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

Richard Rogers; Kenneth W. Sewell; Keith R. Cruise; Eugene W. Wang; Karen L. Ustad

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, Eugene W. Wang, Karen L. Ustad

Comm Family and Addiction Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

57 Scopus citations

Abstract

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 cross-validated 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 ≥ 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 (≥ 110T) and Malingering Index (≥ 5).

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	399-405
Number of pages	7
Journal	Assessment
Volume	5
Issue number	4
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1177/107319119800500409
State	Published - Dec 1998

Keywords

Feigning
Forensic assessment
Malingering
PAI
Response styles

Access to Document

10.1177/107319119800500409

Cite this

@article{580302e2cec949eb8751b4bd9b83f43c,

title = "The PAI and Feigning: A Cautionary Note on Its Use in Forensic-Correctional Settings",

abstract = "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 cross-validated 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 ≥ 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 (≥ 110T) and Malingering Index (≥ 5).",

keywords = "Feigning, Forensic assessment, Malingering, PAI, Response styles",

author = "Richard Rogers and Sewell, {Kenneth W.} and Cruise, {Keith R.} and Wang, {Eugene W.} and Ustad, {Karen L.}",

year = "1998",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1177/107319119800500409",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

pages = "399--405",

journal = "Assessment",

issn = "1073-1911",

number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The PAI and Feigning

T2 - A Cautionary Note on Its Use in Forensic-Correctional Settings

AU - Rogers, Richard

AU - Sewell, Kenneth W.

AU - Cruise, Keith R.

AU - Wang, Eugene W.

AU - Ustad, Karen L.

PY - 1998/12

Y1 - 1998/12

N2 - 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 cross-validated 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 ≥ 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 (≥ 110T) and Malingering Index (≥ 5).

AB - 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 cross-validated 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 ≥ 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 (≥ 110T) and Malingering Index (≥ 5).

KW - Feigning

KW - Forensic assessment

KW - Malingering

KW - PAI

KW - Response styles

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0032251235&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/107319119800500409

DO - 10.1177/107319119800500409

M3 - Article

C2 - 9835663

AN - SCOPUS:0032251235

SN - 1073-1911

VL - 5

SP - 399

EP - 405

JO - Assessment

JF - Assessment

IS - 4

ER -

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

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this