Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Morey, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Lanier, V. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Morey, L. C.
Right arrow Articles by Lanier, V. W.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Operating Characteristics of Six Response Distortion Indicators for the Personality Assessment Inventory

Leslie C. Morey

V. Whitson Lanier

Vanderbilt University

The characteristics of six different indicators of response distortion on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) were evaluated by having college students complete the PAI under positive impression management, malingering, and honest responding conditions. The six indicators were the PAI Positive Impression (PIM) and Negative Impression (NIM) scales, the Malingering and Defensiveness Indexes, and two discriminant functions, one developed by Cashel and the other by Rogers. Protocols of students asked to malinger were compared with those of actual clinical patients, while protocols of students asked to manage their impression in a positive direction were compared with those of students asked to respond honestly. Comparisons between groups were accomplished through the examination of effect sizes and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. All six indicators demonstrated the ability to distinguish between actual and feigned responding. The Rogers function was particularly effective in identifying malingering. The Cashel function was less effective than other measures in identifying positive impression management, although it appears to also have promise as an indicator of malingering.

Key Words: Personality Assessment Inventory • malingering • defensiveness • impression management • receiver operating characteristics

Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 3, 203-214 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/107319119800500301
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Int J Offender Ther Comp CriminolHome page
L. C. Morey and B. D. Quigley
The Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in Assessing Offenders
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, June 1, 2002; 46(3): 333 - 349.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
A. Osman, C. L. Bagge, P. M. Gutierrez, L. C. Konick, B. A. Kopper, and F. X. Barrios
The Suicidal Behaviors Questionnaire-Revised (SBQ-R):Validation with Clinical and Nonclinical Samples
Assessment, December 1, 2001; 8(4): 443 - 454.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
J. E. Kurtz and L. C. Morey
Use of Structured Self-Report Assessment to Diagnose Borderline Personality Disorder during Major Depressive Episodes
Assessment, September 1, 2001; 8(3): 291 - 300.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 AssessmentHome page
J. P. LePagea, N. L. Mogge, and W. R. Sharpe Jr.
Validity Rates of the MMPI-2 and PAI in a Rural Inpatient Psychiatric Facility
Assessment, March 1, 2001; 8(1): 67 - 74.
[Abstract] [PDF]