The use of scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to detect defensiveness in criminal and nonclinical samples was evaluated. Forty-five male inmates of a county jail and 38 male undergraduate psychology students were provided with incentives to complete the PAI under two conditions: standard instructions and experimental instructions to feign a specific, positive role. The sequence of instructions was counterbalanced in both samples for the purpose of examining ordering effects. A repeated measures multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was performed, yielding significant main effects of condition, group and order. Additionally, a step-wise discriminant function analysis significantly predicted group membership (i.e., subjects under honest and faking conditions) with a hit rate = 84.4%. Finally, a more effective cutting score for the Positive Impression scale was recommended.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM 5) presents an alternate model for personality disorders, blending categorical and dimensional assessment into a hybrid diagnostic procedure. Released concurrently, the Personality Inventory for DSM 5 (PID 5) measures the five domains and 25 facets that comprise the trait components of this hybrid model. However, the PID 5 currently lacks validity indicators to capture intentionally distorted responding. The current study investigated the susceptibility of the PID 5 to defensiveness and feigning among a large sample of undergraduate students. First, a detailed desirability analysis (N = 465) was conducted of the PID 5 items and response options. Responses from the study were used to create three desirability based validity scales. Next, in a between-subjects simulation design (N = 128), the effects of faking were explored at domain and facet levels. As a result, two symptom based validity scales were created. In a separate validation sample (N = 134), the five newly created validity scales were compared with the Paulhus Deception Scales for capturing both defensiveness and feigning. All five scales were evaluated for ruling out faking (i.e., identifying likely genuine respondents) and ruling in either defensiveness or feigning. In most areas, the symptom based scales were more successful than the desirability based scales, though all scales had difficulty identifying defensiveness. These initial results offer fertile ground for additional testing and development of PID 5 validity scales.