Evaluates personality pathology measures' validity in older adults, suggesting cautious use across cultures.
This study evaluates the validity of the LPFS-BF 2.0 and PID-5-BF+M in older adults, focusing on (a) factor structure, (b) measurement invariance across languages and countries, and (c) nomological network. These tools assess personality functioning and maladaptive traits based on the hybrid/dimensional approaches of personality pathology. Two samples of adults aged 65 and older were recruited: a French-speaking Canadian sample (N = 452) and a Dutch-speaking Belgian sample (N = 415). Confirmatory factor analyses supported the two-factor model of the LPFS-BF 2.0 and the second-order factor structure of the PID-5-BF+M. Measurement invariance analyses indicated full configural invariance for both instruments. Metric and scalar invariance were partially supported for the LPFS-BF 2.0, while the PID-5-BF+M showed full metric but partial scalar invariance. Evaluation of the nomological net supported convergent validity of the LPFS-BF 2.0 with other measures of personality functioning, and revealed expected associations between the measures themselves and with well-being and maladaptive emotion regulation, alongside some seemingly age-specific nuances. These findings support the LPFS-BF 2.0 and PID-5-BF+M as valid tools for assessing personality pathology in older adults. However, partial invariance findings suggest caution when comparing scores across linguistic and cultural groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Facon et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: