This study evaluated the Personality Assessment Inventory\'s (PAI) symptom validity-based over-reporting scales with concurrently administered performance validity testing in a sample of active-duty military personnel seen within a neuropsychology clinic. We utilize two measures of performance validity to identify problematic performance validity (pass all/fail any) in 468 participants. Scale means, sensitivity, specificity, predictive value, and risk ratios were contrasted across symptom validity-based over-reporting scales. Results indicate that the Negative Impression Management (NIM), Malingering Index (MAL), and Multiscale Feigning Index (MFI) scales are the best at classifying failed performance validity testing with medium to large effects (d = .61-.73). In general, these scales demonstrated high specificity and low sensitivity. Roger\'s Discriminant Function (RDF) had negligible group differences and poor classification. The Feigned Adult ADHD index (FAA) performed inconsistently. This study provides support for the use of several PAI over-reporting scales at detecting probable patterns of performance-based invalid responses within a military sample. Military clinicians using NIM, MAL, or MFI are confident that those who elevate these scales at recommended cut scores are likely to fail concurrent performance validity testing. Use of the Feigned Adult FAA and RDF scales is discouraged due to their poor or mixed performance.

As Forensic Psychology continues to expand as an independent field, professionals regularly resort to psychological assessment tools to assess people involved within the justice system. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a 344-item, self-report inventory that aims to provide meaningful information for diagnosis and clinical decision-making, specifically relating to psychopathology, personality, and psychosocial environment. Its applicability in forensic settings has been increasingly recognized on account of its benefits in comparison to other self-report inventories (e.g., MMPI-2, MCMI-III), since it includes scales that are relevant to forensic settings (e.g., violence risk levels, psychopathy, substance abuse), and the existence of profile distortion indicators is useful when dealing with highly defensive and/or malingering populations. The goal of this paper is to conduct a thorough review of the PAI\'s utility in forensic settings, by focusing on the relevant forensic constructs assessed by the PAI (e.g., personality disorders, psychosis, substance abuse, aggression, recidivism risk, and response distortion), as well as its application to offender and inmate populations, intimate partner violence contexts, family law cases, and forensic professionals. Overall, the PAI continues to gather international recognition and its relevance and usefulness in forensic settings is generally accepted and acknowledged.

Objective: Recent studies on Long COVID found that patients report prominent emotional distress and significant correlations between distress and cognitive performance have been identified, raising the question of how to manage or treat these issues. To understand psychological functioning in Long COVID further, this study examined personality responses on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) to compare psychological functioning in a Long COVID group with a post-concussion syndrome (PCS) group, a syndrome with a significant psychological component. Participants and methods: Participants included 201 consecutive Long COVID outpatients (Mean age = 48.87 years, mean education = 14.82, 71.6% Female, 82.6% White) and a comparison group of 102 consecutively referred PCS outpatients (Mean age = 46.08, mean education = 14.17, 63.7% Female, 88.2% White). Effect sizes and t-tests were calculated using the PAI validity, clinical, interpersonal, and treatment consideration scales as well as clinical subscales. Results: The results replicated earlier findings on the PAI in Long COVID by demonstrating that both Long COVID and PCS groups had the highest mean elevations on SOM and DEP scales but no statistically significant between group differences in mean scale elevations. Results support similarities in psychological functioning between Long COVID and PCS patients emphasizing the importance of evaluating psychological functioning in neuropsychological evaluations for these populations. Further, results suggest that psychological treatment strategies for PCS patients may be helpful for Long COVID patients, but more research is needed.

