The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a commonly used instrument in neuropsychological assessment; however, it lacks a symptom validity test (SVT) that is sensitive to cognitive response bias (also referred to as non-credible responding), as defined by performance on cognitive performance validity tests (PVT). Therefore the purpose of the present study was to derive from the PAI item pool a new SVT, named the Cognitive Response Bias Scale (CRBS), that is sensitive to non-credible responding, and to provide initial validation evidence supporting the use of the CRBS in a clinical setting. The current study utilized an existing neuropsychological outpatient clinical database consisting of 306 consecutive participants who completed the PAI and PVTs and met inclusion criteria. The CRBS was empirically derived from this database utilizing primarily an Item Response Theory (IRT) framework. Out of 40 items initially examined, 10 items were ultimately retained based on their empirical properties to form the CRBS. An examination of the internal structure of the CRBS indicated that 8 items on the CRBS demonstrated good fit to the graded response IRT model. Overall scale reliability was good (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.77) and commensurate with other SVTs. Examination of item content revealed the CRBS consisted of items related to somatic complaints, psychological distress, and denial of fault. Items endorsed by participants exhibiting lower levels of non-credible responding consisted of vague and non-specific complaints, while participants with high levels of non-credible responding endorsed items indicating ongoing active pain and distress. The CRBS displayed expected relationships with other measures, including high positive correlations with negative impression management (r = 0.73), depression (r = 0.78), anxiety (r = 0.78), and schizophrenia (r = 0.71). Moderate negative correlations were observed with positive impression management (r = -0.31), and treatment rejection (r = -0.42). Two hierarchical logistic regression models showed the CRBS has significant predictive power above and beyond existing PAI SVTs and clinical scales in accurately predicting PVT failure. The overall classification accuracy of the CRBS in detecting failure on multiple PVTs was comparable to other SVTs (area under the curve = 0.72), and it displayed moderate sensitivity (i.e., 0.31) when specificity was high (i.e., 0.96). These operating characteristics suggest that the CRBS is effective at ruling in the possibility of non-credible responding, but not for ruling it out. The conservative recommended cut score was robust to effects of differential prediction due to gender and education. Given the extremely small sample subsets of forensic-only and non-Caucasian participants, future validation is required to establish reliable cut-offs when inferences based on comparisons to similar populations are desired. Results of the current study indicate the CRBS has comparable psychometric properties and clinical utility to analogous SVTs in similar personality inventories to the PAI. Furthermore, item content of the CRBS is consistent with and corroborates existing theory on non-credible responding and cognitive response bias. This study also demonstrated that a graded response IRT model can be useful in deriving and validating SVTs in the PAI, and that the graded response model provides unique and novel information into the nature of non-credible responding.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2001. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 122-134). Also available on the Internet.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2001. / Typescript. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 122-134). Also available on the Internet.

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a widely used and available self-report measure designed to assess clinical syndromes and has the potential to assist in the process of ADHD assessment. Since the PAI's inception, several researchers have attempted to create other supplemental indicators, some so effective and useful that they were added to the second edition of the Personality Assessment Inventory Professional Manual. Previous researchers have offered important insights into the possibility of the creation of an ADHD item-level index for the PAI that would effectively decrease false positive rates and increase accurate detection of ADHD in the adult population. Previous researchers were not successful in creating an item-level subscale that reliably detected adult ADHD. Four experts in ADHD assessment rated PAI items that they believed could discriminate adults with ADHD from adults without ADHD. After performing a PCA on the top 16 items chosen by the experts, 12 items sufficiently loaded onto one factor that has clear face validity by conceptually matching the DSM-5 description of inattention and impulsivity commonly seen in adults with ADHD as well as the "internalized restlessness" Hallowell and Ratey describe for adult ADHD. The PAI-ADHD was found to have good internal consistency, a = .84. The PAI-ADHD has good convergent validity with the Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale – Self-Report – Long Version (CAARS-Self) and Wender Utah Rating Scale (WURS). The PAI-ADHD also has good concurrent validity. Two cut scores are suggested, 13 and 22, to maximize sensitivity (.88) and specificity (.89), create three screening groups: ruled-out, at-risk, and probable ADHD, and increase utility for clinicians.

