Trends in psychiatry and psychotherapy · 2024
PID-5-SRF online administration: psychometric indicators and measurement invariance between different formats of data collection.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Barchi-Ferreira Ana Maria, Osório Flavia L
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) is a tool used to assess maladaptive personality traits according to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) alternative model. The objective is to seek evidence of the validity and reliability of the PID-5 - Self Reported Form (PID-5-SRF) administered online and assess its measurement invariance compared to the paper-and-pencil administration.
METHOD: A sample of 274 individuals from the general population (73.4% of women; 34.76 years old ± 11.6) completed the instrument online after the study was disseminated on social media and among the authors' contacts.
RESULTS: Internal consistency (facets α ≥ 0.70; domains α ≥ 0.89) and test-retest reliability (15 to 30 days: facets intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.63; domains ICC ≥ 0.82) were satisfactory, but a floor effect was found in almost all the items. A large number of facets (n = 9) showed better fit to a bifactorial structure, and the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggested that a six-factor model better fits the data. Measurement invariance between the online and paper-and-pencil administrations was not attested at a configural level.
CONCLUSION: The results revealed satisfactory psychometric indicators when the instrument was applied online, confirming its feasibility in collecting data. However, the instrument's structure is not invariant, and caution must be adopted when comparing and interpreting data collected through different formats.
METHOD: A sample of 274 individuals from the general population (73.4% of women; 34.76 years old ± 11.6) completed the instrument online after the study was disseminated on social media and among the authors' contacts.
RESULTS: Internal consistency (facets α ≥ 0.70; domains α ≥ 0.89) and test-retest reliability (15 to 30 days: facets intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] ≥ 0.63; domains ICC ≥ 0.82) were satisfactory, but a floor effect was found in almost all the items. A large number of facets (n = 9) showed better fit to a bifactorial structure, and the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) suggested that a six-factor model better fits the data. Measurement invariance between the online and paper-and-pencil administrations was not attested at a configural level.
CONCLUSION: The results revealed satisfactory psychometric indicators when the instrument was applied online, confirming its feasibility in collecting data. However, the instrument's structure is not invariant, and caution must be adopted when comparing and interpreting data collected through different formats.