The extent to which performance validity (PVT) and symptom validity (SVT) tests measure separate constructs is unclear. Prior research using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2 & RF) suggested that PVTs and SVTs are separate but related constructs. However, the relationship between Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) SVTs and PVTs has not been explored. This study aimed to replicate previous MMPI research using the PAI, exploring the relationship between PVTs and overreporting SVTs across three subsamples, neurodevelopmental (attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)/learning disorder), psychiatric, and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI).
Participants included 561 consecutive referrals who completed the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) and the PAI. Three subgroups were created based on referral question. The relationship between PAI SVTs and the PVT was evaluated through multiple regression analysis.
The results demonstrated the relationship between PAI symptom overreporting SVTs, including Negative Impression Management (NIM), Malingering Index (MAL), and Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), and PVTs varied by referral subgroup. Specifically, overreporting on CBS but not NIM and MAL significantly predicted poorer PVT performance in the full sample and the mTBI sample. In contrast, none of the overreporting SVTs significantly predicted PVT performance in the ADHD/learning disorder sample but conversely, all SVTs predicted PVT performance in the psychiatric sample.
The results partially replicated prior research comparing SVTs and PVTs and suggested that constructs measured by SVTs and PVTs vary depending upon population. The results support the necessity of both PVTs and SVTs in clinical neuropsychological practice.

Following the development of the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS), three other cognitive over-reporting indicators were created. This study cross-validates these new Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) measurements in a military sample and contrasts their performance to the CBS. We analyzed data from 288 active-duty soldiers who underwent neuropsychological evaluation. Groups were established based on performance validity testing (PVT) failure. Medium effects (d = .71 to .74) were observed between those passing and failing PVTs. The CB-SOS scales have high specificity (≥.90) but low sensitivity across the suggested cut scores. While all CB-SOS were able to achieve .90, lower scores were typically needed. CBS demonstrated incremental validity beyond CB-SOS-1 and CB-SOS-3; only CB-SOS-2 was incremental beyond CBS. In a military sample, the CB-SOS scales have more limited sensitivity than in its original validation, indicating an area of limited utility despite easier calculation. The CBS performs comparably, if not better, than CB-SOS scales. CB-SOS-2\'s differences in performance in this study and its initial validation suggest that its psychometric properties may be sample dependent. Given their ease of calculation and relatively high specificity, our study supports the interpretation of elevated CB-SOS scores indicating those who are likely to fail concurrent PVTs.

We examined discrepancies in 81 patient-therapist dyads\' alliance ratings early in treatment (3rd or 4th session) in relation to Personality Assessment Inventory clinical scales, subscales and global psychopathology. Results indicated that PAI global psychopathology (mean clinical elevation) and the scales of Aggression [AGG], Somatization [SOM], and Anxiety-Related Disorders [ARD] were significantly, negatively associated with an absolute difference of patient and therapist alliance ratings at Session 3. Higher initial scores on these clinical scales at treatment onset are associated with less difference (i.e., more convergence) in patient/ therapist ratings of alliance at Session 3. Correlations between PAI clinical subscales and absolute differences of patient and therapist alliance ratings at Session 3 also demonstrated statistically significant inverse relationships for several PAI subscales of Aggression- Attitude [AGG-A], Aggression-Physical [AGG-P], Somatic- Health Concerns [SOM-H], Anxiety-Related Disorders-Traumatic Stress [ARD-T], Anxiety-Related Disorders- Obsessive Compulsive [ARD-O], Borderline Features-Affective Instability [BOR-A], Borderline- Self-Harm [BOR-S], Anxiety-Physiological [ANX-P], Depression-Physiological [DEP-P] and Antisocial-Stimulus Seeking [ANT-S]. Again, higher scores on these subscales at treatment onset are associated with less difference (i.e., more convergence) in patient/therapist ratings. We also examined group differences between patients rating alliance higher (Group 1) and therapists rating alliance higher (Group 2) and found that Group 1 had significantly lower scores on Mania-Activity Level [MAN-A]. Clinical implications of results are discussed.

