Domains and facets: hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO personality inventory

Personality traits are organized hierarchically, with narrow, specific traits combining to define broad, global factors. The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992c) assesses personality at both levels, with six specific facet scales in each of five broad domains. This article describes conceptual issues in specifying facets of a domain and reports evidence on the validity of NEO-PI-R facet scales. Facet analysis-the interpretation of a scale in terms of the specific facets with which it correlates-is illustrated using alternative measures of the five-factor model and occupational scales. Finally, the hierarchical interpretation of personality profiles is discussed. Interpretation on the domain level yields a rapid understanding of the individual interpretation of specific facet scales gives a more detailed assessment.     

Examination of the reliability and validity of the personality assessment inventory

The reliability, discriminant validity, and construct validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) — a multidimensional self-report measure of abnormal personality traits — were examined within the Australian context. Subjects included 151 normals, 30 alcoholics, and 30 schizophrenic patients. A subsample of 70 nonpsychiatric adults responded to the PAI items twice over a test-retest interval of 28 days. The resulting median retest coefficient was 0.7, indicating less than optimal stability. The median alpha (KR₂₁) coefficient was 0.8, suggesting somewhat narrow measurement scales. A significant multivariate main effect was obtained across groups after the effects of age and gender were removed. Multiple comparisons for each of the PAI scales revealed significant differences between the respective groups, as discussed. A higher-order scale factoring did not strongly support the purported PAI structure. In reanalyses of the correlation matrices included in the Professional Manual, the purported PAI factor structure was unable to be replicated for the standardization clinical sample (N=1246), and a confirmatory factor analysis using the normative (validation) correlational data (N=1000) revealed poor fit indices, raising further concerns about construct validity.     

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.     

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.     

Recovery and replication of internalizing and externalizing dimensions within the personality assessment inventory

In this study, we examined the internal structure of 13 Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007) scales in a corrections sample (N = 1,099). Previous findings regarding the PAI internal structure have been somewhat inconsistent. We investigated the utility of a 2-dimensional model comprised of internalization and externalization to organize the 11 PAI clinical scales and 2 additional scales, Suicidal Ideation and Aggression. We randomly divided the sample, and a factor analysis revealed a 2-dimensional model representing internalization and externalization. Confirmatory factor analyses conducted with an independent subsample revealed acceptable fit when the model was revised to include correlated error terms between mood and anxiety disorder scales. The revised model exhibited acceptable fit when cross-validated, had better fit than a 1-dimension model, and demonstrated preliminary construct validity in relation to extratest variables.     

The depressive personality disorder inventory and current depressive symptoms: implications for the assessment of depressive personality

The Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (DPDI; Huprich, Margrett, Barthelemy, & Fine, 1996; see Appendix) was created to assess Depressive Personality Disorder in clinical and nonclinical samples. Since its creation, the DPDI has been used in multiple studies, and the psychometric properties of the measure have generally supported its reliability, convergent validity, and construct validity; however, evidence for the measure's discriminant validity has been mixed. Specifically, the DPDI tends to correlate highly with measures of current depressive symptoms, which limits its efficacy in differentiating current depressive symptoms from a depressive personality structure. A principal components analysis of 362 individuals who completed both the DPDI and Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II; Beck, Steer, & Brown, 1996) found that 49% of the variance was accounted for in two components. Seven items from the DPDI loaded more strongly on the first component composed of many BDI-II items. These items were removed in order to create a measure believed to assess DPD without the confounding influence of current depressive symptomology. Principal components analysis of the revised measure yielded three components, accounting for 46% of the variance. The revised DPDI was used to calculate convergent, discriminant, and construct validity coefficients from measures used in former studies. Virtually no improvement in the validity coefficients was observed. It is concluded that assessing DPD via self-report is limited in its utility.     

Predicting sex offender institutional adjustment and treatment compliance using the personality assessment inventory

This study examined the utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to identify prison inmates in a mandatory sex offender treatment program prone to engage in institutional misconduct. Archival PAI and institutional disciplinary data were coded for 137 inmates in treatment for an average of 1.59 years. The Antisocial Features scale predicted various forms of general and major infractions (e.g., verbal aggression), with no other scales providing any incremental validity beyond this measure. The Treatment Rejection scale was uniquely but modestly correlated (r=.14) with treatment noncompliance, even though such infractions were rare in this sample.     

Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory: validity and implications for clinical assessment

Psychopathy is a personality disorder characterized by impulsive antisocial deviance in the context of emotional and interpersonal detachment. A factor analysis of the subscales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) yielded evidence for 2 factors. One factor showed relations with external criteria mirroring those of the emotional-interpersonal facet of psychopathy, including high dominance, low anxiety, and venturesomeness. The other factor showed relations paralleling those of the social deviance facet of psychopathy, including positive correlations with antisocial behavior and substance abuse, negative correlations with socioeconomic status and verbal ability, and personality characteristics including high negative emotionally and low behavioral constraint. Findings support using the PPI to assess these facets of psychopathy in community samples and to explore their behavioral correlates and genetic-neurobiological underpinnings.     

Screening for malingering in a criminal-forensic sample with the personality assessment inventory

In this study, the authors examined how overreporting of psychopathology indices on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; L. C. Morey, 1991) performed as screening measures for malingering in a sample of 166 defendants undergoing pretrial court-ordered evaluations in the federal criminal justice system. Using results from the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; R. Rogers, R. M. Bagby, & S. E. Dickens, 1992) as the criterion measure of malingering, the authors found that the Negative Impression scale (NIM) was the most effective PAI screening measure (cut score > or = 81 T). NIM performed as well as an established comparison measure from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2 (J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989; Infrequency [F] cut score > or = 95 T), supporting the use of either of these indices as reasonable screening measures to identify potential malingerers for subsequent evaluation.     

