Forensic and correctional applications of the personality assessment inventory

Abstract

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.

Measuring Suicidality Using the Personality Assessment Inventory

“…Several other scholars have illustrated how the instrument can be used to effectively inform elements of practice within corrections (Douglas, Belfrage, Herbozo, Poythress, & Edens, 2006;Douglas, Hart, & Kropp, 2001;Duellman & Bowers, 2004;Edens, Cruise, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Edens & Ruiz, 2005;Morey & Quigley, 2002). Collectively, this growing body of research supports the broad-based utility of the PAI in correctional populations, yet more research into high risk areas, such as suicide prevention is needed.…”

A Case Law Survey of the Personality Assessment Inventory: Examining Its Role in Civil and Criminal Trials

“…Despite its popularity and the growing research base supporting its psychometric properties in legal settings (Edens, Cruise, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Morey & Hopwood, 2006), relatively little is known about "real world" cases in which the PAI is introduced into evidence. Because (a) the legal arena relies heavily on case law to establish precedent, (b) legal admissibility standards (e.g., Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 1993) focus to varying degrees on the general acceptance of an instrument within a field, 1 and (c) more established instruments such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) and the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) have faced various challenges to their admissibility when initially introduced into the courts (Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2006), an overview of published legal cases in which the PAI has been introduced would be informative for those who might consider administering it in forensic examinations.…”

Recovery and Replication of Internalizing and Externalizing Dimensions Within the Personality Assessment Inventory

“…The inventory assesses response styles, psychopathology, personality, and treatmentrelevant variables. The PAI has substantial potential within many settings given the breadth of information it provides (Edens, Cruise, & Buffington-Vollum, 2001;Morey, 1996;Morey & Quigley, 2002). The practical application of the instrument, however, requires that its acceptable psychometric properties generalize across settings.…”