excessive comorbidity of PD diagnoses, the within-­diagnosis
heterogeneity, and the high prevalence of PD not otherwise specified
(PDNOS), because every patient could be described in terms of his or her
own distinct profile of maladaptive traits (Skodol, 2012). Moreover, a trait-­
based PD model would probably increase the temporal stability of PD di-
agnoses, enhance compatibility with basic personality research, and im-
prove the convergent and discriminant validity of higher-­order concepts
(Leising & Zimmermann, 2011; Widiger & Trull, 2007). Regarding the lat-
ter issue, there is considerable empirical evidence that the structures of
normal and maladaptive personality traits can be jointly and efficiently

jpd130_R.indd 2 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS3

modeled with four to five higher-­order factors (Markon, Krueger, & Wat-
son, 2005; Trull & Durrett, 2005; Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). In contrast,
the factor structure of the individual PD criteria in DSM-­IV (or ICD-­10) is
hardly in line with the assumption of 10 distinct higher-­order PD catego-
ries (Sheets & Craighead, 2007; Wright & Zimmermann, in press). Thus,
integrating an empirically supported, hierarchical trait model into the PD
sections of DSM-­5 and ICD-­11 might help improve the psychometric prop-
erties of PD diagnoses.
Building on these and related deliberations, the DSM-­5 Work Group de-
cided to develop a PD trait model that was finally placed in Section III of
DSM-­5 (Krueger et al., 2012; Krueger et al., 2011; Skodol, 2012; for the
first proposal of the ICD-­11 Work Group, including a similar trait model,
see Tyrer et al., 2011). Krueger and colleagues started with an initial list of
37 clinically salient trait facets that were derived from literature reviews
and Work Group discussions. They wrote eight self-­report items to mea-
sure each proposed facet and subsequently reduced the number of items
and facets by factor-­analyzing data from 1,128 treatment-­seeking partici-
pants. The final set (i.e., the PID-­ 5) comprised 220 items that reliably
measure 25 trait facets, with each facet being assessed by 4 to 14 items
(Krueger et al., 2012). An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of trait facet
scores suggested extracting five higher-­order factors: Negative Affectivity
is characterized by frequent experience of intense negative emotions, as
well as by behaviors deemed indicative of such emotions. Detachment is
characterized by withdrawal from other people, avoidance of intimate rela-
tionships, and limited hedonic capacity. Antagonism is characterized by
callous antipathy toward others and an exaggerated sense of self-­
importance. Disinhibition is characterized by impulsive behavior, includ-
ing a lack of reflection regarding the consequences of one’s own behavior.
Psychoticism is characterized by a wide range of experiences and behav-
iors that are deemed “odd,” “eccentric,” or “unusual” by common cultural
standards.1 Note that several facets showed substantial loadings on sec-
ond or third factors (Krueger et al., 2012). This is because the goal in con-
structing the PID-­5 was to capture the domain of personality pathology as
comprehensively as possible, thereby emphasizing content validity, as op-
posed to imposing simple structure on the domain (Krueger, 2013). Four
of these cross-­ loadings were explicitly integrated into the DSM-­5 trait
model (e.g., depressivity and suspiciousness are listed as facets of high
Negative Affectivity and high Detachment). Moreover, all factors were pos-
itively correlated, suggesting the existence of a general factor of personal-
ity pathology. The factor structure was subsequently confirmed in a new,
representative sample of 264 participants (Krueger et al., 2012).
Since its initial publication, the PID-­5 has been used in a number of

1. It should be noted that, despite bearing the same name, the latter factor is more or less
unrelated to Eysenck’s (1992) concept of Psychoticism, which focuses primarily on psycho-
pathic or antisocial behavioral tendencies.

jpd130_R.indd 3 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 4 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

studies, and thus the evidence base of the DSM-­5 trait model is steadily
growing. Several findings seem noteworthy and will be further addressed
in this study: First, the proposed five-­factor structure of the DSM-­5 trait
model appears to be relatively stable across samples, languages, and rat-
ers. For example, Wright, Thomas, et al. (2012) were able to replicate the
five factors of the PID-­5 in a large sample of 2,461 U.S. undergraduates,
as indicated by factor congruency coefficients (i.e., Tucker’s phi) of .96
and greater for target-­rotated factors. Moreover, de Fruyt et al. (2013) and
van den Broeck et al. (2013) presented the Dutch version of the PID-­5 to a
sample of 240 Belgian psychology undergraduates and 173 older adults,
respectively, and found congruency coefficients between their factors and
the factors in the Krueger et al. (2012) study ranging from .82 to .97. Two
further studies suggest that the five-­factor structure might also replicate
across raters: Markon and colleagues (2013) used the self-­and informant
report form of the PID-­5 in an elevated-­risk community sample of 221 par-
ticipants and found congruency coefficients between the factors of the two
PID-­5 forms ranging from .84 to .91. Moreover, in a recent study by Mo-
rey, Krueger, and Skodol (2013), 337 clinicians were presented with the
alternative DSM-­5 model for PD to assess the personality pathology of one
of their patients. The congruency coefficients between the factors extract-
ed from the clinicians’ trait facet ratings and the original PID-­5 factors
(Krueger et al., 2012) ranged from .80 to .94, with the exception of Disin-
hibition showing a congruency as low as .29 (i.e., Antagonism and Disin-
hibition collapsed into a broader factor with a separate Compulsivity fac-
tor then emerging).
Second, the PID-­5 domains can be broadly conceived of as maladaptive
variants of the Five-­Factor Model (FFM) traits, although the relationship
between Psychoticism and Openness is somewhat less clear (Trull, 2012).
Seven out of seven published studies with a total of 2,774 participants give
support to the convergent structure of the first four domains, showing high-
ly positive associations between Negative Affectivity and Neuroticism and
highly negative associations between Detachment and Extraversion, Antag-
onism and Agreeableness, and Disinhibition and Conscientiousness (Ash-
ton et al., 2012; de Fruyt et al., 2013; Gore & Widiger, 2013; Markon et al.,
2013; Quilty et al., 2013; Thomas et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013). In con-
trast, only three of these studies found evidence for a substantial positive
relationship between Psychoticism and Openness (de Fruyt et al., 2013;
Gore & Widiger, 2013; Thomas et al., 2013), whereas the results of the other
four studies suggest that the two domains are rather unrelated (Ashton et
al., 2012; Markon et al., 2013; Quilty et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013).
Third, there is some evidence that most DSM-­5 trait facets are positively
linked to measures of the “general severity” of PD, highlighting their nega-
tive or maladaptive implications. For example, Hopwood et al. (2012) con-
structed a 10-­ item measure from the Personality Diagnostic Question-
naire 4+ (PDQ-­4+; Hyler, 1994) that assesses core features of personality
pathology common to all DSM-­IV PDs. They considered this scale a rea-

jpd130_R.indd 4 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS5

sonable proxy for Criterion A of the alternative DSM-­5 model for PD (APA,
2013). Based on a subset of the previously mentioned U.S. undergraduate
sample, Hopwood et al. (2012) found that all PID-­5 facet scales except risk
taking were indeed positively correlated with this general index of PD se-
verity, with facets of Negative Affectivity and Detachment showing the
strongest associations.
Fourth, the DSM-­5 trait domains and facets seem to be differentially as-
sociated with a range of DSM-­IV Axis I symptoms or disorders. For exam-
ple, using a related sample, Hopwood, Wright, et al. (2013) conducted a
joint EFA of the 25 PID-­5 facet scales and the 39 scales of the Personality
Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991). They found that anxiety symp-
toms were highly associated with Negative Affectivity, depressive symp-
toms loaded on both Negative Affectivity and Detachment, and alcohol
problems were moderately associated with Disinhibition, whereas somatic
complaints were more or less unrelated to the PID-­5 factors. This is broad-
ly in line with models that highlight the continuity between personality
and psychopathology and assume superordinate factors of internalizing
and externalizing liability (Krueger, 2005).
The aim of the present study is to introduce a German version of the
PID-­5 and to investigate the structure and correlates of self-­reported DSM-­
5 maladaptive personality traits. Thereby, we hope to build on and con-
tribute to the current literature in several ways: First, we investigate
whether the factor structure of the DSM-­5 trait facets is replicable in
German-­speaking samples. In this regard, we also focus on the within-­
facet factor structure (i.e., whether each facet scale does indeed represent
a single latent factor) and on the factor congruence between normal and
clinical samples, which has not been reported before (at least for self-­
reported DSM-­5 traits). Second, we test whether the DSM-­5 trait domains
correspond to the FFM factors, expecting high correlations for the first
four factors, but rather low correlations between Psychoticism and Open-
ness. Third, we investigate whether the DSM-­5 traits are associated with a
self-­report measure of general personality dysfunction, which would give
support to the assumption that the DSM-­5 traits are indeed maladaptive
personality traits. Fourth, we explore associations between the DSM-­5
traits and various self-­reported Axis I disorders in a combined sample of
students and patients. Based on previous findings reported here, we hy-
pothesize that depressive and anxiety disorders are predominantly associ-
ated with Negative Affectivity and Detachment, whereas alcohol abuse is
associated with Disinhibition.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PROCEDURE

