ArticlePersonality and mental health2026
Diagnostic Accuracy of PID-5-BF for Screening Personality Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study in Clinical and Nonclinical Samples.
Article in Personality and mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders introduced a dimensional approach to personality pathology, with maladaptive traits assessed by the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form (PID-5-BF). Despite extensive validation, evidence on its diagnostic accuracy and empirically derived cutoff scores remains limited. This study aims to compare PID-5-BF trait levels and profiles across individuals with personality disorders (PDs), clinical participants without PDs, and nonclinical participants and to evaluate its diagnostic accuracy and screening cutoffs. This cross-sectional study included 1168 Hungarian participants: 867 nonclinical, 237 clinical without PD, and 64 with PD. Group differences were examined using one-way ANOVAs, whereas domain profiles were evaluated with mixed-design repeated-measures ANOVA. Diagnostic accuracy was assessed using ROC analyses adjusted for age, sex, and education, and optimal cutoffs were determined using Youden's index. Participants with PD showed the highest pathological trait scores, followed by clinical participants without PD and nonclinical participants. The largest group effects emerged for disinhibition, total score, and detachment. For distinguishing PD from nonclinical participants, the adjusted AUC for the PID-5-BF total score was 0.849, with an optimal cutoff of ≥ 1.32. Domain-specific cutoffs ranged from 0.60 to 1.60 (median = 1.20). Negative predictive values were high (mean NPV = 0.934), whereas positive predictive values were modest (mean PPV = 0.327). The PID-5-BF may be useful as a brief screening measure for identifying individuals requiring further personality assessment. However, its limited positive predictive value and weaker discrimination between PD and other clinical conditions preclude its use as a stand-alone diagnostic instrument.
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.