Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42881425›Full record

ArticlePersonality and mental health2026

Diagnostic Accuracy of PID-5-BF for Screening Personality Disorders: A Cross-Sectional Study in Clinical and Nonclinical Samples.

Béla Birkás, András Norbert Zsidó, Sára Gergely, Regina Tóth, Júlia Andróczi, Tibor Cece Kiss, András Láng

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Béla BirkásInstitute of Behavioral Sciences, Medical School, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6380-7093
András Norbert ZsidóInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0506-6861
Sára GergelyVIKOTE Center for Cognitive and Schema Therapy, Budapest, Hungary.
Regina TóthVIKOTE Center for Cognitive and Schema Therapy, Budapest, Hungary.
Júlia AndrócziVIKOTE Center for Cognitive and Schema Therapy, Budapest, Hungary.
Tibor Cece KissDoctoral School of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-6037-5560
András LángInstitute of Psychology, Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences, University of Pécs, Pécs, Hungary.

Funding

Hungarian Academy of SciencesNational Research, Development and Innovation Office 152161National Research, Development and Innovation Office FK-138040National Research, Development and Innovation Office FK 143254National Research, Development and Innovation Office FK 146604University of Pécs 009_2025_PTE_RK/4
6 · The paper itself

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

Personality DisordersPersonality InventoryPsychiatric Status Rating ScalesAdultCross-Sectional StudiesDiagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental DisordersFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedReproducibility of ResultsYoung Adultcutoff scoresdiagnostic accuracypersonality disordersPID‐5‐BFROC analysisscreening instrument

Identifiers

PMID42881425
PMCPMC13672673

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.