Multinational Evaluation of the Measurement Invariance of the Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0: Comparison of Student and Community Samples Across Seven Countries

Public Significance Statement The Level of Personality Functioning Scale-Brief Form 2.0 is a brief self-report measure of personality functioning that appears to assess self- and interpersonal functioning impairment similarly across many different countries, which offers encouraging evidence supporting its international use. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders-fifth Edition's (DSM-5) Level of Personality Functioning Scale (LPFS) was introduced as a dimensional rating of impairments in self- and interpersonal functioning, and the LPFS-Brief Form (LPFS-BF) was the first published corresponding self-report. The updated LPFS-BF 2.0 has been translated into several languages and international research supports many of the instrument's psychometric properties; however, its measurement invariance has only been evaluated across a few countries. This study expands previous studies as an introductory step in a global evaluation of the LPFS-BF 2.0s measurement invariance. Archival data (N = 5,618, 57% female) from seven countries (Canada, Chile, Denmark, Germany, Italy, United Arab Emirates, United States of America) were used for this study. Participants were recruited from both community (n = 4,677) and student (n = 941) populations. After confirming adequate model fit separately in the community and student samples, we evaluated a series of increasingly stringent model comparisons to test three aspects of measurement invariance (configural, metric, scalar) and then examined latent mean differences across countries. Full scalar invariance was supported in the community sample and partial scalar invariance was supported in the student sample. Evaluation of latent mean differences revealed multiple significant differences. Overall, the LPFS-BF 2.0 appears to assess self- and interpersonal functioning impairment similarly across the included countries. Findings are discussed through the lenses of the cultures from which participants were recruited, as well as in the context of alternative explanations. Limitations, plans for future research, and implications for both research and clinical practice are offered.