We used the PID-­5 in two samples. Sample 1 was recruited online by invit-
ing students at several universities in Germany, Austria, and the German-­

jpd130_R.indd 5 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 6 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

speaking part of Switzerland to participate in a questionnaire study of

personality and mental health. Students who were interested in partici-
pating wrote an e-­mail to the study team and subsequently received e-­
mails containing personalized links to the online platform. In addition, we
posted a hyperlink to the study on the website of a popular psychology
magazine in Germany. After providing informed consent, all participants
were asked to complete German language versions of the PID-­5, the Mini-
mum Redundancy Scales (MRS-­ 30; Schallberger & Venetz, 1999), the
short form of the Inventory of Personality Organization (IPO-­16; Zimmer-
mann et al., 2013), the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ; Gräfe, Zipfel,
Herzog, & Löwe, 2004), and several other measures not pertinent to this
study. The MRS-­30, IPO-­16, and PHQ were included as measures of FFM
traits, general personality dysfunction, and DSM-­IV Axis I disorders, re-
spectively. Participants were excluded if they reported being younger than
18 years old. All participants automatically entered a lottery in which they
could win 50 Euro coupons from an online book seller. In addition, par-
ticipants studying psychology received course credit.
Sample 2 was recruited at an inpatient psychotherapy clinic in Germa-
ny. Inpatients were invited by the staff of the clinic to take part in a study
of personality and mental health. After signing an informed consent sheet,
they completed paper-­and-­pencil versions of the PID-­5 and the PHQ. Pa-
tients did not receive any compensation for participation.

MEASURES
Personality Inventory for DSM-­5 (PID-­5). The PID-­5 is a 220-­item ques-
tionnaire for assessing maladaptive personality traits according to the
DSM-­5 trait model (Krueger et al., 2012). Items are presented with a
4-­point response format ranging from “very false or often false” (0) to “very
true or often true” (3). For the majority of items, higher values reflect high-
er levels of personality pathology, with only 16 items being reverse coded.
The PID-­5 consists of 25 trait facet scales, each of which comprises be-
tween 4 and 14 items. For the English language version, facet scales show
acceptable to good internal consistencies (with median Cronbach’s alphas
of around .85) and characteristically high loadings on the five factors of
Negative Affectivity, Detachment, Antagonism, Disinhibition, and Psy-
choticism. The German version of the PID-­5 was construed as follows:
Two authors of the present study (J.Z., D.L.) independently translated the
PID-­5 items into German and then jointly devised a preliminary consen-
sus translation. This version was back-­translated into English by a pro-
fessional translator who had no knowledge of the original version. Two
authors of the original publication (R.K., K.M.) reviewed this back-­
translation and provided feedback regarding possible discrepancies in the
meaning of particular items. The German wordings of these items were
then revised accordingly until all discrepancies were consensually re-
solved. We decided to simplify the labels of the response scale by omitting
the frequency aspect (e.g., “very true” instead of “very true or often true”).

jpd130_R.indd 6 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS7

The APA granted permission for using this official German translation in
this study.
Minimum Redundancy Scales–30 Item Version (MRS-­ 30). The MRS-­30
comprises 30 pairs of adjectives that were carefully selected to assess the
FFM personality factors with as little semantic overlap as possible (Osten-
dorf, 1990; Schallberger & Venetz, 1999). For each item, the participants
were asked to indicate which of the two adjectives described them better
using a 6-­point bipolar rating scale. One adjective always reflected a high
level of the respective personality factor, whereas the other adjective re-
flected a low level. In Sample 1, the internal consistencies of the MRS-­30
scales were .89 for Neuroticism,2 .80 for Extraversion, .79 for Agreeable-
ness, .87 for Conscientiousness, and .79 for Openness.
Inventory of Personality Organization–16 Item Version (IPO-­16). The IPO-­
16 is the German short form of the Inventory of Personality Organization
(Lenzenweger, Clarkin, Kernberg, & Foelsch, 2001), which is supposed to
assess general personality dysfunction (Zimmermann et al., 2013). It con-
tains 16 items describing impairments in three domains of personality
functioning that are central to Kernberg’s (1984) model of PD: identity,
defense, and reality testing. Items are presented with a 5-­point response
scale ranging from “never true” (1) to “always true” (5), with higher scores
representing greater levels of personality pathology. The IPO-­16 is an effi-
cient screening measure for the presence of a PD according to DSM-­IV,
and its mean score predicts the overall number of PD symptoms above
and beyond self-­reported general distress (Zimmermann et al., 2013). In
Sample 1, the internal consistency of the IPO-­16 mean score was .85.
Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ). The PHQ is a well-­accepted screen-
ing measure for mental disorders according to the criteria of DSM-­IV
(Spitzer, Kroenke, & Williams, 1999; German version: Gräfe et al., 2004).
Specifically, the PHQ screens for eight Axis I disorders, which are further
specified as “threshold disorders” (corresponding to specific DSM-­IV diag-
noses) or “subthreshold disorders” (in which the criteria for disorders en-
compass fewer symptoms than are required for any specific DSM-­IV diag-
noses). Threshold disorders include major depressive disorder, panic
disorder, and bulimia nervosa; subthreshold disorders include other de-
pressive disorder, other anxiety disorder, alcohol abuse or dependence,
somatoform disorder, and binge eating disorder. The PHQ shows good sen-
sitivity and specificity regarding DSM-­IV diagnoses based on structured
clinical interviews (Gräfe et al., 2004). Additionally, the PHQ provides two
dimensional scales that assess the severity of depressive symptoms over
the past 2 weeks (PHQ-­9; Kroenke, Spitzer, & Williams, 2001) and the se-
verity of somatic symptoms over the past 4 weeks (PHQ-­ 15; Kroenke,
Spitzer, & Williams, 2002). In the combined sample, the internal consis-
tencies of the PHQ-­9 and PHQ-­15 scales were .91 and .81, respectively.

2. Items were reverse coded, as the respective scale of the MRS-30 was originally keyed to
measure Emotional Stability.

jpd130_R.indd 7 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 8 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

SAMPLES

Samples 1 and 2 originally consisted of 618 and 231 participants, respec-

tively. We excluded 27 participants (16 from Sample 1, 11 from Sample 2)
due to substantial numbers of missing values and 33 participants (25
from Sample 1, 8 from Sample 2) due to careless responding.3 Thus, the
following analyses are based on data from 577 participants from Sample 1
and 212 participants from Sample 2.
In Sample 1, 484 participants (83.9%) were female, 81 (14.0%) were
male, and 12 (2.1%) did not report their gender. Participants ranged in age
from 18 to 61 years and averaged 25.6 years (SD = 7.9). Because this sam-
ple was predominantly recruited at universities, 543 participants (94.1%)
had one of the highest possible secondary school degrees within the aca-
demic systems of the German-­speaking countries (“Abitur” or “Matura”).
Two hundred and seven participants (35.9%) were married or in a com-
mitted romantic relationship, and 56 (9.7%) had at least one child. PHQ
data indicated that 267 participants (46.3%) were probably suffering from
at least one mental (threshold or subthreshold) disorder. Specifically, 131
participants (22.7%) had a PHQ diagnosis of depression (major depressive
disorder or other depressive disorder), 51 (8.8%) had a PHQ diagnosis of
anxiety disorder (panic disorder or other anxiety disorder), 57 (9.9%) had
a PHQ diagnosis of eating disorder (bulimia nervosa or binge eating disor-
der), 93 (16.8%) showed symptoms of alcohol abuse, and 98 (17.0%) had
major somatic complaints. The prevalence rates of depressive, anxiety,
and eating disorders were somewhat higher than those found in prior
studies using the PHQ in German (female) university samples (e.g., Bailer,
Schwarz, Witthöft, Stübinger, & Rist, 2008). This was mainly due to ele-
vated prevalence rates in the subsample of 107 participants recruited
from the magazine’s website (i.e., 66.4% with at least one PHQ diagnosis),
which might have attracted people with mental health problems.
In Sample 2, 141 participants (66.5%) were female, 68 (32.1%) were
male, and 3 did not report their gender. Participants ranged in age from
18 to 72 years and averaged 36.2 years (SD = 13.0). Ninety-­five partici-
pants (44.8%) had the highest possible secondary school degree, 65
(30.7%) were married or in a relationship, and the same number had at
least one child. PHQ diagnoses suggested that 174 participants (82.1%)
were currently suffering from at least one mental disorder. Specifically,
144 participants (67.9%) showed signs of a depressive disorder, 108
(50.9%) of an anxiety disorder, 28 (13.2%) of an eating disorder, 41 (19.3%)

