Effectiveness of NEO-PI-R Research Validity Scales for Discriminating Analog Malingering and Genuine Psychopathology

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.     

The validity and utility of the positive presentation management and negative presentation management scales for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer developed "validity" scales for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae) to detect underreporting-the Positive Presentation Management (PPM) Scale and overreporting-the Negative Presentation Management (NPM) Scale. In this investigation, the clinical utility of these scales was examined using the established validity scales from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al.) as the referent. The sample was composed of 370 psychiatric patients who completed the NEO PI-R and the MMPI-2 as part of a routine evaluation. Results indicated that response distortion compromised the utility of the NEO PI-R domain scales. Moreover, the PPM and NPM scales and an NPM-PPM index significantly differentiated invalid under-and overreporting groups from a valid responding group. The PPM and NPM-PPM index were adequate in classifying under- and overreporters, respectively.     

Research Validity Scales for the NEO-PI-R: Additional Evidence for Reliability and Validity

We examined the reliability and validity of the research validity scales (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) for the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) in a clinical sample. The Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Support for the validity of these scales was provided by the pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations with respective Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales. Finally, PAI profiles of individuals with invalid NPM scores were found to differ significantly from those with valid NPM scores. Comparisons of the invalid profiles with profiles from other clinical samples provided additional support for the use of the NPM scale as a measure of negative impression management.     

Research Validity Scales for the NEO-PI-R: additional evidence for reliability and validity

We examined the reliability and validity of the research validity scales (Schinka, Kinder, & Kremer, 1997) for the NEO-Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-PI-R) in a clinical sample. The Negative Presentation Management (NPM) and Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scales were found to have satisfactory internal consistency reliability. Support for the validity of these scales was provided by the pattern of convergent and discriminant correlations with respective Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales. Finally, PAI profiles of individuals with invalid NPM scores were found to differ significantly from those with valid NPM scores. Comparisons of the invalid profiles with profiles from other clinical samples provided additional support for the use of the NPM scale as a measure of negative impression management.     

Deceptiveness on the PAI: a study of naïve faking with psychiatric inpatients

In this study, we sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) Validity scales (Negative Impression Management [NIM] and Positive Impression Management [PIM]) and indexes (Malingering index, Defensiveness index [DEF]; Morey, 1993, 1996; Cashel Discriminant Function; Cashel, Rogers, Sewell, & Martin-Cannici, 1995; and Rogers Discriminant Function [RDF]; Rogers, Sewell, Morey, & Ustad, 1996) to identify differences in profiles completed by psychiatric inpatients under standardized instructions (Time 1) and after random assignment (Time 2) to a fake good (n=21), fake bad (n=20), or retest (n=21) scenario. Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction effect. Whereas the retest group did not show any significant changes on the PAI variables from Time 1 to Time 2, both faking groups showed changes in expected directions. Discriminant function analyses revealed that NIM, RDF, and lower scores on DEF best differentiated between the faking bad and retest groups. PIM was the only nonredundant significant score discriminating the faking good and retest groups. Cutoffs for these scales and indexes established in prior research were supported using diagnostic efficiency statistics. Results suggest that NIM and RDF in faking bad scenarios and PIM in faking good scenarios are most sensitive to unsophisticated attempts to dissimulate by inpatient psychiatric patients.     

The predictive capacity of the MMPI-2 and PAI validity scales and indexes to detect coached and uncoached feigning

The objective of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales and indexes to detect malingering. Research participants were either informed (coached) or not informed (uncoached) about the presence and operating characteristics of the validity scales and instructed to fake bad on both the MMPI-2 and PAI. The validity scale and index scores produced by these research participants were then compared to those scores from a bona fide sample of psychiatric patients (n = 75). Coaching had no effect on the ability of the research participants to feign more successfully than those participants who received no coaching. For the MMPI-2, the Psychopathology F scale, or F(p), proved to be the best at distinguishing psychiatric patients from research participants instructed to malinger, although the other F scales (i.e., F and Fb) were also effective. For the PAI, the Rogers Discriminant Function index (RDF) was clearly superior to the other PAI fake-bad validity indicators; neither the Negative Impression Management scale nor Malingering Index were effective at detecting malingered profiles in this study. Overall, RDF proved to be marginally superior to F and F(p) in distinguishing MMPI-2 and PAI protocols produced by research participants asked to malinger and psychiatric patients. Both the RDF and the F and F(p) scales, however, were able to increase the predictive capability of one another.     

