Validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scale of scales in a mixed clinical sample

Boress, K; Gaasedelen, Owen J.; Croghan, Anna; Johnson, Marcie King; Caraher, Kristen; Basso, Michael R.; Whiteside, Douglas M.

doi:10.1080/13854046.2021.1900400

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current sample, a raw score of 17 on the CBS proved to be the most efficient cut score for identifying feigned head injury, with sensitivity = .65 at the 50% base rate, sensitivity = .52 at the 24% base rate, and specificity = .76 at both base rates. As in Boress et al (2022b), the scale-level indicators CBS_1 and CBS_3 showed stronger discrimination of the patient versus feigning groups, with AUC ranging from .83 to .87 for the two scores across both base rates. At the recommended cut scores, CBS_3 showed stronger sensitivity at both base rates than CBS_1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 54%

“…Tylicki et al (2021) examined PAI data from 588 civil disability claimants and found that the standard indicators (NIM, MAL, RDF), NDS, and CBS were all significant predictors of noncredible neurocognitive dysfunction as determined by PVT performance, with CBS showing the largest effect size. Subsequently, Boress et al (2022b) introduced three additional indicators of PVT failure, providing formulas in their article for two of them. CBS Scale of Scales 1 (CBS_1) is the mean of six PAI full-scale T-scores, and CBS Scale of Scales 3 (CBS_3) is the mean of seven PAI full-scale and subscale T -scores.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Diagnostic efficiency of the PAI negative distortion indicators for detecting feigned head injury.

Kurtz¹,

Ghosh²,

Martin³

2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 2007) has several procedures for detecting negative response distortion, including standard indicators Negative Impression Management (NIM), Malingering Index (MAL), and the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF). Recently, additional indicators have been introduced: the Negative Distortion Scale (NDS; Mogge et al., 2010), Hong Malingering Index (HMI; Hong & Kim, 2001), the Multiscale Feigning Index (Gaines et al., 2013), and the Cognitive Bias Scale (Gaasedelen et al., 2019). The present study examines the diagnostic efficiency of these standard and supplemental indicators to detect feigned head injury. Method: Undergraduate students (n = 113) responded to the PAI in a role-play scenario with incentives to feign serious head injury following an automobile accident, and their PAI results were compared to patients with actual history of head injury (n = 86). Results: Significant differences between groups were observed for all three standard indicators and for all four supplemental indicators. Receiver operating curves analyses evaluated the diagnostic efficiency of recommended and sample-optimal cut scores, and logistic regression models evaluated the incremental validity of the supplemental indicators. Conclusions: The study found support for two standard indicators (NIM and RDF) and two supplemental indicators (NDS and HMI) in the detection of feigned head injury.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic efficiency of the PAI negative distortion indicators for detecting feigned head injury.

Kurtz¹,

Ghosh²,

Martin³

2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Multiscale Feigning Index (MFI; Gaines et al, 2013) was created by averaging T scores from seven PAI clinical scales and was designed to identify exaggerating symptoms specifically. Finally are the cognitive scales designed to discriminate validity status on performance validity tests: the CBS (Gaasedelen et al, 2019) includes PAI items and was the first to be created, whereas the three Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS; Boress et al, 2022) includes variations of combined PAI scales and subscales.…”

Section: Personality Assessment Inventory (Pai)mentioning

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

The Influence of Service Era: Comparing Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Scale Scores Within a Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Treatment Clinic (PCT)

Ingram

Morris

Golden

et al. 2021

J Clin Psychol Med Settings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scale of scales in a mixed clinical sample

Cited by 7 publications

References 54 publications

Diagnostic efficiency of the PAI negative distortion indicators for detecting feigned head injury.

Diagnostic efficiency of the PAI negative distortion indicators for detecting feigned head injury.

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

The Influence of Service Era: Comparing Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Scale Scores Within a Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Treatment Clinic (PCT)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About