Dimensional Pathological Personality Predicting Personality Disorders: Comparison of the DAPP-BQ and PID-5 Shortened Versions in a Spanish Community Sample

  • A. AlujaEmail author
  • L. F. García
  • L. Cuevas
  • I. Lucas


This study explored the psychometric properties of the shortened forms of The Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP-BQ) and The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in a large cohort from a Spanish community and compared simultaneously the predictive power with regard to personality disorders (PDs) scores in the International Personality Disorder Examination (IPDE). The IPDE is a self-report inventory of 77 items. Each item measures a criterion and a dimensional score can be obtained for each personality disorder. Both shortened forms (named DAPP-90 and PID-5/SF, respectively) obtained a good structural validity and reliability. Linear regression analysis showed that both questionnaires were predictive of the PDs scores. DAPP-90 factors explained about 25% of PDs variance (37% of the PDs clusters). Facets slightly increased the percentages accounting for PDs variance and clusters to 31% and 43%, respectively. PID-5/SF factors, meanwhile, explained 23% of PDs and 33% of PDs clusters, while the facets accounted for 25% of PDs and 37% of clusters. It is concluded that both questionnaires were good instruments for measuring pathological personality, and predicted a similar part of the variance in PDs. However, given that neither the DAPP-90 nor the PID-5/SF accounted for all the variation in PDs, categorical classification of the broader set of PDs may continue to be desired by some researchers and practicing clinicians.


DAPP-BQ DAPP-90 PID-5 PID-5/SF Personality disorders 



This research was supported by the “Plan Nacional” (grant number PSI2015–63551-P), Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación, Spain, and was performed within the Catalonian Consolidated Research Group SGR 0008 (2017–2019).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

A. Aluja, L. F. García, L. Cuevas and I Lucas declare no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Experiment Participants

The study was approved by the local Institutional Review Board. The statement about ethical approval has been included.