3. We excluded participants with a substantial (>5%) number of missing PID-5 item values,
as well as participants whose PID-5 response pattern suggested careless responding. Care-
less responding was defined as having an absolute z-value larger than 3 on one (or more) of
the following three indices (based on the combined sample): Mahalanobis Distance, Even-
Odd Consistency, and Average LongString. These indices tap different facets of careless or
inattentive responding and are recommended for data cleaning purposes in survey research
(Meade & Craig, 2012).

jpd130_R.indd 8 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS9

of alcohol abuse, and 77 (63.2%) had major somatic complaints. The re-
maining 38 participants (17.9%) without any PHQ diagnosis probably had
mental health problems that were not covered by the PHQ (e.g., borderline
PD or posttraumatic stress disorder).

STATISTICAL ANALYSES

Statistical analyses were conducted with the statistical platform R 2.15.2

(R Core Team, 2012). We began by computing the internal consistencies
(Cronbach’s alpha) and factor structure of the PID-­5 facet scales in Sam-
ple 1. Specifically, to provide a more stringent test of the scales’ unidimen-
sionality, we conducted 25 item-­level confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs)
based on the polychoric correlation matrix and robust weighted least-­
square estimation (using the “lavaan” package). For each scale, we as-
sessed the fit of a model with a single latent factor by means of three com-
mon fit indices: the comparative fit index (CFI), the Tucker Lewis index
(TLI), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). When
two of these fit indices did not meet minimal standards of model fit (i.e.,
CFI and TLI >.90, RMSEA <.10), we proceeded with exploring the factor
structure of the respective facet using item-­level EFA.
Next, we conducted an EFA of the facet scale scores using maximum
likelihood estimation (based on the “psych” package). To determine the
number of factors that should be retained for rotation, we inspected the
minimum average partial (MAP; Velicer, 1976), random data principal
components (PC) eigenvalues with a 95% threshold (i.e., parallel analysis;
Horn, 1965), and several EFA fit indices (i.e., CFI, TLI, RMSEA). For the
purpose of factor rotation, we considered both (exploratory) promax rota-
tion and target rotations to the empirical or ideal matrix of the original
sample (Krueger et al., 2012). The advantage of target rotation to the ideal
matrix (in which each facet loads only on its primary factor) is that it does
not capitalize on sampling error in the original sample. Factor congruency
coefficients were computed based on target rotation to the empirical ma-
trix of the Krueger et al. (2012) study. Afterwards, we repeated the EFA in
Sample 2 to determine the level of factor congruence between normal and
clinical samples.
Next, to test whether the PID-­5 traits correspond to the FFM factors and
are positively associated with self-­reported general personality dysfunc-
tion, we computed correlations between the 30 PID-­5 facet and domain
scales, the five MRS-­30 scales, and the IPO-­16 mean score in Sample 1.
To rule out that associations between maladaptive traits and general per-
sonality dysfunction are simply due to individual differences in current
distress, we also computed part correlations; that is, we predicted each
PID-­5 scale from IPO-­16 scores and controlled for depressive symptoms
(PHQ-­ 9) and somatic complaints (PHQ-­ 15), respectively. Because the
MRS-­30, IPO-­16, and PHQ contained several cases with missing values
(ranging from 0.9% to 9.7%), these analyses were conducted using multi-

jpd130_R.indd 9 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 10 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

ple imputation (Schafer & Graham, 2002). Thus, the estimates presented
here are pooled results across 20 imputed data sets (using the “mice”
package).
Finally, we merged Sample 1 and Sample 2 to explore the associations
between DSM-­5 traits and DSM-­IV Axis I psychopathology. Specifically, we
conducted 30 linear regression analyses predicting PID-­ 5 scales from
dummy-­coded PHQ diagnoses of (threshold and subthreshold) depressive
disorder, anxiety disorder, eating disorder, alcohol abuse, and somatic
complaints. The advantage of predicting single PID-­5 scales from all PHQ
diagnoses (instead of predicting single PHQ diagnoses from all PID-­ 5
scales) is that this procedure reveals the unique association between PID-­
5 scales and each of the PHQ diagnoses, thereby controlling for the high
comorbidity of PHQ diagnoses. Additionally, we controlled for several
(mean-­centered or dummy-­coded) sociodemographic variables, including
gender, age, education, relationship status, and parenthood. Again, to
handle missing values in sociodemographic and PHQ data, we used mul-
tiple imputation.

RESULTS
FACTOR STRUCTURE OF DSM-­5 MALADAPTIVE TRAIT FACETS

Table 1 presents the factor-­analytic results from Sample 1. In general,

trait facet scales were internally consistent: Cronbach’s alpha ranged from
.73 to .95, with a median value of .86. Moreover, item-­level CFAs indicated
that the majority of scales were unidimensional, with median fit indices of
CFI = .98, TLI = .97, and RMSEA = .09. However, for several scales the as-
sumption of unidimensionality seemed questionable. Specifically, the
CFAs for emotional lability, hostility, perseveration, and manipulativeness
suggested a more complex factor structure, because two out of three fit
indices did not meet minimal standards of model fit (i.e., CFI and TLI >90,
RMSEA <.10). We proceeded with exploring the factor structure of these
facets using item-­level EFAs. In all cases, two-­factor solutions showed ac-
ceptable to good model fit, with factor intercorrelations ranging from .51
to .62. Emotional lability bifurcated into the tendency of reacting with in-
tense emotions (e.g., item 102) and the difficulty of understanding one’s
own emotions (e.g., item 181).4 Hostility bifurcated into the disposition to
experience aggressive emotional states (e.g., item 38) and a more behav-
ioral kind of interpersonal hostility (e.g., item 216). The two factors of per-
severation and manipulativeness were more difficult to interpret and
might in part reflect differences in socially desirable responding (e.g., a

4. The PID-5 item wordings are accessible from http://psychiatry.org/practice/dsm/dsm5/

online-assessment-measures#Personality

jpd130_R.indd 10 01/28/2014 1:09:32 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS11

TABLE 1. Internal Consistency and Factor Structure of Personality

Inventory for DSM-5 Trait Facet Scales in Sample 1
Item-level CFA Facet-level EFA
Domain Facet α CFI TLI RMSEA I II III IV V
NA Separation Insecurity .86 .97 .95 .14 .78 −.04 .11 −.04 −.04
NA Anxiousness .92 .99 .99 .09 .70 .35 −.07 −.15 .00
NA Emotional Lability .89 .93 .90 .25 .64 .00 −.10 .09 .21
NA Submissiveness .84 1.00 .99 .10 .41 .29 .01 −.13 −.18
NA Perseveration .83 .92 .89 .14 .41 .28 .02 .07 .22
DET Withdrawal .93 .99 .99 .07 −.26 .89 −.04 −.06 .17
DET Intimacy Avoidance .86 .99 .99 .07 −.42 .82 −.07 .03 .11
DET Anhedonia .91 .99 .99 .08 .23 .80 −.16 −.07 −.05
-NA/DET Restricted Affectivity .83 .99 .98 .07 −.43 .77 .14 .02 .12
DET/NA Depressivity .95 .99 .99 .09 .40 .62 −.17 .08 .00
DET/NA Suspiciousness .79 .98 .96 .07 .29 .44 .15 −.14 .08
ANT Manipulativeness .73 .93 .85 .18 .07 −.28 .82 .03 −.08
ANT Deceitfulness .85 .93 .91 .12 .18 .07 .76 .10 −.19
ANT Grandiosity .81 .99 .98 .07 −.02 −.17 .66 −.25 .28
ANT Callousness .84 .98 .97 .05 −.13 .38 .63 .06 −.11
ANT Attention Seeking .88 .99 .98 .09 .17 −.42 .60 .05 .12
NA/ANT Hostility .84 .92 .89 .13 .34 .25 .44 .08 −.10
DIS Impulsivity .83 .99 .98 .09 .16 −.20 .05 .62 .12
DIS Irresponsibility .75 .97 .96 .07 .06 .24 .22 .54 −.04
-DIS Rigid Perfectionism .88 .95 .94 .12 .37 .23 .25 −.51 .24
DIS Distractibility .91 .99 .99 .08 .28 .22 −.21 .49 .16
DIS Risk Taking .91 .95 .94 .11 −.26 −.35 .17 .44 .24
PSY Unusual Beliefs and
 Experiences .82 .95 .92 .11 −.13 −.07 .06 −.05 .93
PSY Cognitive and Perceptual
 Dysregulation .87 .96 .95 .07 .18 .15 −.12 .15 .65
PSY Eccentricity .95 .98 .98 .10 −.06 .30 .07 .05 .63