No description available.

In the course of a forensic evaluation, psychologists often rely on personality inventories to provide information that is useful in making recommendations regarding case disposition (parole, treatment, etc.). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the ability of four scales from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to distinguish between youthful criminal offenders and non-offenders. The scales focused on in this study were Paranoia (PAR), Traumatic Stress (ARD-T), Alcohol Problems (ALC) and Drug Problems (DRG). Twenty-five youthful offenders incarcerated in the California Youth Authority comprised the offender group and 25 students at a California Community College comprised the non-offender group. The subjects were matched for age (male) and gender. The offender group was administered the Personality Assessment Inventory on an individual basis while incarcerated at the California Youth Authority. Permission was obtained to use selected protocols as archival data for this investigation. The non-offender group was administered the Personality Assessment Inventory in a group setting while attending a mathematics class at a community college. Independent samples t-tests demonstrated that the Drug Problems scale was the only one of the four scales which indicated a significant difference between the two groups (p < 0.05). Discriminant analysis yielded a significant discriminant function accounting for 22.5% of the variability in the scores. The primary contributors to that function were Drug Problems and Alcohol Problems. The finding that the Alcohol Problems and Drug Problems scales did not both significantly distinguish the offender and non-offender group is discussed in light of other personality inventories' use of a single scale to evaluate alcohol and other drugs. Further implications for theory and practice and suggestions for further research are discussed.

The accurate evaluation of substance use is a critical component of forensic assessment due to the well-established link between drug use sentencing issues and risk of recidivism. Due to limited resources and chronic time constraints, practitioners typically rely only on self-report measures to assess substance use (SU) patterns. As these measures directly inquire about SU patterns, they remain vulnerable to response distortion. This can lead to ineffective treatment recommendations made to the Court and misuse of resources. The present study investigated the utility of the PAI and SASSI-3 in identifying SU patterns in offenders mandated to a long-term treatment facility. As a second major component, offenders were examined post-release to identify predictors for poor treatment outcomes. Results found the direct questioning approach best identified SU patterns in the present sample. In addition, while statistically significant differences in treatment outcomes were not observed between offenders who endorsed a more severe course of their SU problem versus those who endorsed a much less problematic pattern of use, they were trending in the expected direction. Specifically, offenders who used "hard" drugs regularly (e.g., cocaine, heroin), had more negative consequences directly related to their use (e.g., more arrests, prior treatment), and had a more complex clinical presentation (e.g., endorsing more personality pathology) did have worse outcomes by follow up. Methodological and statistical limitations are discussed in depth, and future directions to improve on this study and clarify these relationships are emphasized.

This study investigated the utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) for diagnosing and discriminating between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) with university counseling center clients. Participants were 1541 male and female students who received services at a student counseling center at a large university. Participants were classified as MDD, GAD, or Other Diagnosis (OD) based on the diagnosis determined by the treating clinician, and PAI profiles were compared between the three groups. The PAI Structural Summary-Revised contains Diagnostic Consider Clusters (DCC) that were designed to identify PAI scales/subscales that are typically elevated or suppressed when a particular disorder is present. The DCC’s for MDD and GAD were examined and the results demonstrated that the criteria for the DCC for MDD were met by 2.2% of the MDD group, and the criteria for the DCC for GAD were met by 3.8% of the GAD group. A discussion of these findings is offered, and the appropriateness of using the DCC’s for the purpose of diagnosis with any population is questioned. Additionally, DCC’s for MDD and GAD for use with university counseling center clients are proposed. Finally, discriminant analysis (DA) was employed to develop various discriminant functions that can be used to classify individual PAI profile data into specific diagnostic groups. In particular, one discriminant function was created that is capable of examining any PAI profile, and classifying it as either MDD or OD. A second discriminant function was produced that can analyze any PAI profile and categorize it as either GAD or OD. The final discriminant function was developed to evaluate a PAI profile that represents either MDD or GAD and determine which diagnosis is appropriate. Each discriminant function was shown to accurately predict the associated diagnoses. A discussion of the various predictor variables is offered. Taken together, these results support the use of the PAI for diagnosing and discriminating between MDD and GAD with university counseling center clients.