Exaggeration or Fabrication? Assessment of Negative Response Distortion and Malingering with the Personality Assessment Inventory

Kurtz, John E.; McCredie, Morgan N.

doi:10.1007/s12207-021-09433-x

Cited by 11 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, the review article by cites one study in which the SIMS was strongly correlated with scores on the PAI NIM at r = .84 and another in which it was strongly correlated with the MMPI-2 F at r = .84. In contrast, the review article by Kurtz and McCredie (2021), which focused on the PAI, showed that the RDF correlated with the other two standard SVTs embedded in the PAI (i.e., NIM and MAL) with r ≤ .38 and r ≤ .11, respectively, when considering the community adult normative sample and the clinical standardization sample described in the professional manual. Taken together, then, these results suggest that the fact that two SVTs are embedded in the same test is not prima facie evidence that they are excessively redundant with each other, just as the fact that two SVTs are from different instruments is not per se evidence that they are nonredundant.…”

Section: The Issue Of Redundancy In Symptom Validity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…In addition, three other supplemental indicators have recently been added to the more updated PAI interpretative report (PAI-plus; Morey, 2020): the Negative Distortion Scale (NDS; Mogge et al, 2010), the Hong Malingering Index (HMI; Hong & Kim, 2001), and the Multiscale Feigning Index (MFI; Gaines et al, 2013). The second of the articles included in this Special Issue, written by Kurtz and McCredie (2021), reviews the available research literature on the effectiveness of each of these six indicators.…”

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Paimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, the three newer supplemental indicators, i.e., the NDS, the HMI, and, although to a lesser extent, the MFI, have also shown promising results in recent research. Kurtz and McCredie (2021) note that "although the evidence for each indicator is encouraging, Morey and Hopwood (2007) recommend a configural approach that accounts for the unique contributions of NIM, MAL, and RDF to the assessment of negative distortion" (p. 5). Indeed, correlations among the three original indicators of NRB range from r = .10 to r = .62.…”

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Paimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the NIM, MAL, and RDF may capture different aspects of NRB and thus provide incremental information about it. Nevertheless, Kurtz and McCredie (2021) emphasize that the effectiveness of the configural analysis of NRB recommended by Morey and Hopwood (2007) "has not been adequately evaluated in the empirical research literature" (p. 9).…”

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Paimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

Giromini

Young

Sellbom

2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In psychological injury and related forensic evaluations, two types of tests are commonly used to assess Negative Response Bias (NRB): Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs). SVTs assess the credibility of self-reported symptoms, whereas PVTs assess the credibility of observed performance on cognitive tasks. Compared to the large and ever-growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated self-report SVTs available to professionals for assessing symptom validity. In addition, while several studies have examined how to combine and integrate the results of multiple independent PVTs, there are few studies to date that have addressed the combination and integration of information obtained from multiple self-report SVTs. The Special Issue of Psychological Injury and Law introduced in this article aims to help fill these gaps in the literature by providing readers with detailed information about the convergent and incremental validity, strengths and weaknesses, and applicability of a number of selected measures of NRB under different conditions and in different assessment contexts. Each of the articles in this Special Issue focuses on a particular self-report SVT or set of SVTs and summarizes their conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and possible cut scores and relative hit rates. Here, we review the psychometric properties of the 19 selected SVTs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we make tentative proposals for the field to consider regarding the number of SVTs to be used in an assessment, the number of SVT failures required to invalidate test results, and the issue of redundancy when selecting multiple SVTs for an assessment.

show abstract

Section: The Issue Of Redundancy In Symptom Validity Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Paimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Paimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Paimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

Giromini

Young

Sellbom

2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A 2009 meta-analysis by Hawes and colleagues synthesized over 30 studies on PAI SVTs, concluding that NIM and MAL resulted in the best classification accuracy at modified cutoff scores. More recently, the PAI validity scales were reviewed (Kurtz & McCredie, 2022) as part of an SVT special issue (see Giromini et al, 2022, for introductory article). The updated review article classifies the PAI SVTs as including three primary indicators (NIM, MAL, and Rogers Discriminant Function [RDF]) and three newer, supplementary indicators with less research support.…”

Section: Miller Forensic Assessment Of Symptoms Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) in Veterans.

Shura¹,

Miskey²,

Puente-López³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the convergent validity and diagnostic accuracy of the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) in a Veteran sample. Method: Participants were identified and recruited for a study of neurocognition of traumatic brain injury (TBI) and posttraumatic stress disorder in post 9/11 Veterans. A standardized neuropsychological battery was administered. From the parent study sample, 405 completed both the M-FAST and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Nonparametric tests were used to compare the M-FAST Total score across diagnostic and disability variable groupings. Correlations were calculated for the M-FAST Total score in comparison to the PAI symptom validity indices and clinical scales. Diagnostic accuracy analyses were employed to assess M-FAST Total score cutoffs to identify a noncredible group per PAI overreporting scales. Results: The M-FAST Total score was not significantly higher for individuals with a TBI history, but was higher in those with major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and receiving Veterans Affairs disability. The M-FAST correlated well to established symptom validity scales in the PAI, with smaller effects seen when correlated to PAI clinical scales. Using a cutoff of ≥5, the M-FAST achieved an area under the curve of .754 but resulted in a very poor sensitivity of 24. Conclusions: This study evaluated the M-FAST as a screening or adjunct measure of symptom validity in postdeployed Veterans. Even after reducing the Total score cutoff from the manual recommended score, sensitivity remained poor; thus, the M-FAST should not be used as a sole symptom validity tests outside of screening contexts.

show abstract

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

Erdődi

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was designed to empirically evaluate the classification accuracy of various definitions of invalid performance in two forced-choice recognition performance validity tests (PVTs; FCR CVLT-II and Test of Memory Malingering [TOMM-2]). The proportion of at and below chance level responding defined by the binomial theory and making any errors was computed across two mixed clinical samples from the United States and Canada (N = 470) and two sets of criterion PVTs. There was virtually no overlap between the binomial and empirical distributions. Over 95% of patients who passed all PVTs obtained a perfect score. At chance level responding was limited to patients who failed ≥2 PVTs (91% of them failed 3 PVTs). No one scored below chance level on FCR CVLT-II or TOMM-2. All 40 patients with dementia scored above chance. Although at or below chance level performance provides very strong evidence of non-credible responding, scores above chance level have no negative predictive value. Even at chance level scores on PVTs provide compelling evidence for non-credible presentation.A single error on the FCR CVLT-II or TOMM-2 is highly specific (0.95) to psychometrically defined invalid performance.Defining non-credible responding as below chance level

show abstract

Exaggeration or Fabrication? Assessment of Negative Response Distortion and Malingering with the Personality Assessment Inventory

Cited by 11 publications

References 33 publications

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

The Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST) in Veterans.

From “below chance” to “a single error is one too many”: Evaluating various thresholds for invalid performance on two forced choice recognition tests

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About