Negative Affectivity
Detachment .55
Antagonism .13 .28
Disinhibition .34 .31 .44
Psychoticism .45 .47 .52 .39
Note: N = 577. EFA = Exploratory Factor Analysis; CFA = Confirmatory Factor Analysis; NA =
Negative Affectivity; DET = Detachment; ANT = Antagonism; DIS = Disinhibition; PSY = Psy-
choticism; α = Cronbach’s alpha; CFI = comparative fit index; TLI = Tucker Lewis index;
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation. The largest loading in each row is pre-
sented in bold. Loadings ≥|.30|, but which are not the highest loading within that row, are
presented in italics. Loadings that were fixed at 1 or –1 in the ideal target rotated matrix are
presented underlined.

manipulative person who tends to respond in a socially desirable way will

probably agree with item 180, but not with item 219).
Parallel analysis, MAP, and EFA fit indices unequivocally suggested ex-
tracting five common factors from the 25 facet scale mean scores. The first
seven observed PC eigenvalues were 8.649, 3.579, 1.960, 1.447, 1.251,
0.987, and 0.721, whereas the 95% percentiles of random data PC eigen-
values were 1.456, 1.380, 1.329, 1.284, 1.247, 1.211, and 1.178. The fifth
observed eigenvalue was the last that was higher than would be expected

jpd130_R.indd 11 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 12 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

with random data. Moreover, the minimum average partials for one-­to
seven-­factor solutions were .0467, .0277, .0227, .0218, .0207, .0214, and
.0234, with a five-­factor solution having the lowest value. Finally, the five-­
factor model was the most parsimonious one that showed acceptable fit in
at least two fit indices (CFI = .91, TLI = .86, RMSEA = .09). In sum, ex-
tracting five factors seemed well justified.
The last five columns of Table 1 show the factor loadings of the 25 trait
facet scales that were target rotated to the ideal loading matrix (see above).5
The factor structure was well in line with the factor structure of the origi-
nal sample (Krueger et al., 2012), with congruency coefficients after target
rotation to the empirical (or ideal) loading matrix of .96 (.95) for Negative
Affectivity, .98 (.97) for Detachment, .98 (.97) for Antagonism, .92 (.77) for
Disinhibition, and .98 (.92) for Psychoticism. However, two facets that
should ideally load on Negative Affectivity (i.e., hostility and restricted af-
fectivity) had their primary loadings on Antagonism and Detachment, re-
spectively.6 As expected, the five factors were generally positively correlat-
ed, ranging from φ = .13 between Negative Affectivity and Antagonism to
φ = .55 between Negative Affectivity and Detachment (see the bottom rows
of Table 1). Factor correlations were somewhat higher in the present sam-
ple (φMd = .42) as compared to the original sample (φMd = .27).
Finally, when the EFA was repeated in Sample 2, factor congruence with
the original sample (or Sample 1) after target rotation to the respective
empirical loading matrix was largely acceptable, with congruency coeffi-
cients of .84 (.91) for Negative Affectivity, .94 (.94) for Detachment, .93
(.93) for Antagonism, .79 (.55) for Disinhibition, and .95 (.89) for Psychoti-
cism. Obviously, however, the Disinhibition factor did not replicate well in
the clinical sample. Thus, we proceeded with exploring the factor struc-
ture in Sample 2 using promax rotation: It turned out that facets of Disin-
hibition split up and merged with two distinct aspects of Negative Affectiv-
ity: Impulsivity and risk taking loaded on a common factor with hostility,
suspiciousness, emotional lability, separation anxiety, and depressivity,
whereas rigid perfectionism and distractibility merged with perseveration,
submissiveness, and anxiousness. Additionally, irresponsibility loaded on
Antagonism. It should be noted, however, that parallel analysis suggested
extracting only four factors in Sample 2, making the fifth factor probably
unstable and indistinguishable from random error.

5. The exploratory promax-rotated solution was less convincing because it contained a rela-
tively broad Negative Affectivity factor with 10 highest-loading facets, including facets from
Detachment (i.e., anhedonia) and Disinhibition (i.e., rigid perfectionism, low risk taking). The
factor-loading matrix of the promax-rotated solution for Sample 1 (and Sample 2) can be
obtained from the first author upon request.
6. The rather low factor congruence of Disinhibition after target rotation to the ideal loading
matrix was due to the fact that, in our study, the facets pertaining to Disinhibition had no
secondary loadings at all, whereas they had four secondary loadings in the original sample
(i.e., anhedonia, depressivity, deceitfulness, and callousness). This suggests that the deci-
sion to target rotate to the ideal instead of to the empirical loading matrix was reasonable,
because this produced a cleaner loading pattern for Disinhibition.

jpd130_R.indd 12 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS13

ASSOCIATIONS WITH GENERAL PERSONALITY TRAITS

AND PERSONALITY DYSFUNCTION

Table 2 presents associations between the PID-­5 and the MRS-­30 and
IPO-­16 scales. As hypothesized, the first four PID-­5 domains7 were sub-
stantially correlated with their MRS-­30 counterparts, with convergent cor-
relations reaching .80 for Negative Affectivity and Neuroticism, −.64 for
Detachment and Extraversion, −.49 for Antagonism and Agreeableness,
and −.63 for Disinhibition and Conscientiousness (see the bottom rows of
Table 2). Albeit significant, the correlation between Psychoticism and
Openness was only .18, suggesting that the overlap between these two
domains is rather limited. Discriminant associations of domain scores
were clearly lower than convergent associations and averaged at|r|Md =
.20. A notable exception was Detachment being highly associated with
Neuroticism, indicating that the PID-­5 definition of Detachment might be
somewhat infused with negative emotional content. This becomes espe-
cially apparent when focusing on facet level correlations: Here it turned
out that, contrary to expectations, anhedonia, depressivity, and suspi-
ciousness were more strongly associated with Neuroticism than with (low)
Extraversion. Facet level correlations also seem instructive to unravel the
rather modest convergent association between Antagonism and Agree-
ableness: Whereas the PID-­5 facets of hostility, callousness, and deceitful-
ness were at least moderately associated with (low) Agreeableness, asso-
ciations of Agreeableness with the PID-­ 5 facets of manipulativeness,
grandiosity, and attention seeking were rather small. Openness was, with
the exception of a moderate association with attention seeking, nearly un-
related to the PID-­5 facets.
In addition to convergent associations with normal personality traits, we
also found support for associations between PID-­ 5 domain and facet
scales and general personality dysfunction. In fact, all PID-­5 facets except
risk taking were significantly positively associated with the IPO-­16 mean
score, with facets of Negative Affectivity and Psychoticism showing the
strongest effect sizes and facets of Disinhibition showing the smallest ef-
fect sizes (rMd = .46). Notably, these findings largely held when controlling
for current depressive symptoms and somatic complaints as measured by
the PHQ-­9 and PHQ-­15 (srMd = .32).

