Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

French adaptation of the Five-Factor Borderline Inventory-Short Form

  • Published:
Current Psychology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 13 September 2021

This article has been updated

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to adapt the short-form version of the Five-Factor Borderline Inventory (FFBI-SF) in French, a 12-domain questionnaire of 48 items assessing Borderline Personality Disorders (BPD). Participants from the general population voluntarily took part in our study and were separated into two samples: a student (n = 335) and a worker sample (n = 162). They completed four questionnaires randomly distributed: a demographic questionnaire, the FFBI-SF, the Big Five Inventory, the McLean Screening Instrument for Borderline Personality Disorder, and the Borderline Symptom List, Short Form. Our results showed acceptable model fit indices for a 12-factor model and acceptable to excellent reliability indices (overall α = .95 and average α of all domains is .78). Strong correlations were found between FFBI-SF and other BPD measures, suggesting good convergent validity. Moreover, compared with other BPD questionnaires, the incremental validity of the FFBI-SF was between 13 and 23%, showing a substantial additional part of variance explained by the FFBI-SF. Our findings provide evidence for a valid and reliable French adaptation of the FFBI-SF. This study fits with a growing need for clinicians and researchers to benefit from multifacet, accessible, and quickly completed tools that assess subclinical BPD.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. It is important to note DSM-V efforts to adopt a transition from a categorical to a dimensional approach. For instance, an alternative hybrid model has been proposed for personality disorders (see DSM-V, Section III). Besides, DSM-V mentioned that, in coming years, dimensional approaches will probably supplement or supersede current categorical approaches.

  2. DeShong et al. (2016) performed IRT analyses and found that the four-item scale was the best option in comparison with the three- and five-scales.

  3. We also run the CFA on the whole sample (S1 + S2) and found quite similar fit indices (χ2/Df = 3.14; SRMR = .0591; RMSEA = .0656; CFI = .832; TLI = .813).

References

  • Alfonso, G., Franco, B. C., Cervigni, M., Martino, P., Paolasini, M. G. V., Gargiulo, A. P. I., Gargiulo, A. J. M., & Gargiulo, P. A. (2021). In P. A. Gargiulo, & H. L. M. Arroyo (Eds.). Psychiatry and neuroscience update. From epistemology to clinical psychiatry – Vol. IV (pp. 527-536). Switzerland: Springer Nature. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-61721-9_37.

  • American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM-5®). American Psychiatric Pub.

  • Bagby, R. M., & Farvolden, P. (2004). Comprehensive handbook of psychological assessment: Vol. personality assessment. In Hilsenroth, M. J., Segal, D. L., & Hersen, M. (Eds.), The personality diagnostic questionnaire–4 (PDQ–4). (Vol. 2, 122–133). Wiley.

  • Bender, D. S., Dolan, R. T., Skodol, A. E., Sanislow, C. A., Dyck, I. R., McGlashan, T. H., Shea, M. T., Zanarini, M. C., Oldham, J. M., & Gunderson, J. G. (2001). Treatment utilization by patients with personality disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 158(2), 295–302. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.158.2.295.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohus, M., Limberger, M. F., Frank, U., Sender, I., Gratwohl, T., & Stieglitz, R. D. (2001). Entwicklung der borderline-symptom-liste. Psychotherapie Psychosomatik Medizinische Psychologie, 51(5), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2001-13281.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bohus, M., Kleindienst, N., Limberger, M. F., Stieglitz, R. D., Domsalla, M., Chapman, A. L., Steil, R., Philipsen, A., & Wolf, M. (2009). The short version of the borderline symptom list (BSL-23): Development and initial data on psychometric properties. Psychopathology, 42(1), 32–39. https://doi.org/10.1159/000173701.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, F. L., Pianowski, G., Bacciotti, J., & Reis, A. M. (2018). Assessing borderline personality disorder based on the hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): Dimensional clinical personality inventory 2 – BPD. Archives of Psychiatry & Psychotherapy, 20(4), 77–87. https://doi.org/10.12740/APP/99146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A. (1993). Manual for the schedule for nonadaptive and adaptive personality. University of Minnesota Press.

  • Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13(6), 653–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(92)90236-I.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 64(1), 21–50. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6401_2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dancey, C. P., & Reidy, J. (2007). Statistics without maths for psychology. Pearson education.

  • DeShong, H. L., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Miller, J. D., Widiger, T. A., & Lynam, D. R. (2016). Development of a short form of the five-factor borderline inventory. Assessment, 23(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115581475.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gunderson, J. G. (2011). Clinical practice: Borderline personality disorder. The New England Journal of Medicine, 364(21), 2037–2042. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMcp1007358.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ha, C., Balderas, J. C., Zanarini, M. C., Oldham, J., & Sharp, C. (2014). Psychiatric comorbidity in hospitalized adolescents with borderline personality disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 75, e457–e464.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Helle, A. C., DeShong, H. L., Baraldi, A. N., & Mullins-Sweatt, S. N. (2018). The five factor borderline inventory: Behavioral outcomes across time. Psychological Assessment, 30(1), 43–61. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000502.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Widiger, T. A., Althoff, R. R., Ansell, E. B., Bach, B., Michael Bagby, R., Blais, M. A., Bornovalova, M. A., Chmielewski, M., Cicero, D. C., Conway, C., de Clercq, B., de Fruyt, F., Docherty, A. R., Eaton, N. R., Edens, J. F., Forbes, M. K., Forbush, K. T., Hengartner, M. P., Ivanova, M. Y., Leising, D., John Livesley, W., Lukowitsky, M. R., Lynam, D. R., Markon, K. E., Miller, J. D., Morey, L. C., Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Hans Ormel, J., Patrick, C. J., Pincus, A. L., Ruggero, C., Samuel, D. B., Sellbom, M., Slade, T., Tackett, J. L., Thomas, K. M., Trull, T. J., Vachon, D. D., Waldman, I. D., Waszczuk, M. A., Waugh, M. H., Wright, A. G. C., Yalch, M. M., Zald, D. H., & Zimmermann, J. (2018). The time has come for dimensional personality disorder diagnosis. Personality and Mental Health, 12(1), 82–86. https://doi.org/10.1002/pmh.1408.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big-five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin& O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (Vol.2, pp. 102–138). Guilford press.

