Differential response patterns on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in compensation-seeking and non-compensation-seeking mild traumatic brain injury patients

Abstract

There is relatively little research on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) with mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI) populations. There is also little research on how compensation-seeking status affects personality assessment results in MTBI patients. The current study examined the PAI scales and subscales in two MTBI groups, one composed of compensation-seeking MTBI patients and the other consisting of non-compensation-seeking MTBI patients. Results indicated significant differences on several scales and subscales between the two MTBI groups, with the compensation-seeking MTBI patients having significantly higher elevations on scales related to somatic preoccupation (Somatic Complaint Scale, SOM), emotional distress (Anxiety Scale, ANX; Anxiety Related Disorders Scale, ARD; Depression Scale, DEP), and the Negative Impression Management, NIM, validity scale. All the SOM subscales and the Anxiety Cognitive (ANX-C) and ANX Affective, ANX-A, subscales were also elevated in the compensation-seeking group. Results indicated that several scales on the PAI were sensitive to group differences in compensation-seeking status in MTBI patients.

Framing the Results: Assessment of Response Bias Through Select Self-Report Measures in Psychological Injury Evaluations

“…Their findings are consistent with previous research in which high scores on NIM have been associated with poor effort on PVTs or compensation-seeking populations (see Lange, Pancholi, Bhagwat, Anderson-Barnes, & French, 2012). For instance, higher NIM scores were observed for compensation-seeking patients with mild TBIs than for patients who were not compensation seeking but also had mild TBIs (Whiteside, Galbreath, Brown, & Turnbull, 2012). Furthermore, in an examination of the PAI validity scales in relation to cognitive effort as measured by the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM; Tombaugh, 1996), the INF and NIM scales were found to be significantly related to the TOMM (Whiteside, Dunbar-Mayer, & Waters, 2009).…”

Postconcussive symptom overreporting in Iraq/Afghanistan Veterans with mild traumatic brain injury

“…Elevations on PVTs and SVTs are related to compensationseeking and higher levels of psychiatric comorbidities, such as PTSD and depression, but not demographic variables or injury characteristics in those with a history of mTBI [27,29,[31][32][33][34]. The benefits of using an embedded SVT such as the Validity-10 are twofold.…”

The development and initial validation of the cognitive response bias scale for the personality assessment inventory

“…Only a few studies have examined the relationship between PAI scales and performance on PVTs. Researchers have found reliable elevations across the Somatic Complaints scale (SOM) in the context of lower PVT scores (Lange, Pancholi, Bhagwat, Anderson-Barnes, & French, 2012;Sumanti, Boone, Savodnik, & Gorsuch, 2006;Whiteside, et al, 2010;Whiteside, Galbreath, Brown, & Turnbull, 2012), and additional evidence in external incentive contexts supports these findings (Wagner, Wymer, Toppings, & Pritchard, 2005).…”

“…Research on the PAI validity scales have consistently found elevations on the Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale in the context of PVT failure and symptom exaggeration (Gaasedelen et al, 2017;Keiski et al, 2015;Lange et al, 2012;Whiteside et al, 2009;Whiteside et al, 2012). Keiski et al (2015) performed an in-depth simulation study examining the differences in PAI validity scales between two groups simulating TBI: one group that simulated global symptoms (i.e., somatic, psychiatric, and cognitive symptoms), and another 'defensive' group that only simulated cognitive symptoms.…”

“…The database used for this study had Institutional Review Board approval from the University of Iowa and Argosy University -Seattle. Several previous studies have been published utilizing samples from earlier versions of this database (e.g., Whiteside, Galbreath, Brown, & Turnbull, 2012;Whiteside, Wald, & Busse, 2011;Whiteside, Dunbar-Mayer, & Waters, 2009). Each patient was provided with an informed consent sheet describing the use of their data for research purposes only, including the provision that data would be entered masked of any identifier.…”