  1. Al-Dajani, N., Gralnick, T. M., & Bagby, R. M. (2016). A Psychometric Review of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5): current status and future directions. Journal of Personality Assessment, 98(1), 62–81. Scholar
  2. Aluja Fabregat, A., Blanch Plana, A., Blanco Calvo, E., Marti Guiu, M., & Balada, F. (2014). The dimensional assessment of personality psychopathology basic questionnaire: shortened versions item analysis. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 17(102), 1–12. Scholar
  3. Aluja, A., Cuevas, L., García, L. F., & García, O. (2007a). Zuckerman’s personality model predicts MCMI-III personality disorders. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(7), 1311–1321. Scholar
  4. Aluja, A., García, L. F., Cuevas, L., & García, O. (2007b). The MCMI-III personality disorders scores predicted by the NEO-FFI-R and the ZKPQ-50-CC: A comparative study. Journal of Personality Disorders, 21(1), 58–71. Scholar
  5. American Psychiatric Association (APA). (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (DSM-5). Arlington, VA: Author.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., de Vries, R. E., Hendrickse, J., & Born, M. P. (2012). The maladaptive personality traits of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) in relation to the HEXACO personality factors and schizotypy/dissociation. Journal of Personality Disorders, 26(5), 641–659. Scholar
  7. Ashton, M. C., Paunonen, S. V., & Lee, K. (2014). On the validity of narrow and broad personality traits: A response to Salgado, Moscoso, and Berges (2013). Personality and Individual Differences, 56, 24–28. Scholar
  8. Bastiaens, T., Claes, L., Smits, D., De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., Rossi, G., et al. (2016). The construct validity of the Dutch personality inventory for DSM-5 personality disorders (PID-5) in a clinical sample. Assessment, 23(1), 42–51. Scholar
  9. Benet-Martinez, V., & John, O. P. (1998). Los Cinco Grandes across cultures and ethnic groups: Multitrait-multimethod analyses of the big five in Spanish and English. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 729. Scholar
  10. Berghuis, H., Ingenhoven, T. J., van der Heijden, P. T., Rossi, G. M., & Schotte, C. K. (2017). Journal of Personality Disorders, 1–22. doi:
  11. Costa Jr., P. T., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. In P. T. Costa Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  12. De Clercq, B., De Fruyt, F., De Bolle, M., Van Hiel, A., Markon, K. E., & Krueger, R. F. (2014). The hierarchical structure and construct validity of the PID-5 trait measure in adolescence. Journal of Personality, 82(2), 158–169. Scholar
  13. De Fruyt, F., De Clercq, B., De Bolle, M., Wille, B., Markon, K., & Krueger, R. F. (2013). General and maladaptive traits in a five-factor framework for DSM-5 in a university student sample. Assessment, 20(3), 295–307. Scholar
  14. Díaz-Batanero, C., Ramírez-López, J., Domínguez-Salas, S., Fernández-Calderón, F., & Lozano, Ó. M. (2017). Personality inventory for DSM-5–short form (PID-5-SF): Reliability, factorial structure, and relationship with functional impairment in dual diagnosis patients. Assessment, doi: 1073191117739980.Google Scholar
  15. Doering, S., Renn, D., Hofer, S., Rumpold, G., Smrekar, U., Janecke, N., et al. (2007). Validation of the “assessment of DSM-IV personality disorders (ADP-IV)” questionnaire. Z Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, 53(2), 111–128. Scholar
  16. Few, L. R., Miller, J. D., Rothbaum, A. O., Meller, S., Maples, J., Terry, D. P., et al. (2013). Examination of the section III DSM-5 diagnostic system for personality disorders in an outpatient clinical sample. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 122(4), 1057. Scholar
  17. Fossati, A., Krueger, R. F., Markon, K. E., Borroni, S., & Maffei, C. (2013). Reliability and validity of the personality inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) predicting DSM-IV personality disorders and psychopathy in community-dwelling Italian adults. Assessment, 20(6), 689–708. Scholar
  18. Fox, J. (2000). Nonparametric simple regression: Smoothing scatterplots. (no. 130) sage.Google Scholar
  19. Gutiérrez-Zotes, J. A., Gutiérrez, F., Valero, J., Gallego, E., Baillés, E., Torres, X., et al. (2008). Structure of personality pathology in normal and clinical samples: Spanish validation of the DAPP-BQ. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(4), 389–404. Scholar
  20. Hopwood, C. J., Thomas, K. M., Markon, K. E., Wright, A. G., & Krueger, R. F. (2012). DSM-5 personality traits and DSM–IV personality disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(2), 424. Scholar
  21. Huchzermeier, C., Geiger, F., Köhler, D., Bruß, E., Godt, N., Hinrichs, G., & Aldenhoff, J. B. (2008). Are there age-related effects in antisocial personality disorders and psychopathy? Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 15(4), 213–218. Scholar
  22. Hyler, S. E. (1994). Personality diagnostic questionnaire-4. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute.Google Scholar
  23. Jopp, A. M., & South, S. C. (2015). Investigating the personality inventory for DSM-5 using self and spouse reports. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(2), 193–214. Scholar
  24. Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Feeney, B. C. (2012). A simple guide to IBM SPSS: for version 20.0. Nelson education.Google Scholar
  25. 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(9), 1879–1890. Scholar
  26. Kushner, S. C., Quilty, L. C., Tackett, J. L., & Bagby, R. M. (2011). The hierarchical structure of the dimensional assessment of personality pathology (DAPP-BQ). Journal of Personality Disorders, 25(4), 504–516. Scholar