7. We computed PID-5 domain scores by aggregating all items from the highest-loading fac-
ets in Table 1. Thus, items pertaining to restricted affectivity and hostility were included in
computing Detachment and Antagonism scores, respectively. Items pertaining to rigid per-
fectionism were reverse coded before computing Disinhibition scores. This approach is con-
ceptually in line with the original scoring procedure suggested by Krueger et al. (2012), as it
includes information from all 25 facet scales. We favored this approach over the recently
proposed domain scoring approach based on the three highest loadings facets (see www.
dsm5.org) to enhance comparability with previous studies.

jpd130_R.indd 13 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 14 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

TABLE 2. Associations Between Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Scales and Normal
Personality Traits and General Personality Dysfunction in Sample 1
MRS-30 scales IPO-16
Domain Facet N E A C O r sr
NA Separation Insecurity .60 −.05 −.21 −.14 −.08 .60 .41
NA Anxiousness .77 −.31 −.09 −.11 −.17 .60 .30
NA Emotional Lability .66 −.15 −.15 −.15 .01 .56 .32
NA Submissiveness .46 −.24 .12 .01 −.14 .34 .22
NA Perseveration .54 −.33 −.15 −.25 −.11 .66 .45
DET Withdrawal .40 −.75 −.20 −.10 −.10 .36 .15
DET Intimacy Avoidance .23 −.43 −.13 −.10 −.14 .27 .13
DET Anhedonia .69 −.56 −.18 −.14 −.28 .45 .11
-NA/DET Restricted Affectivity .12 −.49 −.15 −.18 −.14 .37 .29
DET/NA Depressivity .74 −.42 −.17 −.22 −.17 .59 .23
DET/NA Suspiciousness .51 −.37 −.22 −.09 −.14 .54 .35
ANT Manipulativeness −.22 .21 −.18 −.08 .17 .22 .32
ANT Deceitfulness .10 −.07 −.31 −.26 .04 .46 .46
ANT Grandiosity −.18 −.01 −.14 −.03 .24 .24 .34
ANT Callousness .08 −.26 −.54 −.20 −.05 .36 .35
ANT Attention Seeking −.17 .31 −.16 −.15 .35 .24 .31
NA/ANT Hostility .43 −.18 −.62 −.26 −.10 .51 .35
DIS Impulsivity .16 .23 −.29 −.42 .02 .40 .35
DIS Irresponsibility .28 −.14 −.29 −.54 −.02 .52 .40
-DIS Rigid Perfectionism .37 −.30 −.13 .33 −.04 .43 .30
DIS Distractibility .48 −.18 −.12 −.51 −.14 .57 .32
DIS Risk Taking −.31 .26 −.10 −.17 .16 .06 .17
PSY Unusual Beliefs and
 Experiences .08 −.18 −.10 −.13 .25 .51 .47
PSY Cognitive and Perceptual
 Dysregulation .44 −.27 −.17 −.24 .09 .73 .53
PSY Eccentricity .30 −.36 −.24 −.27 .16 .63 .50

Negative Affectivity .80 −.28 −.15 −.18 −.12 .73 .44

Detachment .64 −.64 −.23 −.19 −.21 .58 .26
Antagonism .06 −.03 −.49 −.25 .13 .50 .50
Disinhibition −.03 .21 −.17 −.63 .04 .27 .24
Psychoticism .34 −.33 −.21 −.26 .18 .72 .57
Note: N = 577. All r ≥ |.11| are significant at p < .01. All r ≥ |.14| are significant at p <
.001. All r ≥ |.19| are significant at p < .000005. sr = Part correlations controlled for the in-
fluence of depressive symptoms (PHQ-9) and somatic complaints (PHQ-15) as measured by
the Patient Health Questionnaire. All coefficients are pooled results across 20 imputed data
sets. NA = Negative Affectivity; DET = Detachment; ANT = Antagonism; DIS = Disinhibition;
PSY = Psychoticism; N = Neuroticism; E = Extraversion; A = Agreeableness; C = Conscien-
tiousness; O = Openness; MRS-30 = Minimum Redundancy Scales – 30 Item Version; IPO-
16 = Inventory of Personality Organization – 16 Item Version; The largest correlation ≥|.30|
with MRS-30 scales in each row is presented in bold. Correlations ≥ |.30| with MRS-30
scales that are not the highest correlation within that row are presented in italics.

ASSOCIATIONS WITH AXIS I PSYCHOPATHOLOGY

Table 3 presents the incremental associations (i.e., part correlations) be-

tween various PHQ diagnoses and PID-­5 facet and domain scores based
on the combined sample. As expected, depressive disorders showed the
strongest incremental associations with facets of Negative Affectivity (e.g.,
anxiousness and emotional lability) and Detachment (e.g., anhedonia and

jpd130_R.indd 14 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS15

TABLE 3. Incremental Associations Between Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Scales

and Patient Health Questionnaire Diagnoses in the Combined Sample 1 and 2
PHQ
Domain Facet M SE DEP ANX ED ALC SOM
NA Separation Insecurity 0.76 0.04 .17 .06 .02 .08 .16
NA Anxiousness 1.02 0.04 .27 .18 .02 .03 .10
NA Emotional Lability 1.09 0.04 .25 .10 .03 .04 .09
NA Submissiveness 1.23 0.04 .15 .07 .06 −.06 .02
NA Perseveration 0.85 0.03 .20 .08 .07 .06 .13
DET Withdrawal 0.57 0.04 .19 .11 .09 −.02 .05
DET Intimacy Avoidance 0.68 0.04 .10 .09 .14 −.01 .02
DET Anhedonia 0.70 0.03 .35 .13 .06 −.01 .03
-NA/DET Restricted Affectivity 0.78 0.04 .07 .09 .11 .02 .03
DET/NA Depressivity 0.48 0.03 .39 .14 .05 .03 .03
DET/NA Suspiciousness 0.81 0.03 .18 .07 .03 .08 .14
ANT Manipulativeness 0.93 0.03 −.08 −.07 .03 .12 .03
ANT Deceitfulness 0.58 0.03 .05 −.06 .05 .14 .04
ANT Grandiosity 0.66 0.03 −.09 −.02 .04 .11 .03
ANT Callousness 0.31 0.02 .07 −.02 .04 .11 .06
ANT Attention Seeking 0.97 0.04 −.07 −.06 .04 .15 .08
NA/ANT Hostility 0.76 0.03 .17 .05 .09 .12 .11
DIS Impulsivity 0.81 0.04 .01 .00 .10 .17 .10
DIS Irresponsibility 0.43 0.03 .09 .01 .11 .15 .09
-DIS Rigid Perfectionism 1.01 0.04 .06 .15 .05 −.01 .09
DIS Distractibility 0.77 0.04 .20 .13 .05 .12 .11
DIS Risk Taking 1.15 0.04 −.06 −.06 .03 .14 .02
PSY Unusual Beliefs and
 Experiences 0.51 0.03 −.01 .09 .00 .11 .12
PSY Cognitive and Perceptual
 Dysregulation 0.48 0.03 .15 .17 .07 .13 .14
PSY Eccentricity 0.79 0.04 .16 .11 .02 .12 .11

Negative Affectivity 0.97 0.03 .28 .14 .05 .05 .14

Detachment 0.64 0.03 .31 .14 .09 .02 .06
Antagonism 0.64 0.02 .03 −.04 .07 .17 .09
Disinhibition 1.11 0.02 .05 −.04 .06 .19 .06
Psychoticism 0.61 0.03 .14 .14 .04 .14 .14
Note: N = 789. All sr ≥ |.10| are significant at p < .01. All sr ≥ |.12| are significant at p <
.001. All sr ≥ |.17| are significant at p < .000005. NA = Negative Affectivity; DET = Detach-
ment; ANT = Antagonism; DIS = Disinhibition; PSY = Psychoticism; PHQ = Patient Health
Questionnaire; DEP = Major depressive disorder or other depressive disorder diagnosis; ANX =
Panic disorder or other anxiety disorder diagnosis; ED = Bulimia nervosa or binge eating
disorder diagnosis; ALC = Probable alcohol abuse; SOM = Somatic complaints; M = Estimat-
ed mean of a 28-year-old healthy female participant from Sample 1 with the highest school
degree and without partner or child. Effects are part correlations controlled for sample mem-
bership, gender, age, school degree, relationship status, parenthood, and the four other PHQ
diagnoses, respectively. All coefficients are pooled results across 20 imputed data sets.

depressivity). Incremental associations with anxiety disorders were gener-

ally rather small, and most prominent for the facets anxiousness and cog-
nitive and perceptual dysregulation. Incremental associations with eating
disorders were even smaller, and only notable for the PID-­5 facet of inti-
macy avoidance. In line with our expectations, incremental associations
with alcohol abuse were strongest for facets of Disinhibition (e.g., impul-
sivity), but also notable for some facets of Antagonism (e.g., attention
seeking). Finally, we observed small incremental associations between so-

jpd130_R.indd 15 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 16 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

matic complaints and facets of Negative Affectivity (e.g., separation inse-

curity) and Psychoticism (e.g., cognitive and perceptual dysregulation).

DISCUSSION
A growing body of research shows that the PID-­5 is a psychometrically
sound measure of the DSM-­5 trait model (APA, 2013; Krueger et al., 2012;
Skodol, 2012). In the present study, we built on and extended these find-
ings by introducing a German version of the PID-­5 and by investigating
the structure and correlates of self-­reported DSM-­5 maladaptive personal-
ity traits. Specifically, we were able to replicate (a) the proposed five-­factor
structure of DSM-­5 trait facets, (b) convergent associations between the
first four DSM-­5 trait domains and respective FFM domains, (c) consis-
tently positive associations between DSM-­5 traits and self-­reported gener-
al personality dysfunction, and (d) differential associations between DSM-­
5 traits and a range of self-­ reported DSM-­IV Axis I disorders. Thus, it
seems safe to conclude that we succeeded in constructing a largely equiv-
alent German version of the PID-­5, and to recommend using this version
in future clinical research and practice in German-­speaking countries. In
the following, we highlight selected findings that contribute to the current
literature on the PID-­5 and the new DSM-­5 trait model in general.
First, although our findings give support to the emerging consensus on
the five-­factor structure of DSM-­5 maladaptive personality traits, several
issues may warrant further attention, including (a) the dimensionality of
trait facets, (b) the deviation from simple structure, and (c) the replicabil-
ity in clinical samples. To begin with, we found indication that the struc-
ture of some PID-­5 facet scales might not be purely unidimensional. For
example, consider the facet of hostility, which has also been reported to
fail the MAP test of unidimensionality by Quilty et al. (2013): In our sam-
ple, an item-­level EFA suggested two related factors, one tapping a dispo-
sition to experience aggressive emotional states, and the other tapping a
more behavioral kind of interpersonal hostility. This two-­dimensional fac-
tor structure might help explain why the primary loadings of hostility os-
cillate between Negative Affectivity and Antagonism across samples: Hos-
tility, as defined in the PID-­5, seems to be intrinsically ambiguous, with a
negative emotional and an antagonistic side. Future studies should focus
more systematically on the factor structure within facet scales, as this as-
pect is underreported in the current literature and might provide helpful
information for future revisions of the DSM-­5 trait model.
Somewhat related, the DSM-­5 trait model currently lists four facets as
being markers of two domains, respectively (APA, 2013). This is under-
standable, because the authors of the PID-­5 emphasized content validity
over structural simplicity (Krueger, 2013), and current research suggests
that personality traits do not have a clean, simple structure (cf. Hopwood
& Donnellan, 2010). However, our findings indicate that some of the four
“interstitial” facets show a loading pattern that deviates from the DSM-­5

jpd130_R.indd 16 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS17

trait model. Specifically, hostility and restricted affectivity might be con-

ceived of as primary markers of Antagonism and Detachment instead of
Negative Affectivity, which is what was also found in the large U.S. under-
graduate replication sample (Wright, Thomas, et al., 2012). Moreover, the
secondary loading of suspiciousness on Negative Affectivity was yet again
only marginal (see de Fruyt et al., 2013; Wright, Thomas, et al., 2012),
suggesting the deletion of this assumed relationship in the DSM-­5 trait
model.
Finally, to our knowledge, this is the first study that largely replicates
the five-­factor structure of self-­reported DSM-­5 maladaptive personality
traits in a clinical sample (because previous studies on clinical samples
did not report results pertaining to the facet-­level factor structure; see
Quilty et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013). Notably, factor congruence in our
clinical sample was far from perfect because the replication of the Disinhi-
bition factor failed. De Fruyt et al. (2013) also found a somewhat lower
congruency coefficient for Disinhibition in their sample of Belgian under-
graduates, and Morey et al. (2013) failed to replicate the Disinhibition fac-
tor in clinician ratings of DSM-­5 trait facets. Similar to the results of the
latter study, the EFA in our Sample 2 instead suggested the presence of a
Compulsivity factor (with high loadings of rigid perfectionism and perse-
veration) that was further infused with anxiousness, submissiveness, and
distractibility. However, in contrast to the results of Morey et al. (2013),
impulsivity and risk taking did not merge with Antagonism, but with some
sort of affective dysregulation (e.g., emotional lability, hostility, separation
anxiety, and depressivity). Note that this factor includes six out of the
seven facets that are listed as criteria of borderline PD in the alternative
DSM-­5 model for PD (APA, 2013, pp. 766f). One may also speculate that
this factor is related to urgency, that is, the disposition to engage in rash
action when experiencing extreme positive and negative affect (Cyders &
Smith, 2008). In any case, the replicability of the Disinhibition factor in
clinical samples is currently unclear, because it may split into compulsive
and impulsive parts, and the latter part may shift into antagonistic or
emotionally dysregulated shapes. Needless to say, this warrants more at-
tention in future research. In this regard, researchers should also keep in
mind that assessing factor congruence by conducting EFAs in separate
samples and comparing factor loadings afterwards is only a very first, and
not very stringent, step in investigating phenomena of measurement in-
variance and population heterogeneity (Brown, 2006). For example, facet
mean scores may differ between members of different groups although
they have the same value on the latent trait, and latent traits may be dif-
ferentially associated with each other in different populations. Future
studies comparing the factor structure of DSM-­5 trait facets in different
settings should use more comprehensive approaches such as exploratory
structural equation modeling (ESEM; Marsh et al., 2010), which seems
ideally suited when simple structure is unlikely to be present.
Second, our findings once again support the assumption that the first

jpd130_R.indd 17 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 18 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

four DSM-­5 domains converge well with the FFM traits Neuroticism, (low)
Extraversion, (low) Agreeableness, and (low) Conscientiousness (Trull,
2012). Beyond this broad convergence, three issues seem noteworthy:
First, most studies using the PID-­5, including our own study, suggest that
Psychoticism and Openness are relatively unrelated (Ashton et al., 2012;
Markon et al., 2013; Quilty et al., 2013; Watson et al., 2013). However, the
fact that other studies repeatedly found support for at least modest asso-
ciations (de Fruyt et al., 2013; Gore & Widiger, 2013; Thomas et al., 2013)
clearly calls for future attempts to unravel the relationship between
­Psychoticism and Openness using more sophisticated models and a finer-­
grained level of analysis. For example, recent studies suggest that, al-
though Psychoticism and Openness may share common variance (repre-
senting individual differences in an adaptive system that regulates
cognitive exploration), some aspects of Openness (e.g., intellect) may even
be negatively related to Psychoticism (Chmielewski, Bagby, Markon, Ring,
& Ryder, in press; DeYoung, Grazioplene, & Peterson, 2012). Second, De-
tachment does not seem to be specific to Extraversion, because we found
equally strong associations with Neuroticism, especially for the facets of
anhedonia, depressivity, and suspiciousness. This parallels recent find-
ings by Watson and colleagues (2013), who also found strong correlations
between Detachment and Neuroticism, leading them to question whether
depressivity and suspiciousness are optimally classified as facets of De-
tachment. Finally, the convergent association between Antagonism and
(low) Agreeableness was only modest. This seems especially noteworthy
because facets that were central to Antagonism both in Sample 1 and in
the original sample of Krueger et al. (2012) (i.e., manipulativeness, deceit-
fulness, and grandiosity) showed even lower associations, and thus the
modest association of Antagonism was reached only due to content relat-
ed to more peripheral facets (i.e., hostility and callousness). Although pri-
or studies usually found a higher level of convergence between Antago-
nism and (low) Agreeableness at a global level (but see Thomas et al.,
2013, for an exception), this differential pattern between facets of Antago-
nism and the domain of Agreeableness seems to be quite consistent across
studies (de Fruyt et al., 2013; Markon et al., 2013; Quilty et al., 2013;
Watson et al., 2013). In a similar vein, prior studies also suggest differen-
tial associations between facets of Agreeableness and the domain of An-
tagonism, with (low) straightforwardness and (low) modesty probably be-
ing the most salient markers of Antagonism (Ashton et al., 2012; de Fruyt
et al., 2013; Quilty et al., 2013). Thus, the joint structure of these two
domains is an important issue to clarify in future research.
Third, we showed that all DSM-­5 trait facets except risk taking are posi-
tively related to a self-­report measure of general PD severity. This confirms
previous findings by Hopwood et al. (2012) and corroborates the maladap-
tive or negative implications of DSM-­5 traits. Notably, this was especially
true for facets of Psychoticism, which showed the strongest associations
with general personality dysfunction. Although this might be in part due to

jpd130_R.indd 18 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS19

content overlap of respective measures (i.e., the IPO-­ 16 contains several

items focusing on deficits in reality testing), it suggests that Psychoticism is
indeed a core domain of personality pathology. That is, regardless of how
Psychoticism and Openness are related, Psychoticism seems to be more
pathological (in fact, the association between general personality dysfunc-
tion and Openness in Sample 1 was not significant). Moreover, going beyond
the Hopwood et al. (2012) study, we were able to rule out that these associa-
tions were largely due to shared variance with current distress that is un-
specific to personality. The association between risk taking and general per-
sonality dysfunction even increased after controlling for current symptoms,
which might have operated as a suppressor variable in former studies.
Finally, we found support for unique associations between DSM-­5 trait
facets and a range of mental health problems as defined in DSM-­IV Axis I.
This speaks to the clinical relevance of the PID-­5, as its scales seem to
predict major areas of clinical concern (Hopwood, Wright, et al., 2013).
Interestingly, the specific associations between Negative Affectivity/De-
tachment and depressive disorders as well as Antagonism/Disinhibition
and alcohol abuse are in line with the two superordinate factors of inter-
nalizing and externalizing liability that span across the domains of per-
sonality and psychopathology (Krueger, 2005). Future studies should also
focus on nonetiological, “pathoplastic” associations between personality
and psychopathology, and explore how maladaptive personality traits
shape the experience, expression, and course of mental disorders (cf. Cain
et al., 2012). In fact, one of the strengths of the new DSM-­5 trait model
might be that it allows for capturing the heterogeneity of maladaptive trait
configurations within a specific diagnostic group.

