[Validation of a French translation of Krueger's personality inventory for DSM-5 in its brief form (PID-5 BF)].

Since the publication of the DSM-5 (APA, 2013), the dimensional conception of the personality disorders is co-existing with the classical categorical paradigm. Tools have been proposed for the evaluations of five big pathological factors to be explored further according to the APA (negative affectivity, detachment, antagonism, disinhibition, psychoticism). Despite numerous works using these questionnaires (30 works in 3 years according to Al-Adjani et al., 2015), none of them have yet been translated into French. Also, the main objective of the paper is to present a French translation of the Personality Inventory for DSM -5 by Kruegger et al. (2013) in its brief form of 25 items (PID-5 BF). To reach this goal, we have employed the classic translation-retranslation method (Vallerand, 1989) and tested the consistence and the validity of this French version among a non-clinical sample (n=216) of young adults (age=31.4, SD=4.8), in joining some other questionnaires in their short forms to study the external validity of the PID-5 about the psychological distress (SCL-10, Nguyen, 1983), the categorical diagnosis of personality disorders (SAPAS, Moran et al., 2003) and the classical Big Five dimensions of the personality (BDI 10, Ramamstedt and John, 2007). The internal consistency of this translation has been studied through the classical outcomes on factor analysis for the dimensional repartitions of the items in 5 scales and Cronbach's alpha for the consistency of each found dimensions. The external validity has been explored by studying Pearson's correlations between the outcomes on each dimension of the PID-5 BF and both the clinical dimensions of SCL-10, personality dimensions of the BFI-10 or personality disorders (SAPAS). Factor analysis led to the same repartition of the 25 items as the original versions. Each of the dimensions is consistent enough (α>.65) to be taken into account as clinically significant. The items of the French version of the PID-5 BF follow the expected repartitions in 5 dimensions, which are consistent enough. Although their mean scores are significantly not different from the outcomes found by Krueger with the PID-5 200 items among another non-clinical population (n=264), one cannot say that is enough to ensure the external validity of our translation, for it uses neither the same tools nor sample. A comparison with a French translation of the PID-5 would be more significant. However, the external validity of the French version seems to be significant enough. Global score on the PID-5 is correlated both to the Global Severity Index of the SCL-10, which reflects global psychological distress, and SAPAS's score, which evaluates the suspicion of personality disorder. The clinical validity of the PID-5 is confirmed by the relationships between negative affectivity and anxiety or depression or antagonism and hostility, although the clinical scale of the SCL-10, with one item by dimension, is less sensitive than the complete original version in 90 items (DeRogatis, 1974). PID-5 score and domains are also correlated with the Big Five personality dimension and global score of personality disorders which led us to think that it is coherent with the evaluation of personality suffering (r=.34) and dimensions. The links between negative affectivity and neurosism (r=.48) or between desinhibition and extraversion (r=.32) or the negative correlation between psychoticism and conscientiousness (r=-0.16) are consistent with the expectations related both to the descriptions of the domains by the DSM and outcomes on the comparisons between PID-5 200 item scales and NEO-PI or BFI 45 items. This translation offers enough consistency and validity to be used in future studies. This could lead us to either continue studying a more representative general population or testing its validity in focusing on a clinical sample where personality disorders are prevalent, such as homeless men or substance users. As soon as a French version of the PID-5 200 items is published, one can compare the outcomes on PID-5 BF and PID-5 to lead to estimations of personality disorders and pathological domains among French populations and explore personality disorders throughout a dimensional paradigm instead of syndromic perspective. One can also see whether the items that have been kept for each dimension are as saturated in the French version as in the original one. Among general populations, comparisons with clinical distress, syndromic personality disorders or dimensional aspect of personality could be done with complete versions of PID-5, Symptom Check-list, Personality Disorders Questionnaires or Big Five Inventory; therefore, the brief forms of any questionnaire could be used among any people whose psychological distress or side effects impaired their attention and concentration.

Combaluzier S ，Gouvernet B ，Menant F ，Rezrazi A ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》

[The alternative model of personality disorders among the French population: Assessment with brief tools].

