The PAI and feigning: A cautionary note on its use in forensic-correctional settings.
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).
Rogers
R
R
University of North Texas, Denton 76203-1280, USA.
Sewell
K W
KW
Cruise
K R
KR
Wang
E W
EW
Ustad
K L
KL
D000328:Adult; D008192:Deception; D016002:Discriminant Analysis; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008306:Malingering / Q000523:psychology*; D008403:Mass Screening; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000523:psychology*; D010555:Personality Inventory / Q000592:standards*; D011329:Prisoners / Q000523:psychology*; D015203:Reproducibility of Results; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity