M.Phil. (Industrial Psychology) / The equivalent cross-cultural assessment of personality has long been a debatable subject in psychological research. Personologists remain divided as to the universality of personality traits, and as such, their cross-cultural applicability. This argument remains valid within the South African multicultural and multilingual context. In addition to the applicability of various imported personality measures, South Africa’s past misuse of psychological assessments for unfair discriminatory purposes has created many negative perceptions of their utility. This was further corroborated with the promulgation of the Employment Equity Act 55 of 1998 that stipulates that all psychological assessments used in South Africa need to meet the criteria of: a) being scientifically shown to be valid and reliable; b) can be applied fairly to all employees; and c) not biased against any employee or group (Government Gazette, 1998). Currently no validated indigenous model and measure of personality exists in South Africa. Psychological assessments are mainly imported from the United States of America (US) and United Kingdom (UK) and normed to the South African population. Foxcroft, Roodt and Abrahams (2005) acknowledge that many of these assessments, in addition to many locally developed measures, have not been tested for bias nor have they been cross-culturally validated. Furthermore, the theories, models and taxonomies on which these measures are based were developed within a Western context and as such, have not incorporated the unique intricacies of the South African context and its array of cultures and languages. Therefore, the accurate and appropriate measure of personality within South Africa has been impeded.

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.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 71-78). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Toledo, 2007. / Typescript. "Submitted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for The Master of Arts Degree in Psychology." "A thesis entitled"--at head of title. Bibliography: leaves 57-82.

Thesis(M.S.)--Auburn University, 2008. / Abstract. Includes bibliographic references (p.37-43).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2000. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 71-78). Also available on the Internet.

No description available.

No description available.

Substance use (SU) evaluations represents a fundamental component of forensic assessments. Accurate assessment of SU under the forensic context is particularly challenging because most measures can be easily foiled with items of high face validity. The current study was aimed at developing a dedicated scale for measuring SU minimization within the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). With a mixed between- and within-subject simulation design, 65 participants with identified SU histories were recruited from Prolific and randomly assigned into two research conditions: socially desirable responses (SDR) and simulated adjustment of substance use (SAS). The inclusion of the SDR group aimed at removing the effect of general impression management from the resulting scale, thus increase accuracy in the detection of SU minimization. The final Substance Use Minimization (SUM) scale was composed of 10 PAI items assessing substance use, suicidality, and borderline personality traits. The SUM evidenced excellent scale homogeneity and convergent validity. As evidence of discriminant validity, it was distinguished from the PAI PIM that assesses general impression management. Two moderately effective cut scores for the SUM were established for both screening as well as clinical determinations. As a methodological strength, the SUM scale was partially cross-validated with an archival sample. Results suggested that SUM functioned best as a screener with only 4% false negative rate. Limitations in its generalizability included the small sample size and missing data. The interpretation of SUM scale was best conceptualized as an integrated approach that combines clinical and investigative records, collateral data, and other sources of relevant data.

New Spanish versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were assessed with the Spanish translation of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule (DIS) as the gold standard. Findings from categorical and dimensional analyses suggest that, although the degree of diagnostic concordance of both measures with the DIS was found to be moderately high, the MMPI-2 clinical scales yielded greater specificity but lower sensitivity than the PAI scales on two of four diagnostic categories (i.e., Major Depression, and Schizophrenia). Both measures failed to correctly diagnose Anxiety Disorders, while the MMPI-2 also showed poor diagnostic accuracy with Alcohol Dependence.