ABSTRACT
Indicators of feigned PAI profiles were derived from comparisons of simulators instructed to feign and genuine patient groups. Concerns are raised regarding whether these indicators are applicable to forensic and correctional populations and can be cross-validated with a known-groups comparison. Compiling data on 57 malingerers and 58 genuine patients from two forensic and correctional sites, three primary indicators of feigning, Negative Impression (NIM) scale, Malingering Index, and the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF) were investigated. Results suggested that the RDF was not applicable to forensic referrals. However, NIM 77T appeared to be a useful screen for forensic samples. In addition, convergent evidence of feigning was found across designs (simulation and known-groups) and samples (non-forensic and forensic) for extreme elevations on NIM (>/=110T) and Malingering Index (>/=5).
Subject(s)
Deception , Forensic Psychiatry , Malingering/psychology , Mental Disorders/psychology , Personality Inventory/standards , Prisoners/psychology , Adult , Discriminant Analysis , Humans , Male , Mass Screening , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a new generation multiscale inventory that is widely used in clinical settings. The current study examined its convergent validity with emergency referrals in a metropolitan correctional facility. A sample of 80 referrals completed two phases of an assessment study. As a measure of convergent validity, results on select PAI scales were compared to the Schedule of Affective Disorders and Schizophrenia (SADS), the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS), and the Suicide Probability Scale (SPS). Overall, results indicated moderate to good convergent validity for the following: (a) screening for feigned profiles, (b) establishing clinical correlates of common disorders, and (c) evaluating the potential for suicidal ideation.
Subject(s)
Personality Inventory/standards , Psychometrics/standards , Adult , Analysis of Variance , Evaluation Studies as Topic , Forensic Psychiatry/methods , Humans , Male , Malingering/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Prisoners/psychology , Psychiatric Status Rating Scales/standards , Regression Analysis , Reproducibility of Results , Single-Blind Method , Suicide/psychologyABSTRACT
Despite a plethora of studies investigating psychopathy among male offenders, little is known about the applicability of this construct to female populations. Research has shown that prevalence rate, symptom presentation, and diagnostic comorbidity differ for females as compared to males. The current study is the first to examine the relationship between psychopathy and recidivism among women. Recidivism data on a sample of 78 female inmates were examined at a 1-year interval in relation to the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), inclusion criteria for the Antisocial Personality Disorder Diagnosis from the Personality Disorder Examination (PDE), and selected scales from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Antisocial and Aggression scales). The egocentricity subscale of the PAI, Factor 1 of the PCL-R, and the verbal aggression subscale of the PAI were the best predictors of future recidivism. Specific differences emerged between male and female offenders when comparing the present data with previous studies of male psychopaths.
Subject(s)
Antisocial Personality Disorder/diagnosis , Personality Assessment , Prisoners/psychology , Psychometrics , Adult , Antisocial Personality Disorder/epidemiology , Discriminant Analysis , Female , Humans , ROC Curve , Reproducibility of Results , Sex Factors , Survival Analysis , Texas/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Psychological assessment with multiscale inventories is largely dependent on the honesty and forthrightness of those persons evaluated. We investigated the effectiveness of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in detecting participants feigning three specific disorders: schizophrenia, major depression, and generalized anxiety disorder. With a simulation design, we tested the PAI validity scales on 166 naive (undergraduates with minimal preparation) and 80 sophisticated (doctoral psychology students with 1 week preparation) participants. We compared their results to persons with the designated disorders: schizophrenia (n = 45), major depression (n = 136), and generalized anxiety disorder (n = 40). Although moderately effective with naive simulators, the validity scales evidenced only modest positive predictive power with their sophisticated counterparts. Therefore, we performed a two-stage discriminant analysis that yielded a moderately high hit rate (> 80%) that was maintained in the cross-validation sample, irrespective of the feigned disorder or the sophistication of the simulators.