  27. Levy, P. (1968). Short-form tests: A methodological review. Psychological Bulletin, 69(6), 410–416. Scholar
  28. Livesley, W., & Jackson, D. (2009). Manual for the dimensional assessment of personality pathology—Basic questionnaire. Port Huron, MI: Sigma.Google Scholar
  29. Livesley, W., Jackson, D., & Schroeder, M. (1992). Factorial structure of traits delineating personality disorders in clinical and general population samples. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 101(3), 432. Scholar
  30. Livesley, W., Jang, K., & Vernon, P. (1998). Phenotypic and genetic structure of traits delineating personality disorder. Archives of General Psychiatry, 55(10), 941–948. Scholar
  31. Livesley, W. J., Jackson, D. N., & Schroeder, M. L. (1989). A study of the factorial structure of personality pathology. Journal of Personality Disorders, 3(4), 292–306. Scholar
  32. López-Ibor Aliño, J.J., Pérez Urdaníz, A., Rubio Larrosa, V. & World Health Organization. (1996). Examen internacional de los trastornos de la personalidad.. MEDITOR.
  33. Loranger, A. W., Janca, A., & Sartorius, N. (1997). Assessment and diagnosis of personality disorders: The ICD-10 international personality disorder examination (IPDE): Cambridge University press.Google Scholar
  34. Lorenzo-Seva, U., & Ferrando, P. J. (2013). FACTOR 9.2 a comprehensive program for fitting exploratory and Semiconfirmatory factor analysis and IRT models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 37(6), 497–498. Scholar
  35. Maples, J. L., Carter, N. T., Few, L. R., Crego, C., Gore, W. L., Samuel, D. B., et al. (2015). Testing whether the DSM-5 personality disorder trait model can be measured with a reduced set of items: An item response theory investigation of the personality inventory for DSM-5. Psychological Assessment, 27(4), 1195. Scholar
  36. O'Connor, B. P. (2005). Graphical analyses of personality disorders in five-factor model space. European Journal of Personality, 19(4), 287–305. Scholar
  37. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 609–626.<609::AID-JOB1828>3.0.CO;2-K.
  38. Quilty, L. C., Ayearst, L., 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. Assessment, 20(3), 362–369. Scholar
  39. Rossier, J., Rigozzi, C., & Personality Across Culture Research Group (16 members). (2008). Personality disorders and the five-factor model among French speakers in Africa and Europe. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry / La Revue canadienne de psychiatrie, 53(8), 534–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Salgado, J. F., Moscoso, S., & Berges, A. (2013). Conscientiousness, its facets, and the prediction of job performance ratings: Evidence against the narrow measures. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 21(1), 74–84. Scholar
  41. Saulsman, L. M., & Page, A. C. (2004). The five-factor model and personality disorder empirical literature: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 23(8), 1055–1085. Scholar
  42. Schotte, C., De Doncker, D., Vankerckhoven, C., Vertommen, H., & Cosyns, P. (1998). Self-report assessment of the DSM-IV personality disorders. Measurement of trait and distress characteristics: The ADP-IV. Psychological Medicine, 28(5), 1179–1188. Scholar
  43. Schotte, C. K., Doncker, D. A. D., Dmitruk, D., Mulders, I. V., D'Haenen, H., & Cosyns, P. (2004). The ADP-IV questionnaire: differential validity and concordance with the semi-structured interview. Journal of Personality Disorders, 18(4), 405–419. Scholar
  44. Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. Scholar
  45. Van den Broeck, J., Bastiaansen, L., Rossi, G., Dierckx, E., De Clercq, B., & Hofmans, J. (2014). Hierarchical structure of maladaptive personality traits in older adults: Joint factor analysis of the PID-5 and the DAPP-BQ. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(2), 198–211. Scholar
  46. van Kampen, D., de Beurs, E., & Andrea, H. (2008). A short form of the dimensional assessment of personality pathology-basic questionnaire (DAPP-BQ): The DAPP-SF. Psychiatry Research, 160(1), 115–128. Scholar
  47. Widiger, T. A., & Simonsen, E. (2005). Alternative dimensional models of personality disorder: Finding a common ground. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(2), 110–130. Scholar
  48. Widiger, T. A., Simonsen, E., Krueger, R., Livesley, W. J., & Verheul, R. (2005). Personality disorder research agenda for the DSM–V. Journal of Personality Disorders, 19(3), 315–338. Scholar
  49. Wright, A. G., 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(3), 263–275. Scholar
  50. Yam, W. H., & Simms, L. J. (2014). Comparing criterion-and trait-based personality disorder diagnoses in DSM-5. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 123(4), 802. Scholar
  51. Zimmermann, J., Altenstein, D., Krieger, T., Holtforth, M. G., Pretsch, J., Alexopoulos, J., et al. (2014). The structure and correlates of self-reported DSM-5 maladaptive personality traits: Findings from two German-speaking samples. Journal of Personality Disorders, 28(4), 518–540. Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Aluja
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • L. F. García
    • 2
    • 3
  • L. Cuevas
    • 4
  • I. Lucas
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of LleidaLleidaSpain
  2. 2.Institute of Biomedical Research of LleidaIRBLleidaLleidaSpain
  3. 3.Department of Biological Psychology and Health PsychologyAutonomous University of MadridMadridSpain
  4. 4.Complutense University of MadridCardenal Cisneros University CollegeAlboxSpain

Personalised recommendations