Assessment

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
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
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
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ustad, K. L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Rogers, R.
Right arrow Articles by Ustad, K. L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Assessment, Vol. 5, No. 4, 399-405 (1998)
DOI: 10.1177/107319119800500409

The PAI and Feigning: A Cautionary Note on Its use in Forensic-Correctional Settings

Richard Rogers

Kenneth W. Sewell

Keith R. Cruise

University of North Texas

Eugene W. Wang

Montford Psychiatric Hospital

Karen L. Ustad

Miami, Florida

Indicators of feigned PAI profiles were derived from comparisons of simulators instructed to feign and genuine patient groups. Concerns are raised regarding whether these indicators are applicable to forensic and correctional populations and can be crossvalidated with a known-groups comparison. Compiling data on 57 malingerers and 58 genuine patients from two forensic and correctional sites, three primary indicators of feigning, Negative Impression (NIM) scale, Malingering Index, and the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF) were investigated. Results suggested that the RDF was not applicable to forensic referrals. However, NIM 2 77T appeared to be a useful screen for forensic samples. In addition, convergent evidence of feigning was found across designs (simulation and known-groups) and samples (non-forensic and forensic) for extreme elevations on NIM (> 1101) and Malingering Index (? 5).

Key Words: Malingering • feigning • forensic assessment • PAI • response styles


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


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]