LIMITATIONS

This study has two main limitations: First, Sample 1 consisted predomi-
nantly of self-­selected, female psychology students. Thus, the generalizabil-
ity of our findings is questionable. Future studies should test whether the
factor structure of the German PID-­5 is replicable in more gender-­balanced
and more heterogeneous samples, for example, in samples from the general
population, including participants with lower socioeconomic status. Sec-
ond, we only used a screening questionnaire to assess threshold and sub-
threshold DSM-­IV Axis I disorders. Given that the diagnostic efficiency of
the PHQ is far from perfect (Gräfe et al., 2004), this inevitably led to the
inclusion of false-­positive cases. Similarly, our measure of general person-
ality dysfunction was based only on self-­reports. In both cases, it would
have been desirable to have access to structured clinical interview data.

FUTURE DIRECTIONS

A growing literature shows that the DSM-­5 trait domains and facets are
meaningfully related to various clinically relevant constructs. However,

jpd130_R.indd 19 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 20 ZIMMERMANN ET AL.

because most of these studies (including our own study) are based on self-­
report measures, substantial parts of the multitrait-­multimethod matrix
currently remain unexplored (Campbell & Fiske, 1959). Thus, one of the
most important goals for future research will be to establish the construct
validity of the DSM-­5 trait model using informant or clinician reports of
maladaptive personality traits, or using dimensional DSM-­IV PD scores
obtained from structured clinical interviews (for a first step in this direc-
tion, see Markon et al., 2013). Related to this, studies are needed that
explore the discriminant validity of the two major components of the new
PD model in DSM-­5 (APA, 2013), impairments in personality functioning
(Criterion A) and maladaptive personality traits (Criterion B), as well as
their incremental validity in predicting future success or failure in major
life domains (Hopwood et al., 2011). Additional important questions per-
tain to the temporal stability of DSM-­5 traits (Morey & Hopwood, 2013)
and to their relation to the general factor of personality evaluation (cf.
Leising & Zimmermann, 2011; Pettersson, Turkheimer, Horn, & Menatti,
2012). We hope that making the PID-­5 available to the German-­speaking
scientific community will stimulate research on these and related ques-
tions and will also help improve the evidence base for a continued devel-
opment of the official PD classification systems.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Di-
agnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (4th ed., text revi-
sion). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Di-
agnostic and statistical manual of
mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington,
VA: Author.
Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M.,
Quilty, L. C., Veltri, C. O. C., Markon,
K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). On the
convergence between PSY-­ 5 domains
and PID-­5 domains and facets: Impli-
cations for assessment of DSM-­5 per-
sonality traits. Assessment, 20, 286–
294.
Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Hen-
drickse, J., & Born, M. P. (2012). The
maladaptive personality traits of the
Personality Inventory for DSM-­5 (PID-­
5) in relation to the HEXACO person-
ality factors and schizotypy/dissocia-
tion. Journal of Personality Disorders,
26, 641–659.
Bailer, J., Schwarz, D., Witthöft, M., Stübin-
ger, C., & Rist, F. (2008). Prävalenz
psychischer Syndrome bei Studieren-
den einer deutschen Universität [Prev-
alence of mental disorders among col-
lege students at a German university].
Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik, med-
izinische Psychologie, 58, 423–429.
Brown, T. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor anal-
ysis for applied research. New York,
NY: Guilford Press.
Cain, N. M., Ansell, E. B., Wright, A. G. C.,
Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Pinto,
A., … Grilo, C. M. (2012). Interperson-
al pathoplasticity in the course of ma-
jor depression. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 80, 78–86.
Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Con-
vergent and discriminant validation by
the multitrait-­ multimethod matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105.
Chmielewski, M., Bagby, R. M., Markon, K.
E., Ring, A., & Ryder, A. G. (in press).
Openness to experience, intellect,
schizotypal personality disorder, and
psychoticism: Resolving the contro-
versy. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders.
Clark, L. A. (2007). Assessment and diagno-
sis of personality disorder: Perennial