The Value of the Standardized Interview for the Evaluation of Psychopathology

Understanding and detecting response distortion is important in the high-demand circumstances of personnel selection. In this article, we describe positive response distortion on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI–R; Costa &; McCrae, 1992) among police officer applicants under high and low demand conditions. Positive response distortion primarily reflected denial/minimization of Neuroticism and accentuation of traits associated with moralistic bias (Agreeableness and Conscientiousness). Validity of the NEO PI–R research validity scale, Positive Presentation Management, was weakly supported with respect to the Neuroticism domain only. Results will be useful in interpreting personality inventory results in the police personnel selection process.     

Feigning combat-related posttraumatic stress disorder on the personality assessment inventory

This study examined whether individuals who were instructed on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed. [DSM-IV]; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) could feign PTSD on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991). The study also investigated whether PAI indexes of symptom exaggeration, the Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale and the Malingering index, could identify individuals feigning PTSD. The diagnostic rule for PTSD (Morey, 1991, 1996) was applied to the profiles of a group of 23 veterans with combat-related PTSD and 23 male undergraduates instructed to malinger PTSD. Seventy percent of the student malingerers produced profiles that received diagnostic consideration for PTSD. The NIM cutting score (> or = 8) was highly effective in detecting simulation of PTSD but resulted in the misclassification of a large number of true PTSD cases. There were no significant differences in the overall efficiency of the test with various validity criteria. We discuss the implications of these findings for the use of the PAI in the diagnosis of combat-related PTSD.     

On the validity of validity scales: the importance of defensive responding in the prediction of institutional misconduct

This study examined the effects of defensive responding on the prediction of institutional misconduct among male inmates (N = 349) who completed the Personality Assessment Inventory (L. C. Morey, 1991). Hierarchical logistic regression analyses demonstrated significant main effects for the Antisocial Features (ANT) scale as well as main effects for the Positive Impression Management (PIM) scale in some instances. Significant ANT x PIM interactions also were evident, particularly when examining recommended cut scores on these scales. These results demonstrate the predictive validity of ANT with prisoners and reinforce the importance of context when considering whether validity scales are in fact valid.     

Examining the potential for gender bias in the prediction of symptom validity test failure by MMPI-2 symptom validity scale scores

Using a sample of individuals undergoing medico-legal evaluations (690 men, 519 women), the present study extended past research on potential gender biases for scores of the Symptom Validity (FBS) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 by examining score- and item-level differences between men and women and determining the extent to which FBS scores were able to correctly identify men and women who were divided into credible responders (n = 837) and noncredible responders (n = 372) on the basis of performance on symptom validity tests. Results indicated that women had slightly higher raw FBS scores than men (d = .29), and significant differences between men and women in item endorsement were demonstrated for 14 FBS items. Step-down hierarchical logistic regression procedures indicated predictive bias (χ2Δ = 23.72, p < .001). Follow-up analyses indicated intercept bias (χ2Δ = 23.51, p < .001) but not slope bias (χ2Δ = 0.22, p = .64). However, using the test publisher's recommended FBS cutoff scores (Ben-Porath, Graham, & Tellegen, 2009), classification accuracies were similar for women and men (T > 80, h = -.02; T > 100, h = -.22, respectively). On the basis of these results, we conclude there is no evidence of clinically meaningful bias in predictions of symptom validity test failure made using FBS scores for men and women. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).     

