Relationship between suboptimal cognitive effort and the clinical scales of the Personality Assessment Inventory

Abstract

Little research has examined the relationship between the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and cognitive effort. The current study extends the research on personality assessment and suboptimal cognitive effort by evaluating the relationship between the PAI clinical scales and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in a neuropsychological population. Utilizing corrections for multiple comparisons, rank-order correlations with the TOMM Trial 2 (T2) and the PAI clinical scales indicated a significant relationship with the SOM (rho = -.26, p <.001), with additional scales (SCZ, ANX, and DEP) trending toward significance. Analysis of SOM subscales indicated a significant relationship between SOM-C and T2 as well. To further explore the relationship between SOM and the TOMM, ANOVA results indicated that individuals scoring within normal limits on the SOM had higher mean TOMM scores than those with extremely elevated SOM. Additional analyses indicated that utilizing the cut-off for extreme responding on the SOM scale (T > 87) had adequate sensitivity (93%) and specificity (76%) in predicting TOMM performance, with a positive predictive power of 54% and a negative predictive power of 97%, resulting in a 91% correct classification rate. Thus, the evidence suggests that extreme scores on SOM should prompt careful evaluation for suboptimal cognitive effort.

Performance validity and symptom validity tests: Are they measuring different constructs?

“…Conversely, PVTs were significantly associated with most measures of cognitive performance, whereas associations between SVTs and cognitive tests were variable. In general, results are consistent with the extant literature indicating associations among SVTs, PVTs, symptom measures, and cognitive tests (Armistead-Jehle & Buican, 2012;Copeland et al, 2016;Lange et al, 2010Lange et al, , 2012Whiteside et al, 2010). However, the present study extended these results to demonstrate that PVTs and SVTs each explain unique variance in symptom report, whereas only PVTs explain unique variance in cognitive performance.…”

Predictors and Impact of Self-Reported Suboptimal Effort on Estimates of Prevalence of HIV-Associated Neurocognitive Disorders

“…Finally, there are other factors likely influencing effort, or modifying neurocognitive performance as a function of effort. Examples include personality 41,42 and acculturation 43,44 . Thus, further investigation of factors that mitigate or augment effort in the context of research studies might consider factors not considered here.…”

Clarification or Confusion? A Review of Rogers, Bender, and Johnson’s A Critical Analysis of the MND Criteria for Feigned Cognitive Impairment: Implications for Forensic Practice and Research

“…It is true that multiple studies have shown little relationship between cognitive SVTs and feigning of psychological symptoms on personality inventories (Boone et al 1995;Nelson et al 2007;Sumanti et al 2006). However, subsequent research has demonstrated that select MMPI-2-RF validity scales (Response Bias Scale: Gervais et al 2010;FBS-r: Youngjohn et al 2011) and Somatic/Cognitive scales (Youngjohn et al 2011) and the Personality Assessment Inventory Somatic Complaints scale (Whiteside et al 2010) are effective in identifying noncredible cognitive symptom report. Thus, criterion C5 should be modified to indicate that select psychological test validity and clinical scales can be used to support cognitive symptom over-report.…”