The DSM-5 presents an alternative dimensional model for personality disorders, which includes pathological traits organized in five major areas: Detachment, Negative affectivity, Psychoticism, Antagonism and Disinhibition. To evaluate this model, the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) was developed. However, it is unknown how the PID-5 would work adapted to our context. On the other hand, the PID-5 suffers from various limitations (e.g., not all facets are represented in the brief version, affecting the construct validity). The objective of this paper was to study the psychometric properties of an adapted version of the PID-5 to the Argentine population. We worked with a non-probabilistic sample of 393 subjects from the general population. The adapted version of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 was administered together with the Adjectives Checklist to Assess the Big Five Personality Factors (AEP), a measure of the five traits of Big Five Model, normal equivalents of the pathological traits of the alternative model. The following data analyzes were performed: a) Exploratory Factor Analysis to evaluate the internal structure of PID-5; b) reliability analysis to assess the internal consistency of the different scales of the PID-5; c) item analysis to assess discriminating power; d) bivariate correlation analysis to analyze the relationship between PID-5 scores and the AEP; e) multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) to analyze significant differences due to gender, age, and possible interaction effects. Results indicated satisfactory psychometric properties. The Argentinean version of the PID-5 showed a five-factor structure similar to the original, with adequate levels of internal consistency and good discrimination indices. Regarding gender, men scored higher in Antagonism, Psychoticism and Detachment, and the effect size was significant although weak. On the other hand, women scored higher in negative affectivity, but the differences were not significant. Regarding age, young people presented higher scores than adults at all scales except in Detachment, and the effect size was significant although weak. Finally, significant relationships were found with the five factors of the big five model (e.g., strong and positive correlation between Negative Affectivity and Neuroticism; moderate and negative correlations between Detachment and Extraversion, and between Disinhibition and Conscientiousness). Additionally, other high correlations were found (e.g., between Agreeableness and Detachment; Conscientiousness and Psychoticism; Neuroticism and Disinhibition). These results are in line with those found in previous studies. Finally, moderate correlations were found between PID-5 scales (e.g., Disinhibition and Antagonism; Negative Affectivity and Disinhibition; Psychoticism and Disinhibition; and Detachment and Negative Affectivity). These correlations would imply the existence of some higher order factor that would cover the dimensions of the model. Although the results found are acceptable, this study has some limitations. First, we worked with general population, and in future work it would be important to administer the instrument in clinical samples. Second, the Antagonism scale was left with only 4 items, which may affect the construct validity of the instrument. In this regard, it would be convenient to add new items, not only on this scale, to obtain a final version with an intermediate length between 25 and 220 items of the two versions of the original scale. A version of approximately 60 items may be a good solution, that includes both the different facets of the model as well as time constraints if the instrument is pretended to be used within a diagnostic battery. Beyond these limitations, the present study provides preliminary evidence of validity and reliability for the adapted version of the PID 5, and could be a start point for its deepening and improvement to be implemented in clinical and research tasks.