jpd130_R.indd 20 01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM

 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS21
issues and an emerging reconceptual-
ization. Annual Review of Psychology,
58, 227–257.
Cyders, M. A., & Smith, G. T. (2008).
Emotion-­ based dispositions to rash
action: Positive and negative urgency.
Psychological Bulletin, 134, 807–828.
de Fruyt, F., de Clercq, B., de Bolle, M.,
Wille, B., Markon, K. E., & Krueger,
R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive
traits in a five-­ factor framework for
DSM-­5 in a university student sample.
Assessment, 20, 295–307.
DeYoung, C. G., Grazioplene, R. G., & Peter-
son, J. B. (2012). From madness to
genius: The Openness/Intellect trait
domain as a paradoxical simplex.
Journal of Research in Personality, 46,
63–78.
Eysenck, H. (1992). The definition and mea-
surement of psychoticism. Personality
and Individual Differences, 13, 757–
785.
Gore, W. L., & Widiger, T. A. (2013). The
DSM-­5 dimensional trait model and
Five-­Factor Models of general person-
ality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
122, 816–821.
Gräfe, K., Zipfel, S., Herzog, W., & Löwe, B.
(2004). Screening psychischer Störun-
gen mit dem “Gesundheitsfragebogen
für Patienten (PHQ-­D)” [Screening for
psychiatric disorders with the Patient
Health Questionnaire (PHQ). Results
from the German validation study]. Di-
agnostica, 50, 171–181.
Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010).
How should the internal structure of
personality inventories be evaluated?
Personality and Social Psychology Re-
view, 14, 332–346.
Hopwood, C. J., Malone, J. C., Ansell, E. B.,
Sanislow, C. A., Grilo, C. M., Mc-
Glashan, T. H., … Morey, L. C. (2011).
Personality assessment in DSM-­5: Em-
pirical support for rating severity,
style, and traits. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 25, 305–320.
Hopwood, C. J., Schade, N., Krueger, R. F.,
Wright, A. G. C., & Markon, K. E.
(2013). Connecting DSM-­5 personality
traits and pathological beliefs: Toward
a unifying model. Journal of Psychopa-
thology and Behavioral Assessment,
35, 162–172.
Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K.
E., Wright, A. G. C., & Krueger, R. F.
jpd130_R.indd 21
(2012). DSM-­5 personality traits and
DSM-­IV personality disorders. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 121, 424–
432.
Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., Krueger, R.
F., Schade, N., Markon, K. E., & Mo-
rey, L. C. (2013). DSM-­5 pathological
personality traits and the Personality
Assessment Inventory. Assessment,
20, 269–285.
Horn, J. L. (1965). A rationale and test for
the number of factors in factor analy-
sis. Psychometrika, 30, 179–185.
Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality Diagnostic
Questionnaire, 4+. New York, NY: New
York State Psychiatric Institute.
Kernberg, O. F. (1984). Severe personality
disorders. New Haven, CT: Yale Uni-
versity Press.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B.
(2001). The PHQ-­9: Validity of a brief
depression severity measure. Journal
of General Internal Medicine, 16, 606–
613.
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B.
W. (2002). The PHQ-­ 15: Validity of a
new measure for evaluating the sever-
ity of somatic symptoms. Psychoso-
matic Medicine, 64, 258–266.
Krueger, R. F. (2005). Continuity of Axes I
and II: Toward a unified model of per-
sonality, personality disorders, and
clinical disorders. Journal of Personal-
ity Disorders, 19, 233–261.
Krueger, R. F. (2013). Personality disorders
are the vanguard of the post-­DSM-­5.0
era. Personality Disorders: Theory, Re-
search, and Treatment, 4, 355–362.
Krueger, R. F., Derringer, J., Markon, K. E.,
Watson, D., & Skodol, A. E. (2012).
Initial construction of a maladaptive
personality trait model and inventory
for DSM-­5. Psychological Medicine, 42,
1879–1890.
Krueger, R. F., Eaton, N. R., Derringer, J.,
Markon, K. E., Watson, D., & Skodol,
A. E. (2011). Personality in DSM-­5:
Helping delineate personality disorder
content and framing the metastruc-
ture. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 93, 325–331.
Leising, D., & Zimmermann, J. (2011). An
integrative conceptual framework for
assessing personality and personality
pathology. Review of General Psychol-
ogy, 15, 317–330.
Lenzenweger, M. F., Clarkin, J. F., Kernberg,
01/28/2014 1:09:33 PM
 22
O. F., & Foelsch, P. A. (2001). The In-
ventory of Personality Organization:
Psychometric properties, factorial com-
position, and criterion relations with
affect, aggressive dyscontrol, psycho-
sis proneness, and self-­domains in a
nonclinical sample. Psychological As-
sessment, 13, 577–591.
Markon, K. E., Krueger, R. F., & Watson, D.
(2005). Delineating the structure of
normal and abnormal personality: An
integrative hierarchical approach.
Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 88, 139–157.
Markon, K. E., Quilty, L. C., Bagby, R. M., &
Krueger, R. F. (2013). The develop-
ment and psychometric properties of
an informant-­report form of the Per-
sonality Inventory for DSM-­5 (PID-­5).
Assessment, 20, 370–383.
Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Aspa-
rouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein,
U., & Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look
at the big five factor structure through
exploratory structural equation mod-
eling. Psychological Assessment, 22,
471–491.
Meade, A. W., & Craig, S. B. (2012). Identify-
ing careless responses in survey data.
Psychological Methods, 17, 437–455.
Miller, J. D., Gentile, B., Wilson, L., & Camp-
bell, W. K. (2013). Grandiose and vul-
nerable narcissism and the DSM-­5
pathological personality trait model.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 95,
284–290.
Morey, L. C. (1991). Professional manual for
the Personality Assessment Inventory.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Morey, L. C., & Hopwood, C. J. (2013). Sta-
bility and change in personality disor-
ders. Annual Review of Clinical Psy-
chology, 9, 499–528.
Morey, L. C., Krueger, R. F., & Skodol, A. E.
(2013). The hierarchical structure of
clinician ratings of proposed DSM-­5
pathological personality traits. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 122, 836–
841.
Ostendorf, F. (1990). Sprache und Persön-
lichkeitsstruktur. Zur Validität des
Fünf-­Faktoren-­Modells der Persönlich-
keit [Language and personality struc-
ture. On the validity of the Five Factor
Model of personality]. Regensburg: S.
Roderer.
jpd130_R.indd 22
ZIMMERMANN ET AL.
Pettersson, E., Turkheimer, E., Horn, E. E.,
& Menatti, A. R. (2012). The general
factor of personality and evaluation.
European Journal of Personality, 26,
292–302.
Quilty, L. C., Ayearst, L. E., Chmielewski,
M., Pollock, B. G., & Bagby, R. M.
(2013). The psychometric properties of
the Personality Inventory for DSM-­5 in
an APA DSM-­5 field trial sample. As-
sessment, 20, 362–369.
R Core Team. (2012). R: A language and en-
vironment for statistical computing. Vi-
enna: R Foundation for Statistical
Computing. Retrieved from http://
www.R-­project.org
Samuel, D. B., Hopwood, C. J., Krueger, R.
F., Thomas, K. M., & Ruggero, C. J.
(2013). Comparing methods for scor-
ing personality disorder types using
maladaptive traits in DSM-­5. Assess-
ment, 20, 353–361.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Miss-
ing data: Our view of the state of the
art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–
177.
Schallberger, U., & Venetz, M. (1999). Kurz-
versionen des MRS-­ Inventars von Os-
tendorf (1990) zur Erfassung der fünf
„großen“ Persönlichkeitsfakoren [Brief
versions of Ostendorf’s (1990) MRS in-
ventory for assessing the five big per-
sonality factors]. Zürich, Switzerland:
University of Zürich.
Sheets, E., & Craighead, W. E. (2007). To-
ward an empirically based classifica-
tion of personality pathology. Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 14,
77–93.
Skodol, A. E. (2012). Personality disorders in
DSM-­5. Annual Review of Clinical Psy-
chology, 8, 317–344.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B.
(1999). Validation and utility of a self-­
report version of PRIME-­MD: The PHQ
primary care study. JAMA: Journal of
the American Medical Association,
282, 1737–1744.
Strickland, C. M., Drislane, L. E., Lucy, M.,
Krueger, R. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2013).
Characterizing psychopathy using
DSM-­5 personality traits. Assessment,
20, 327–338.
Thomas, K. M., Yalch, M. M., Krueger, R. F.,
Wright, A. G. C., Markon, K. E., &
Hopwood, C. J. (2013). The convergent
structure of DSM-­5 personality trait
01/28/2014 1:09:34 PM
 STRUCTURE AND CORRELATES OF DSM-5 TRAITS23
facets and Five-­Factor Model trait do-
mains. Assessment, 20, 308–311.
Trull, T. J. (2012). The Five-­Factor Model of
personality disorder and DSM-­5. Jour-
nal of Personality, 80, 1697–1720.
Trull, T. J., & Durrett, C. A. (2005). Categor-
ical and dimensional models of per-
sonality disorder. Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology, 1, 355–380.
Tyrer, P., Crawford, M., Mulder, R. T., Blash-
field, R. K., Farnam, A., Fossati, A., …
Reed, G. M. (2011). The rationale for
the reclassification of personality dis-
order in the 11th revision of the Inter-
national Classification of Diseases
(ICD-­11). Personality and Mental Health,
5, 246–259.
van den Broeck, J., Bastiaansen, L., Rossi,
G., Dierckx, E., de Clercq, B., & Hof-
mans, J. (2013). Hierarchical struc-
ture of maladaptive personality traits
in older adults: Joint factor analysis of
the PID-­5 and the DAPP-­BQ. Journal
of Personality Disorders. Advance on-
line publication. doi:10.1521/pedi_2013
_27_114
Velicer, W. F. (1976). Determining the num-
ber of components from the matrix of
partial correlations. Psychometrika,
41, 321–327.
Watson, D., Stasik, S. M., Ro, E., & Clark,
L. A. (2013). Integrating normal and
pathological personality: Relating the
DSM-­5 trait-­dimensional model to gen-
eral traits of personality. Assessment,
20, 312–326.
Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alter-
native dimensional models of person-
ality disorder: Finding a common
ground. Journal of Personality Disor-
ders, 19, 110–130.
Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tec-
tonics in the classification of personal-
ity disorder: Shifting to a dimensional
jpd130_R.indd 23
model. American Psychologist, 62, 71–
83.
World Health Organization. (1992). The ICD-­
10 classification of mental and behav-
ioural disorders: Clinical descriptions
and diagnostic guidelines. Geneva,
Switzerland: Author.
Wright, A. G. C., Pincus, A. L., Hopwood, C.
J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., &
Krueger, R. F. (2012). An interpersonal
analysis of pathological personality
traits in DSM-­5. Assessment, 19, 263–
275.
Wright, A. G. C., Pincus, A. L., Thomas, K.
M., Hopwood, C. J., Markon, K. E., &
Krueger, R. F. (2013). Conceptions of
narcissism and the DSM-­5 pathologi-
cal personality traits. Assessment, 20,
339–352.
Wright, A. G. C., Thomas, K. M., Hopwood,
C. J., Markon, K. E., Pincus, A. L., &
Krueger, R. F. (2012). The hierarchical
structure of DSM-­5 pathological per-
sonality traits. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 121, 951–957.
Wright, A. G. C., & Zimmermann, J. (in
press). At the nexus of science and
practice: Answering basic clinical
questions in personality disorder as-
sessment and diagnosis with quanti-
tative modeling techniques. In S. K.
Huprich (Ed.), Personality disorders:
Assessment, diagnosis, and research.
Washington, DC: American Psycholog-
ical Association.
Zimmermann, J., Benecke, C., Hörz, S.,
Rentrop, M., Peham, D., Bock, A., …
Dammann, G. (2013). Validierung ein-
er deutschsprachigen 16-­Item-­Version
des Inventars der Persönlichkeitsor-
ganisation (IPO-­16) [Validity of a Ger-
man 16-­item version of the Inventory
of Personality Organization (IPO-­ 16)].
Diagnostica, 59, 3–16.
01/28/2014 1:09:34 PM