The aim of this work was to study whether the French versions of the brief tools available to clinicians within the framework of the Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD) can account for the risks of personality disorders in the general population. Tools are available to accurately investigate either the Level of Personality Functioning (LPF) or the Pathological Personality Dimensions (PPD) which in turn allow the validation of the relevance of the AMPD for its criteria A and B. As these tools, such as Morey's Level of Personality Functioning Scale Self Rated (LPFS-SR) for Criteria A or the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID5) by Krueger et al. for Criteria B, are lengthy, the question arises as to the use of the short tools derived from them. Data was collected from a sample of 433 people recruited on a volunteer basis with a complete protocol. The sample was predominantly female (83% female, 16% male, 2 people who did not wish to report their gender) and rather young (67% were 18-24 years old). The short version, the LPFS- BF of Hutsbaut et al., which we used in this work allows, as confirmed by several works, to consider on the basis of 12 items the global level of personality functioning. In order to assess the pathological dimensions of personality (PPD), we chose the short version of the Personality Inventory for DSM 5 (PID 5 BF) by Krueger et al. and used its validated French translation that satisfies the factor composition of the original version: Negative Affectivity, Antagonism, Detachment, Disinhibition and Psychoticism. To assess the intensity of personality disorders we used the dedicated subscale (Items 19 and 20) that the DSM 5 proposes in its Cross-Cutting Symptoms Measures of Level 1, in its French translation. A score higher than 2 was our Gold Standard when we tested the metric capacity of the two questionnaires to evaluate the A Criteria and then the B Criteria of the AMPD. The overall results (Table 1) show levels that place the group in a non-clinical level. In terms of the severity of personality disorders it can be seen that 27 % are at risk of personality disorder (PDs>2). Comparing these two sub-groups (Table 1), we observed significant differences for all the factors studied, pointing towards a higher score for people at risk of PDs. A logistic regression analysis of the evaluation of persons at risk lead us to find that gender and age do not have a significant influence (p=0.225 and p=0.065 respectively) in a valid model (chi square=157, df=4, p<0.001) including the overall score on the LPFS (z=5.76, p<0.001) and the PID 5 (z=2.26, p<0.001). The Area Under the Curve (AUC=0.859) of this translation (Table 3) is consistent with the original version (AUC=0.84). It has metrological qualities (Sn=73.91%, Sp=85.33%, LR+=5.1, LR-=0.3005) that allowed us to use a threshold of 24 as a discriminant of a risk of moderate or severe personality disorder. In addition, if we followed the AMPD and considered the threshold of 24 on the LFPS-BF to be a risk score for personality disorder, we could see (Fig. 2) that the scores on the PID 5 BF fairly well reflected the expected pattern with a large AUC (0.901). According to the AMPD, the cut-points for the dimensions that would evoke the presence of criteria B in the case of the presence of criterion A (LPFS-BF>24) could be either a score greater than 2 for Negative Affectivity, a score greater than 0.8 for Detachment, Antagonism and Disinhibition, or a score greater than 1.2 for Psychoticism (Table 4). The translation of the LPFS-BF that we used in this work has sufficient qualities to assess situations at risk of personality disorders when higher than 24. Its consistency was good (=0.84), and its factor composition in two factors (Self and Interpersonal Relations) was equivalent to the original version. The use of PID5-BF could therefore be used as a complement to the screening of AMPD A criteria, with a 25 for cut-point. The evaluation of the AMPD B criteria with the PID5-BF seemed relevant in view of our results; each of the subscales seemed to be able to correctly evaluate (AUC) persons with an LPFS-BF score at risk. However, the risk thresholds need to be confirmed in further work because of the essential role that the dimensions play in the diagnosis of types of personality disorders.

Combaluzier S ，Gouvernet B ，Auvage L ，Bourgoise C ，Murphy P ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》

[Does the French Big Five Inventory evaluate facets other than the Big Five factors?].

The Big Five Inventory (BFI) developed by John et al. (1991) is one of the most widely accepted tools for assessing dimensions of personality. It comprises 44 items that assess five broad dimensions of personality (the Big Five Factors): Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism and Openness to experience. Based on correlations with the facets described in the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R), another Big Five assessment tool with 240 items and 6 facets per dimension, Soto and John (2009) showed that the dimensions in the BFI could be divided into two facets each (ten facets altogether). These results are in line with those of DeYoung et al. (2007), who ran factorial analyses with all the NEO PI-R facets and the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP) and identified ten intermediate factors (between facets and dimensions) which they called "aspects" (two per dimension). The goal of the present study is to investigate the ten facets described by Soto and John in a French sample, using the French version of the BFI (BFI-Fr), which has good psychometric properties, and to check whether the pattern of correlations of these facets with the NEO PI-R match those of the American version. We created three groups. The first comprised 360 students from the Institut libre d'éducation physique supérieure (ILEPS) and Tours University (psychology undergraduates). Participants (mean age 21.1 years±2.30; 58% women) completed the BFI-Fr and the NEO PI-R. The second comprised 142 psychology students from Tours University (mean age 20.6 years±1.78; 81% women); they completed the BFI-Fr twice, two weeks apart (test and retest). The third comprised 252 psychology students from Paris-Nanterre University (mean age 23 years±4.2; 89% women) who described a total of 405 people they knew well (mean age 35.2±10.8; 49% women) using the peer-report format of the BFI-Fr. In the self-report format, eight of Soto and John's ten aspects had acceptable internal consistency (based on Guildford's (1954) internal consistency criteria, due to the small number of items), with Cronbach's α between 0.60 and 0.86 and test-retest correlations between 0.71 and 0.89, showing satisfactory temporal stability. We found a single facet for Extraversion (Assertiveness), two for Agreeableness (Altruism and Compliance), two for Conscientiousness (Self-Discipline and Order), one for Neuroticism (Anxiety), and two for Openness to Experience (Openness to aesthetics and Openness to ideas). Based on their convergence with the corresponding facets in the NEO PI-R, these eight facets showed satisfactory external validity. With regard to the peer-report format, the Activity facet of Extraversion, which did not have sufficient internal consistency in the self-report format, had acceptable properties (i.e. 9 out of 10 facets). Only the Depression facet of Neuroticism still had insufficient internal consistency. In this study, we proposed an improvement of two facets (Activity and Compliance) and added one facet specific to the French version (Emotional Instability) in place of the Depression facet. We showed that the BFI-Fr can be used to assess nine of the ten facets described by Soto and John. We also identified an Emotional Instability facet, replacing the Depression facet of Neuroticism. DeYoung et al. (2007) considered that anxiety and depression are indissociable and can be represented by a Neuroticism aspect they labeled Withdrawal. They suggested a second aspect of this dimension they called Volatility (with the N2 Angry Hostility facet of the NEO PI-R as main marker and the N5 Impulsiveness and N3 Depression as secondary markers). The Emotional Instability facet we found corresponds closely to the N2 Angry Hostility facet of the NEO PI-R and appears to be a satisfactory marker of DeYoung et al.'s (2007) Volatility aspect. Although this study has limitations, particularly related to the samples (students), the BFI-Fr facets (derived from those defined by Soto and John in the BFI or proposed as improvements on the original facets) match the corresponding NEO PI-R facets and can also be seen as main markers of the aspects defined by DeYoung et al.

Courtois R ，Petot JM ，Lignier B ，Lecocq G ，Plaisant O ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》

[Validation of the French version of the 10-item Big Five Inventory].

Our primary objective was to validate the French version of the BFI-10, an ultra-short ten-item version of the Big Five Inventory (BFI; John et al., 1991), which allows for a reasonably accurate assessment of personality in circumstances in which more in-depth assessment is not possible. In order to reach a thorough evaluation of the external validity, we also aimed to examine the bandwidth of the BFI-10 scales with reference to the study by De Young, Quilty and Peterson (2007) who distinguished between two aspects in each of the Big Five: Assertiveness and Enthusiasm for Extraversion; Compassion and Politeness for Agreeability; Orderliness and Productiveness for Conscientiousness; Withdrawal and Volatility for Negative Emotionality, and finally Openness to Aesthetics and Openness to Ideas for Open-Mindedness. Our concern with regard to bandwidth was to examine whether the BFI-10 scales have strong enough correlations with both aspects of each domain. Participants. Data from four samples were analysed: Sample 1 comprised 2499 undergraduate students (1654 women) who completed the full BFI in university classes; Sample 2 comprised 13,306 participants (8471 women) who filled out the BFI-10 ten items online via Internet; Sample 3 comprised 143 undergraduate students (115 women) who completed the full BFI twice with a two-week interval; Sample 4 comprised 360 undergraduate students (183 women) who filled out the BFI and NEO PI-R. The French version of the Big Five Inventory is a 45-item inventory, which measures the five broader domains of personality. The ultrashort Ten-item Big Five Inventory (BFI-10) was developed simultaneously in German and English by Rammstedt and John (2007); it comprises five two-item scales measuring the big five domains. The Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa et McCrae, 1992) is a 240-item questionnaire which assesses the big five domains and 30 lower-order facets, i.e. six facets per domain. Factor structure and reliability of the five two-item scales were first investigated on samples 1 and 3. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFAs) were conducted on samples 1 and 2, and discriminant validity was assessed via comparison with the NEO PI-R (sample 4). In order to examine the bandwidth of the BFI-10 two-item scales, we studied their correlation not only with the NEO PI-R domains but also with the 30 facets. The CFAs showed the good fit of the five-factor structure, with RMSEA=.077 (.072), CFI=.974 (.956), and SRMR=.029 (.027) in samples 1 and 2 respectively. Multigroup CFA conducted in groups 1 and 2 showed invariance across gender of factor loadings and item intercepts. Test-retest reliability was satisfactory with rs ranging from .68 (Open-Mindedness) to .86 (Extraversion and Negative Emotionality). The comparison of the two-item scales with the NEO PI-R scales showed high correlations not only with the NEO domain scales, but also with several facets: Four BFI-10 two-item scales (Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Negative Emotionality, and Open-Mindedness) were highly correlated with at least three of the six NEO facet scales in each domain. For Agreeableness, the magnitude of correlations was smaller, but the pattern of correlations was the same. All BFI-10 scales had at least moderate correlations with both aspects of each domain, with the exception of Negative Emotionality, which measured the NEO Withdrawal aspect better than Volatility. The French version of the BFI-10 demonstrated the expected five-factor structure, satisfactory reliability, and broad bandwidth. It could be a valuable tool for the assessment of personality in circumstances in which it is not possible to use a longer and more in-depth instrument, especially when personality is not the main focus of research but one of the variables to be controlled.

Courtois R ，Petot JM ，Plaisant O ，Allibe B ，Lignier B ，Réveillère C ，Lecocq G ，John O ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》

[Validation of the French version of the Body Shape Questionnaire].

Rousseau A ，Knotter A ，Barbe P ，Raich R ，Chabrol H ... -  《ENCEPHALE-REVUE DE PSYCHIATRIE CLINIQUE BIOLOGIQUE ET THERAPEUTIQUE》