In this study, we explored the temporal stability of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), which has not been comprehensively reexamined since it was first published. Our three specific aims were to determine the utility of PAI indicators of basic protocol validity (inconsistent responses [ICN] and highly unusual/unlikely responses [INF]) in identifying suspect responding; calculate the stability coefficients for each PAI scale and subscale across 3-, 6-, and 9-week spans; and explore whether profile stability across four measurements could be prospectively predicted. We administered the PAI to a sample of undergraduates (N = 579) at four separate timepoints. ICN and INF effectively identified likely attriters and inconsistent responders. All PAI full scales and subscales evidenced good test-retest reliability, with some small exceptions. Finally, all PAI clinical scales were correlated with profile instability although many of these correlations were no longer significant when controlling for mean clinical elevation of the profile. We interpreted these results as evidence for the utility of PAI validity scales, the temporal reliability of the PAI, and the role of psychopathology in response variability over time. We also discussed some preliminary evidence that this variability can be prospectively predicted, suggesting that it in part reflects substantive changes rather than random error variance.

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder is a relatively common and often disabling disorder in adults. However, feigning ADHD symptomatology is both easy and potentially common. We explored the most effective strategies for A) identifying individuals who had been diagnosed with ADHD based on existing PAI symptom indicators, and B), discriminating between feigned and genuine ADHD symptoms using PAI negative distortion indicators. Our sample consisted of 463 college aged participants who had been diagnosed with ADHD (n = 60), were asked to feign ADHD (n = 71), and a control group (n = 333). Self-reported diagnosis and successful feigning were corroborated by the CAARS-S: E scale. We first compared two PAI-derived ADHD indicators to determine which best differentiated between our ADHD and Control groups. Next, we compared seven negative distortion indicators to determine which could best distinguish between real and feigned ADHD symptoms. Our results revealed that the PAI-ADHD scale was the most effective symptom indicator. Further, the Negative Distortion Scale (NDS) and the Item-FAA scale were the most effective for identifying feigners. When assessing ADHD based on the PAI, the PAI-ADHD scale appears promising as an indicator of symptomatology, while the NDS and Item-FAA appear useful to rule-out feigning.

This study validated Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Suicidal Ideation (SUI), Suicide Potential Index (SPI), and S_Chron scales against chronic and acute suicide risk factors and symptom validity measures.
Afghanistan/Iraq-era active-duty and Veteran participants completed a prospective study on neurocognition (N = 403) that included the PAI. The Beck Depression Inventory-II (specifically item 9) administered at two time points assessed acute and chronic suicide risk; the Beck Scale for Suicide Ideation item 20 identified history of suicide attempts. Major depressive disorder (MDD), posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and traumatic brain injury (TBI) were evaluated using structured interviews and questionnaires.
All three PAI suicide scales were significantly related to independent indicators of suicidality, with the largest effect for SUI (AUC 0.837-0.849). All three suicide scales were significantly related to MDD (r = 0.36-0.51), PTSD (r = 0.27-0.60), and TBI (r = 0.11-0.30). The three scales were not related to suicide attempt history for those with invalid PAI protocols.
Although all three suicide scales do show significant relationships to other indicators of risk, SUI showed the highest association and greatest resistance to response bias.

Objective: The present study evaluated the function of four cognitive, symptom validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS) and the Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) 1, 2, and 3 in a sample of Veterans who volunteered for a study of neurocognitive functioning. Method: 371 Veterans (88.1% male, 66.1% White) completed a battery including the Miller Forensic Assessment of Symptoms Test (M-FAST), the Word Memory Test (WMT), and the PAI. Independent samples t-tests compared mean differences on cognitive bias scales between valid and invalid groups on the M-FAST and WMT. Area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and hit rate across various scale point-estimates were used to evaluate classification accuracy of the CBS and CB-SOS scales. Results: Group differences were significant with moderate effect sizes for all cognitive bias scales between the WMT-classified groups (d = .52-.55), and large effect sizes between the M-FAST-classified groups (d = 1.27-1.45). AUC effect sizes were moderate across the WMT-classified groups (.650-.676) and large across M-FAST-classified groups (.816-.854). When specificity was set to .90, sensitivity was higher for M-FAST and the CBS performed the best (sensitivity = .42). Conclusion: The CBS and CB-SOS scales seem to better detect symptom invalidity than performance invalidity in Veterans using cutoff scores similar to those found in prior studies with non-Veterans.