Reliability and validity of the borderline personality disorder severity index

The psychometric properties and validity of the Borderline Personality Disorder Severity Index (BPDSI), a semistructured interview assessing the frequency and severity of manifestations of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD) during a circumscribed period, were investigated in two studies. In study 1, patients with BPD (n = 15), with other personality disorders (PD; n = 18), and without Axis II disorders (but with Axis I disorders; n = 10) assessed with the SCID were interviewed with the BPDSI (1-yr. version). Patients also filled out a number of questionnaires. A second rater judged taped BPDSI interviews. The BPDSI appeared to yield highly reliable (ICC = .93) and internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha = .85) scores. The BPDSI strongly discriminated BPD patients from other patients, and was not related to other Axis II pathology. Concurrent and construct validity was excellent. In study 2, a version of the BPDSI suitable for use in treatment outcome research was investigated (3-month version) in a sample of 64 BPD patients, 23 Cluster C PD patients, and 20 nonpsychiatric controls. Again, reliability coefficients were excellent (ICC = 0.97; Cronbach's alpha = 0.93), and validity indices were good. Clinical norms were also derived. In a sample of 28 BPD patients, the instrument detected improvement during 6 months of psychotherapy.     

Homelessness and Response Styles on the Personality Assessment Inventory in a Compensation-Seeking Sample

The relationship between validity measures of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) and homelessness was investigated in this archival study. Two groups (N = 50) of compensation-seeking adults were included: homeless and domiciled. The purpose of the study was to determine if differences existed between these 2 groups on the validity measures of the PAI to inform the clinical evaluations of the compensation-seeking homeless. Results of independent sample t tests indicated no significant differences between the homeless and domiciled groups on the 4 validity scales and 2 additional indexes of exaggerated responding (Malingering Index [Morey, 1996] and Rogers Discriminant Function [Rogers, Sewell, Morey, & Ustad, 1996]). Results suggested the compensation-seeking homeless have similar elevations on the PAI validity indexes as domiciled groups seeking compensation.     

On the invalidity of validity scales: evidence from self-reports and observer ratings in volunteer samples

Because of the potential for bias and error in questionnaire responding, many personality inventories include validity scales intended to correct biased scores or identify invalid protocols. The authors evaluated the utility of several types of validity scales in a volunteer sample of 72 men and 106 women who completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; A. Tellegen, 1978/1982) and were rated by 2 acquaintances on the observer form of the NEO-PI-R. Analyses indicated that the validity indexes lacked utility in this sample. A partial replication (N = 1,728) also failed to find consistent support for the use of validity scales. The authors illustrate the use of informant ratings in assessing protocol validity and argue that psychological assessors should limit their use of validity scales and seek instead to improve the quality of personality assessments.     

Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) with female inmates

This study evaluated the reliability, internal structure, and validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) among female inmates (n = 153) housed at a multilevel prison facility. Findings from this research suggested both strengths and weaknesses associated with PPI psychopathy assessment. Reliability of the PPI was supported by internal consistency analyses of scale and subscale item sets, and test-retest reliability was supported by findings obtained with a subsample (n = 36) retested an average of 49 days after initial test administration. Validity of the PPI total score was also supported by moderate to very high correlations with other self-report measures of psychopathy. Relative weaknesses of the PPI were evident by the low or negative associations among many of the PPI subscales, moderate associations that PPI total scores demonstrated with response set indexes, and the similarity of PPI total scores among female inmates and undergraduates. Findings from this research are considered in relation to possible sex differences in the expression of psychopathy and challenges associated with the assessment of the psychopathy construct with self-report methods.     

The Rorschach Suicide Constellation: assessing various degrees of lethality

In this article we examine the relation between the Rorschach Comprehensive System's Suicide Constellation (S-CON; Exner, 1993; Exner & Wiley, 1977) and lethality of suicide attempts during the course of patients' hospitalization at the Austen Riggs Center (Stockbridge, MA). Patient records were rated as nonsuicidal (n = 37), parasuicidal (n = 37), or near-lethal (n = 30) based on the presence and lethality of self-destructive acts. Diagnostic efficiency statistics utilizing a cutoff score of 7 or more positive indicators successfully predicted which patients would engage in near-lethal suicidal activity relative to parasuicidal patients (overall correct classification rate [OCC] = .79), nonsuicidal inpatients (OCC = .79), and college students (OCC = .89). Although these predictions were influenced by relatively high base rates in the hospital population (14.5%), base rate estimates were calculated for other hypothetical populations revealing different prediction estimates that should be considered when judging the relative efficacy of the S-CON. Logistic regression analysis revealed that an S-CON score of 7 or more was the sole predictor of near-lethal suicide attempts among 9 psychiatric and demographic variables.     

