ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022
Psychometric study of the brazilian version of the personality inventory for DSM-5-paper-and-pencil version.
Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Meta-Analysis of the Structural Validity of Original and Brief Versions of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 in Iran.Iranian journal of psychiatry · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Personality Inventory for DSM-5 - Self Reported Form (PID-5-SRF) operationalizes Criterion B of the personality alternative model of DSM-5 Section III and has already been cross-culturally adapted to many countries. The objective is to present evidence of validity and reliability of the Brazilian version of PID-5 (pencil-and-paper) in a Brazilian community sample. The sample was composed of 730 individuals from the general population [67.8% women, aged 33.84 (SD = ±15.2), 69.5% ≥ 12 years of schooling]. The participants were recruited in academic, organizational, healthcare, and business facilities in three Brazilian states. The snowball method was used. The PID-5 Brazilian version and the Revised NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI-R) were individually applied, and the retest was applied 30 days after. Satisfactory internal consistency (facets α ≥0.51; domains α ≥0.82) and test-retest reliability (facets ICC ≥ 0.45; domains ICC ≥0.76) were found, but a floor effect was verified in 97.7% of the items. Regarding convergent validity, strong correlations were found between the PID-5 and the NEO-FFI-R domains (r = -0.44 to 0.70). Ten facets did not fit the unidemensional structure. Confirmatory Factor Analyses did not present adequate goodness of fit, and Exploratory Analyses indicated that a five-factor model is more appropriate, though it presents some peculiarities concerning the original model. PID-5 also presented satisfactory goodness of fit to the personality hierarchical model. Generally, the instrument's psychometric indicators favor its use in the Brazilian context. However, some aspects demand attention, and more specific studies should be conducted to verify the impact of reverse-scored items, floor effect, and peculiarities of its internal structure (some facets' multidimensionality and interstitiality) concerning the original model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.