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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

57 Scopus citations


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 languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)399-405
Number of pages7
Issue number4
StatePublished - Dec 1998


  • Feigning
  • Forensic assessment
  • Malingering
  • PAI
  • Response styles


Dive into the research topics of 'The PAI and Feigning: A Cautionary Note on Its Use in Forensic-Correctional Settings'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this