Introduction to the special issue on the personality assessment inventory

This special issue of the Journal of Personality Assessment brings together 13 new research studies on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) that should inform users and stimulate future empirical activity with this measure. In 4 articles, authors evaluate the validity scales and indexes of the PAI using both analog and criterion designs and samples from a variety of clinical and forensic settings. In a 5th article, the authors describe a novel approach to profile interpretation using two PAI negative distortion measures. The authors present applications of the PAI to new populations and problems including a German translation of the PAI and profile information for male batterers and victims of head injury. The authors of 2 studies extend research on the validity of the PAI for the assessment of borderline personality disorder. In the final 3 studies, the authors evaluate the validity of PAI measures of violence and aggression to predict subsequent aggressive behavior and institutional misconduct. Finally, the authors offer several suggestions for future research with the PAI.     

Development and initial validation of validity scales for the NEO-Five Factor Inventory

Based upon the methodology established by Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer (Schinka, J. A., Kinder, B. N., & Kremer, T. (1997). Research validity scales for the NEO-PI-R: Development and initial validation. Journal of Personality Assessment, 68, 127–138), a set of validity scales were developed for the NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI, Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory and NEO Five Factor Inventory Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources). In Study 1, 111 undergraduates completed the NEO-FFI and item means, standard deviations, and intercorrelations were used to construct measures of Positive Impression Management, Negative Impression Management, and Inconsistent Responding. In Study 2, 146 participants completed the NEO-FFI under one of five instructional sets (control, fake good, fake bad, graduate psychology and police academy admissions). A set of randomly produced NEO-FFI profiles were added to this data set. ANOVA results provided support for the utility of the validity scales, as they were differentially sensitive to random responding, positive and negative impression management in hypothesized ways.     

Correlates of the Egocentricity Index in Child and Adolescent Outpatients

This study examined the Rorschach and MMPI covariates of Exner's Egocentricity Index, 3γ + (2): R, in a sample of child and adolescent outpatients (n = 46). Consistent with previous findings on adult psychiatric inpatients (Barley, Doff, & Reid, 1985), significant positive correlations were obtained between the Index and M, FM, χ + %, and D when controlled for the number of protocol responses. The Egocentricity Index was negatively associated with lambda and, in a subsample of adolescents (n = 19), depression scores. The index bore no significant relationship to either Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) validity or clinical scales, also congruent with earlier investigations. Implications for the interpretation of childrens' Egocentricity Indices are discussed.     

Correlates of the Egocentricity Index in child and adolescent outpatients

This study examined the Rorschach and MMPI covariates of Exner's Egocentricity Index, 3r + (2): R, in a sample of child and adolescent outpatients (n = 46). Consistent with previous findings on adult psychiatric inpatients (Barley, Dorr, & Reid, 1985), significant positive correlations were obtained between the Index and M, FM, X + %, and D when controlled for the number of protocol responses. The Egocentricity Index was negatively associated with lambda and, in a subsample of adolescents (n = 19), depression scores. The index bore no significant relationship to either Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) validity or clinical scales, also congruent with earlier investigations. Implications for the interpretation of childrens' Egocentricity Indices are discussed.     

Use of structured self-report assessment to diagnose borderline personality disorder during major depressive episodes

Diagnosis of borderline personality disorder (BPD) during episodes of major depression (MDE), although clinically important, is complicated in several respects when using self-report methods. Structured interview data were used to select a group of patients with comorbid BPD (n=21) from a sample of outpatients presenting with MDE. This group was compared with a group of MDE patients without BPD (n=24) and with a group of community controls (n=20) using self-report data from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the revised Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire (PDQ), and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI). Analyses revealed that the BPD group obtained significantly higher scores on PAI and PDQ scales measuring features of BPD and on the PAI Negative Impression Management scale. The severity and type of MDE symptoms reported on the PAI and BDI did not differentiate the clinical groups. These data show that useful information for the diagnosis of BPD during depressive episodes can be gathered from self-report assessment instruments like the PAI.