Exploring the sensitivity of the Personality Assessment Inventory symptom validity tests in detecting response bias in a mixed neuropsychological outpatient sample

Abstract

Findings indicated that exaggerated cognitive dysfunction tends to be present when NIM is very high and that evidence exists for a defensive response style on the PAI in the context of PVT failure.

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

“…Since this study, several simulation studies have examined the CDF for detecting malingering of mental illness (e.g., Bagby, Nicholson, Bacchiochi, Ryder, & Bury, 2002;Blanchard, McGrath, Pogge, & Khadivi, 2003;Greene, 2005). A recent study examining knowngroups by Gaasedelen et al (2017) showed the CDF was not able to significantly discriminate between clinical outpatients who passed and failed 2 or more PVTs. Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) and individuals who were determined to be honest was examined.…”

“…From a construct standpoint, it seems logical to distinguish between PVT and SVT because reporting symptoms and characteristics on a self-report inventory is simply a different process than engaging in a performance-based cognitive task (Larrabee, 2012). As PVTs and SVTs both fall under the umbrella of response bias, it nonetheless remains plausible that they would be related, and generally research has demonstrated a weak to modest relationship between PVTs and SVTs (e.g., Gaasedelen, Whiteside, & Basso, 2017;Keiski, Shore, Hamilton, & Malec, 2015;Patrick & Horner, 2014;Temple, McBride, Horner, Taylor, 2003).…”

“…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 MAL was designed as a more specific indicator of malingering than NIM (which can elevate in the presence of true psychopathology) and was constructed by deriving eight profile characteristics of individuals simulating severe mental disorders. It has been shown to discriminate well between highly suspected malingerers and clinical controls (Boccaccini et al, 2006;Kucharski, Toomey, Fila, & Duncan, 2007;Wang et al, 1997) although it is reportedly less sensitive to milder forms of feigning (Morey, 2007), and, unlike NIM, it has not been found to be reliably significantly higher in examinees who fail PVTs (e.g., Gaasedelen et al, 2017;Lange et al, 2012;Whiteside et al, 2009).…”

“…The RDF was originally created as a linear discriminant function of 20 PAI subscales designed to discriminate between true clinical patients from those simulating schizophrenia, depression, or generalized anxiety . Despite its mathematical sophistication, the RDF has more mixed findings for over-reporting in actual clinical samples, where some studies find it is not sensitive to malingerers or individuals who fail PVTs (e.g., Gaasedelen et al, 2017;Wang et al, 1997;Boccaccini, Murrie, & Duncan 2006) but others (e.g., Edens, Poythress, & Watkins-Clay, 2007) did find that the RDF and the MAL were significant in identifying malingerers, whereas NIM was not.…”