TY - JOUR
T1 - Deceptiveness on the PAI
T2 - A Study of naïve faking with psychiatric inpatients
AU - Baity, Matthew R.
AU - Siefert, Caleb J.
AU - Chambers, Anthony
AU - Blais, Mark A.
PY - 2007/2
Y1 - 2007/2
N2 - In this study, we sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) Validity scales (Negative Impression Management [NIM] and Positive Impression Management [PIM]) and indexes (Malingering index, Defensiveness index [DEF]; Morey, 1993, 1996; Cashel Discriminant Function; Cashel, Rogers, Sewell, & Martin-Cannici, 1995; and Rogers Discriminant Function [RDF]; Rogers, Sewell, Morey, & Ustad, 1996) to identify differences in profiles completed by psychiatric inpatients under standardized instructions (Time 1) and after random assignment (Time 2) to a fake good (n = 21), fake bad (n = 20), or retest (n = 21) scenario. Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction effect. Whereas the retest group did not show any significant changes on the PAI variables from Time 1 to Time 2, both faking groups showed changes in expected directions. Discriminant function analyses revealed that NIM, RDF, and lower scores on DEF best differentiated between the faking bad and retest groups. PIM was the only nonredundant significant score discriminating the faking good and retest groups. Cutoffs for these scales and indexes established in prior research were supported using diagnostic efficiency statistics. Results suggest that NIM and RDF in faking bad scenarios and PIM in faking good scenarios are most sensitive to unsophisticated attempts to dissimulate by inpatient psychiatric patients.
AB - In this study, we sought to explore the diagnostic accuracy of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) Validity scales (Negative Impression Management [NIM] and Positive Impression Management [PIM]) and indexes (Malingering index, Defensiveness index [DEF]; Morey, 1993, 1996; Cashel Discriminant Function; Cashel, Rogers, Sewell, & Martin-Cannici, 1995; and Rogers Discriminant Function [RDF]; Rogers, Sewell, Morey, & Ustad, 1996) to identify differences in profiles completed by psychiatric inpatients under standardized instructions (Time 1) and after random assignment (Time 2) to a fake good (n = 21), fake bad (n = 20), or retest (n = 21) scenario. Repeated measures analysis of variance revealed a significant interaction effect. Whereas the retest group did not show any significant changes on the PAI variables from Time 1 to Time 2, both faking groups showed changes in expected directions. Discriminant function analyses revealed that NIM, RDF, and lower scores on DEF best differentiated between the faking bad and retest groups. PIM was the only nonredundant significant score discriminating the faking good and retest groups. Cutoffs for these scales and indexes established in prior research were supported using diagnostic efficiency statistics. Results suggest that NIM and RDF in faking bad scenarios and PIM in faking good scenarios are most sensitive to unsophisticated attempts to dissimulate by inpatient psychiatric patients.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33847169091&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33847169091&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1207/s15327752jpa8801_03
DO - 10.1207/s15327752jpa8801_03
M3 - Article
C2 - 17266410
AN - SCOPUS:33847169091
SN - 0022-3891
VL - 88
SP - 16
EP - 24
JO - Journal of Personality Assessment
JF - Journal of Personality Assessment
IS - 1
ER -