The Impact of Underreporting and Overreporting on the Validity of the Personality Inventory for : A Simulation Analog Design InvestigationDSM–5: A Simulation Analog Design Investigation (PID-5): A Simulation Analog Design Investigation
The Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID-5) is a 220-item self-report instrument that assesses the alternative model of personality psychopathology in Section III (Emerging Measures and Models) of DSM–5. Despite its relatively recent introduction, the PID-5 has generated an impressive accumulation of studies examining its psychometric properties, and the instrument is also already widely and frequently used in research studies. Although the PID-5 is psychometrically sound overall, reviews of this instrument express concern that this scale does not possess validity scales to detect invalidating levels of response bias, such as underreporting and overreporting. McGee Ng et al. (2016), using a “known-groups” (partial) criterion design, demonstrated that both underreporting and overreporting grossly affect mean scores on PID-5 scales. In the current investigation, we replicate these findings using an analog simulation design. An important extension to this replication study was the finding that the construct validity of the PID-5 was also significantly compromised by response bias, with statistically significant attenuation noted in validity coefficients of the PID-5 domain scales with scales from other instruments measuring congruent constructs. This attenuation was found for underreporting and overreporting bias. We believe there is a need to develop validity scales to screen for data-distorting response bias in research contexts and in clinical assessments where response bias is likely or otherwise suspected.