ABSTRACT
We investigated the research validity scales for the NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) proposed by Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer (1997): Positive Presentation Management (PPM) and Negative Presentation Management (NPM). Additionally, an experimental analog to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2's (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) F-K index was calculated by subtracting the raw score on PPM from the raw score on NPM (NPM-PPM). In 2 studies, all indexes showed significant between-group differences when samples of analog malingerers (n = 97) were contrasted with psychiatric outpatients (n = 272). The sensitivity and specificity of these validity indexes indicated that although none performed well in extremely low base rate environments, the NPM and NPM-PPM indexes showed promise when the base rate of faking bad rose to higher levels.
Subject(s)
Malingering/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Outpatients , Personality Inventory/standards , Adolescent , Adult , Aged , Case-Control Studies , Diagnosis, Differential , Female , Humans , Male , Mental Disorders/psychology , Middle Aged , Psychometrics , Psychopathology , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Sixty adults in outpatient psychotherapy completed the NEO Personality Inventory--Revised (NEO PI-R, P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992a). Half were instructed to fake good and half were given standard instructions. All completed the Interpersonal Adjective Scale--Revised, Big Five (J. S. Wiggins & P. D. Trapnell, 1997) under standard instructions, and their therapists completed the observer rating form of the NEO Five-Factor Inventory. A comparison group of 30 students completed the NEO PI-R under standard instructions. Standard and fake-good participants obtained significantly different NEO PI-R domain scores. Correlations between the NEO PI-R and criterion measures were significantly lower for faking than for standard patients. Validity scales for the NEO PI-R (J. A. Schinka, B. N. Kinder, & T. Kremer, 1997) were moderately accurate in discriminating faking from standard patients, but were only marginally accurate in discriminating faking patients from students.
Subject(s)
Deception , Outcome Assessment, Health Care/methods , Personality Inventory/standards , Psychotherapy , Adult , Aged , Case-Control Studies , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Predictive Value of Tests , Reproducibility of ResultsABSTRACT
Validity scales indicate the extent to which the results of a self-report inventory are a valid indicator of the test taker's psychological functioning. Validity scales generally are designed to detect the common response sets of positive impression management (underreporting, or faking good), negative impression management (overreporting, or faking bad), and random responding. The revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) is a popular personality assessment tool based on the 5-factor model of personality and is used in a variety of settings. The NEO-PI-R does not include objective validity scales to screen for positive or negative impression management. The purpose of this study was to examine the utility of recently proposed validity scales for detecting these response sets on the NEO-PI-R (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) and to examine the effects of positive and negative impression management on correlations between the NEO-PI-R and external criteria (the Interpersonal Adjective Scale-Revised-B5 [Wiggins & Trapnell, 1997] and the NEO-PI-R Form R). The validity scales discriminated with reasonable accuracy between standard responding and the 2 response sets. Additionally, most correlations between the NEO-PI-R and external criteria were significantly lower when participants were dissimulating than when responding to standard instructions. It appears that response sets of positive and negative impression management may pose a significant threat to the external validity of the NEO-PI-R and that validity scales for their detection might be a useful addition to the inventory.