  • Klein, M. H., Benjamin, L. S., Rosenfeld, R., Treece, C., Husted, J., & Greist, J. H. (1993). The Wisconsin personality disorders inventory: Development, reliability, and validity. Journal of Personality Disorders, 7(4), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.1993.7.4.285.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kotov, R., Krueger, R. F., Watson, D., Achenbach, T. M., Althoff, R. R., Bagby, R. M., et al. (2017). The hierarchical taxonomy of psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leichsenring, F., Leibing, E., Kruse, J., New, A. S., & Leweke, F. (2011). Borderline personality disorder. Lancet, 377(9759), 74–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)61422-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. D., Morse, J. Q., Nolf, K., Stepp, S. D., & Pilkonis, P. A. (2012). Can DSM-IV borderline personality disorder be diagnosed via dimensional personality traits? Implications for the DSM-5 personality disorder proposal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 121(4), 944–950. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027410.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mirkovic, B., Speranza, M., Caihol, L., Guelfi, J.-D., Perez-Diaz, F., Corcos, M., Robin, M., & Pham-Scottez, A. (2020). Validation of the French version of the McLean screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (MSI-BPD) in an adolescent sample. BMC Psychiatry, 20, 222. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12888-020-02643-8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Mullins-Sweatt, S. N., Edmundson, M., Sauer-Zavala, S., Lynam, D. R., Miller, J. D., & Widiger, T. A. (2012). Five-factor measure of borderline personality traits. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94(5), 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.672504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nicastro, R., Prada, P., Kung, A. L., Salamin, V., Dayer, A., Aubry, J. M., Guenot, F., & Perroud, N. (2016). Psychometric properties of the French borderline symptom list, short form (BSL-23). Borderline Personality Disorder and Emotion Dysregulation, 3(1), 4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40479-016-0038-0.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Plaisant, O., Courtois, R., Réveillère, C., Mendelsohn, G. A., & John, O. P. (2010). Validation par analyse factorielle du Big Five Inventory français (BFI-Fr). Analyse convergente avec le NEO-PI-R. Annales Médico-Psychologiques, Revue Psychiatrique, 168(2), 97–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amp.2009.09.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Samuel, D. B., & Widiger, T. A. (2008). A meta-analytic review of the relationships between the five-factor model and DSM-IV-TR personality disorders: A facet level analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 28(8), 1326–1342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2008.07.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2004). A beginner’s guide to structural equation modeling (Second ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

  • Steiger, J. H. (2007). Understanding the limitations of global fit assessment in structural equation modeling. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 893–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.017.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • The Jamovi Project (2019). Jamovi, version 1.0 [Computer Software]. Retrieved from https://www.jamovi.org/

  • Trull, T. J., & Brown, W. C. (2013). Borderline personality disorder: A five-factor model perspective. In T. A. Widiger & P. T. Costa, Jr. (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of personality (p. 119–132). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/13939-008.

  • Ullman, J. B. (2001). Structural equation modeling. In B. G. Tabachnick & L. S. Fidell (2001). Using Multivariate Statistics (4th ed& pp 653–771). : Allyn & Bacon.

  • Widiger, T. A., & Trull, T. J. (2007). Plate tectonics in the classification of personality disorder: Shifting to a dimensional model. American Psychologist, 62(2), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.71.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Sickel, A. E., & Yong, L. (1996). The diagnostic interview for DSM-IV personality disorders (DIPD-IV). McLean Hospital.

  • Zanarini, M. C., Vujanovic, A. A., Parachini, E. A., Boulanger, J. L., Frankenburg, F. R., & Hennen, J. A. (2003). Screening measure for BPD: The McLean screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (MSI-BPD). Journal of Personality Disorders, 17(6), 568–573. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.17.6.568.25355.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Zanarini, M. C., Frankenburg, F. R., Reich, D. B., & Fitzmaurice, G. (2012). Attainment and stability of sustained symptomatic remission and recovery among patients with borderline personality disorder and axis II comparison subjects: A 16-year prospective follow-up study. American Journal of Psychiatry, 169(5), 476–483. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2011.11101550.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Dr. Hilary DeShong for her precious help.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Psychosomatic Medicine and Group Psychotherapy, Psychiatric Day Hospital « La Clé », Boulevard de la Constitution 153, 4020, Liège, Belgium

    Julian A. Nasello & Jean-Marc Triffaux

  2. Department of Clinical Psychology, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Julian A. Nasello & Adélaïde Blavier

  3. Department of Psychiatry, Medicine, University of Liège, CHU of Liège, Liège, Belgium

    Jean-Marc Triffaux

Authors
  1. Julian A. Nasello
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Adélaïde Blavier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean-Marc Triffaux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julian A. Nasello.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in this study were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The ethical committee of the Department of Psychology of the University of Liège (Belgium) approved the study, reference n°: 1920–92.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all participants included in the study.

Online Data

The online data file is available on the following DOI link: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/D3GJH.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The original vision of this article has been revised. Table 1 and Table 2 has been corrected.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Nasello, J.A., Blavier, A. & Triffaux, JM. French adaptation of the Five-Factor Borderline Inventory-Short Form. Curr Psychol 42, 5886–5897 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01878-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-021-01878-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation