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.     

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.     

Forensic and correctional applications of the personality assessment inventory

The relative utility of psychological tests for addressing legal issues is an area of considerable debate in the field. Regardless of the merits of psychological testing, it is apparent that such instruments are used widely both to address specific psycholegal issues and to evaluate offender populations more generally. One instrument gaining prominence in terms of its use in both forensic and correctional settings is the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), which was developed to assess various constructs relevant to clinical settings (e.g. psychopathology, response distortion, and personality traits). This paper reviews the psychometric properties of the PAI specifically in reference to its ability to assess factors relevant to forensic decision-making, as well as its utility to provide clinically relevant information about offender populations more generally.     

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.     

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.     

A new method for detecting brain disorder by measuring perseveration in personality inventory responses

A 130-item personality inventory (the Psychological Screening Inventory, Lanyon, 1970) was used to obtain a novel measure of perseveration coupled with affirmative set. Acquiescent Perseveration (AP), a quantitative behavioral metric, is the sum of the lengths of True (T) response runs 4 and longer, doubling T runs 9 and longer. With male subjects, a one-way ANOVA comparison of heterogeneous organics with five non-organic control groups (normals, neurotics, sociopaths, personality disorders, and schizophrenics) showed mean AP differences greater than .001 versus every control group. The measure, requiring no scoring key, was successfully cross-validated with six similar female groups. AP means for non-organics showed no increase across 5 decades of age. In small supplementary studies AP was related inversely to Shipley Abstraction (Shipley, 1940, 1946) scores and directly to the Halstead-Reitan Impairment Index (Reitan & Davison, 1974). AP, uncorrected for age, IQ or education, matches the best single cognitive neuropsychological tests in distinguishing organics from psychiatric patients. Inventory response sequences contain previously unrecognized latent data sensitive to neuropathology.     

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.     

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.     

Detection of random responding on the MMPI-A

We examined random responding on the MMPI-A in 106 adolescents from the general population. Participants were asked to report on the frequency, location, and reasons for any random responses occurring during a standard administration of the MMPI-A. Relationships between self-reported random responding and validity indices (F1, F2, F, and Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN] scale) were examined. In addition, each participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups, with each group completing an assigned portion (0, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%) of an MMPI-A answer sheet without access to the test booklet, and the utility of the validity scales in discriminating standard protocols from all or partially random protocols was investigated. Most adolescents acknowledged one or more random responses correlated significantly with F but not VRIN. Validity scales were sensitive to all or partially random protocols, and produced high classification rates when discriminating among groups.     

Identification of random responding on the MMPI-A

Although substantial research literature on the effects of random responding on the MMPI-2 exists, there is very limited data available on this issue with the MMPI-A. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of selected MMPI-A validity scales in detecting differences in response patterns between protocols produced by 354 adolescents assessed in clinical settings and a group of 354 randomly produced MMPI-A protocols. Results indicate that MMPI-A validity and basic clinical scales differ significantly between random and clinical groups and that MMPI-A validity Scales F, F1, F2, and VRIN appear to be most useful in correctly identifying protocols from actual clinical participants versus randomly generated response patterns. Findings are discussed in terms of the dramatic effects of the sample base rate for random responding on overall classification accuracy results. Furthermore, it was noted that the optimal cutting scores for MMPI-A Scales F, F1, F2, and VRIN were largely consistent with interpretive recommendations found in the test manual (Butcher et al., 1992) when the relative frequency of random response protocols to clinical protocols was evaluated at a ratio of 1:10. Finally, future recommendations for evaluation of the F1-F2 difference score and the TRIN scale are offered in terms of the most relevant research designs to evaluate these measures.     

MMPI-A validity scale uses and limitations in detecting varying levels of random responding

Although there is a substantial research literature on the effects of random responding on the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), there are very few studies available on this topic with the MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992). Archer and Elkins (1999) found that MMPI-A validity scales F and VRIN were particularly useful in detecting entirely random profiles from those derived standardly in clinical settings but noted that "all random" protocols could not be used to evaluate the usefulness of the T-score difference between the first half (F1) and the second half (F2) of the MMPI-A test booklet. Following up on this issue, this study extended the methodology of previous research by examining the hit rate, positive predictive power, negative predictive power, sensitivity, and specificity of VRIN, F, F1, F2 and the absolute value of the T-score difference between F1 and F2 (denoted as IF1-F21) in 5 samples varying in the degree of protocol randomness. One of the samples consisted of 100 adolescent inpatients administered the MMPI-A under standard instructions, and another sample consisted of 100 protocols randomly generated by computer. The additional 3 samples of 100 protocols each contained varying degrees of computer-generated randomness introduced in the latter half of the MMPI-A item pool. Over- all, the results generally indicate that several MMPI-A validity scales are useful in detecting protocols that are largely random, but all of these validity scales are more limited in detecting partially random responding that involves less than half the total item pool located in the second half of the test booklet. Clinicians should be particularly cautious concerning validity inferences based on the observed T-score difference that occurs for the F1 and F2 subscales and current findings do not support the clinical usefulness of this index.     

Cross-validation of a minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) subscale for the assessment of combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder

We have examined the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scores of 80 carefully diagnosed veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in an attempt to cross-validate the PTSD subscale and three-point MMPI code of Keane, Malloy, and Fairbank (1984). In general, although we replicated Keane and co-workers'cutoff scores, our hit rates were slightly lower than those reported originally.This research was supported in part by NIMH Grant MH-37839 to Dr. Kolb.     

Validation of the psychopathic personality inventory on a female inmate sample

This investigation evaluated the construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), a self-report measure designed to assess psychopathy. One hundred and two incarcerated females were administered the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K-BIT), an oral alcohol and drug screening measure, a demographic interview, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), and the PPI. There were significant correlations among the PPI, MMPI-2 scales, and the PCL-R. In addition, the correlations between the PPI and the separate PCL-R factors were not significantly different from each other, indicating that the PPI is assessing both facets of the psychopathy construct to some extent. A high correlation between the PPI and the DSM-IV criteria, which assesses adult antisocial behaviors, revealed adequate concurrent validity. Nonsignificant or negligible correlations between the PPI and the MMPI-2 scales provided some support for discriminant validity. The results are discussed with respect to the clinical and forensic utility of the PPI, the limitations of the study, and the need for further research.     

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.     

Reliability and validity of the Coolidge Axis II Inventory: a new inventory for the assessment of personality disorders.

This group of studies describes the development of a 200 item, self-report, 4-point true-false inventory (Coolidge Axis II Inventory [CATI]) to assess personality disorders according to the criteria established in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev. [DSM-III-R]; American Psychiatric Association, 1987). The 13 personality disorder scales of the CATI had a mean test-retest reliability of .90 and a median internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) of .76. There was a 50% concordance rate with clinician's diagnosis for 24 personality disordered patients. The median concurrent validity (raw score sums) between the CATI and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II for the 13 personality disorder scales was .58. Preliminary studies also support the reliability and validity of Depression, Anxiety, and Brain Dysfunction scales.     

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.