Assessing young adolescents' personality with the five-factor personality inventory

The Five-Factor Personality Inventory (FFPI) assesses a person's position on the (Dutch) psycholexically based Big Five factors: Extraversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, Emotional Stability, and Autonomy. FFPI factor scores are reliable and valid if ratings are made by adults. The present study yields preliminary evidence of whether young adolescents provide reliable and valid self-ratings on this instrument or whether this depends on their cognitive ability level. The sample consisted of a large and representative cohort of youngsters with a mean age of 13 years. The adult structure of the FFPI was generally well replicated, across all ability levels represented in the study. The findings further suggest that young adolescents' factor scores are construct-valid and sufficiently reliable to be used in (group) research settings. However, for reports on individual profiles and decision making, an adolescent's cognitive ability level would need to be rather high. Even then, measuring Autonomy seems challenging.     

Efficiency of a strategy for detecting back random responding on the personality assessment inventory

The efficiency of a new strategy to identify back random responding (BRR) on the Personality Assessment Inventory (L. C. Morey, 1991) was studied using random manipulations of item responses from community (904 adult nonpatients) and clinical (1,079 adult patients) respondents. The strategy involved a comparison of short-form and full-instrument T scores on 2 scales found to be particularly sensitive to BRR in a recent study. This strategy was found to be reasonably sensitive and specific to even relatively low levels of BRR.     

Predicting the completion of an integrative and intensive outpatient chronic pain treatment with the personality assessment inventory

The effects of intensive, integrative treatments for chronic pain are affected by patient compliance, and in many cases, selecting noncompliant individuals adversely impacts the cost-effectiveness of such programs. The pretreatment identification of individuals who are at risk for dropout could assist clinicians in augmenting treatments with motivational enhancement strategies for high-risk patients or using such information to select individuals who are most likely to complete a given intervention program. In this study, we tested the ability of indicators from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), administered prior to treatment, to identify individuals who dropped out of a 20-day chronic pain program. Results replicate findings from outpatient psychotherapy research in finding that PAI Mean Clinical Elevation and Treatment Process Index significantly differentiated dropouts from graduates, particularly when the Treatment Rejection scale suggested patients were motivated for treatment. We discuss these results and offer recommendations for the prediction of treatment dropout in pain settings.     

Taxometric analysis of the antisocial features scale of the personality assessment inventory in federal prison inmates

The Antisocial Features (ANT) scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) was subjected to taxometric analysis in a group of 2,135 federal prison inmates. Scores on the three ANT subscales-Antisocial Behaviors (ANT-A), Egocentricity (ANT-E), and Stimulus Seeking (ANT-S)-served as indicators in this study and were evaluated using the following taxometric procedures: mean above minus below a cut (MAMBAC), maximum eigenvalue (MAXEIG), and latent mode factor analysis (L-Mode). Objective and subjective evaluation of the results revealed consistent support for a dimensional interpretation of latent structure across the di ferent taxometric procedures as well as across gender, race, and security level. As a dimensional construct, antisocial personality disorder arranges respondents along one or more quantitative dimensions (degree of antisociality), rather than assigning them to qualitatively distinct categories (antisocial or not antisocial).     

Effects of information about validity scales on underreporting of symptoms on the personality assessment inventory

We investigated the effects of information about validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) on underreporting of symptoms in a college student population. A group of participants completing the PAI under the standard instructions was compared to two groups of participants who had been instructed and given incentives to underreport symptoms. One of the underreporting groups was given a brief warning about the presence of scales designed to detect respondents attempting to present an unrealistically favorable impression. Results suggested that underreporting scales on the PAI are effective in discriminating standard profiles from those completed by uncoached underreporting participants but are less effective in discriminating standard profiles from those produced by participants who have been warned about the underreporting scales. The findings suggest that coaching may enable some respondents to underreport symptoms without detection.     

The content of personality inventory items

Four aspects of the item content of personality inventories were studied: the area of psychological functioning addressed (cognitive, preferences, feelings, behavioral), degree of reference to situational factors, degree of reference to response frequency, and the nature of reference to time. Three judges rated items of the California Psychological Inventory, Eysenck Personality Inventory, Maudsley Personality Inventory, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Jackson Personality Research Form, and Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire. Behavioral acts were found infrequently addressed in inventory items, and the other areas of functioning were approximately equally represented. More than half of the items referred to situation characteristics, 39% included the notion of frequency of behavior or experience, and most referred to the present. Rating reliabilities were also presented, and results for individual inventories were compared. Implications for controversies in the field of personality were discussed.     

Psychometric evaluation of the depressive personality disorder inventory

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Depressive Personality Disorder Inventory (DPDI; Huprich, Margrett, Barthelemy, & Fine, 1996). The DPDI was found to have strong internal consistency in both an undergraduate and a veteran, psychiatric outpatient population. The DPDI had significant, positive correlations with other measures of depressive personality, supporting its convergent validity. These relationships remained even after controlling for state-like depression, suggesting that the DPDI has incremental validity. The DPDI also significantly predicted scores on measures of interpersonal loss, even after controlling for state-like depression, suggesting that the DPDI has good construct validity. In support of discriminant validity, the DPDI was more correlated with another measure of depressive personality than it was with measures of other personality disorders. Finally, the DPDI had strong diagnostic efficiency statistics: (a) Sensitivity = .82, (b) Specificity = .80, (c) Positive Predictive Power = .75, (d) Negative Predictive Power = .86, and (e) Overall Diagnostic Power = .81. It appears that the DPDI has good psychometric properties.