This study examined the effectiveness of the negative distortion measures from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29), by investigating data from a community and a forensic sample, across three different symptom presentations (i.e., feigned depression, posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD], and schizophrenia). The final sample consisted of 513 community-based individuals and 288 inmates (total N = 801); all were administered the PAI and the IOP-29 in an honest or feigning conditions. Statistical analyses compared the average scores of each measure by symptom presentation and data source (i.e., community vs. forensic sample) and evaluated diagnostic efficiency statistics. Results suggest that the PAI Negative Impression Management scale and the IOP-29 are the most effective measures across all symptom presentations, whereas the PAI Malingering Index and Rogers Discriminant Function generated less optimal results, especially when considering feigned PTSD. Practical implications are discussed.
BanovicI.FilippiF.ViglioneD. J.ScrimaF.ZennaroA.ZappalàA.GirominiL. (2021). Detecting coached feigning of schizophrenia with the Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29) and Its memory module (IOP-M): A simulation study on a French community sample. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/14999013.2021.1906798
2.
BoccacciniM. T.MurrieD. C.DuncanS. A. (2006). Screening for malingering in a criminal-forensic sample with the Personality Assessment Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 18, 415–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.18.4.415
3.
CurranP. J.WestS. G.FinchJ. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1(1), 16.
4.
de Francisco CarvalhoL.ReisA.ColombarolliM. S.PasianS. R.MiguelF. K.ErdodiL. A.ViglioneD. J.GirominiL. (2021). Discriminating feigned from credible PTSD symptoms: A validation of a Brazilian version of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29). Psychological Injury and Law, 14(1), 58–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09403-3
5.
DuellmanR. M.BowersT. G. (2004). Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory in forensic and correctional settings: Evidence for concurrent validity. International Journal of Forensic Psychology, 1, 42–57.
6.
EakinD. E.WeathersF. W.BensonT. B.AndersonC. F.FunderburkB. (2006). Detection of feigned posttraumatic stress disorder: A comparison of the MMPI-2 and PAI. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 28, 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-005-9006-5
7.
EdensJ. F.CruiseK. R.Buffington-VollumJ. K. (2001). Forensic and correctional applications of the Personality Assessment Inventory. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 519–543. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.457
8.
EdensJ. F.PoythressN. G.Watkins-ClayM. M. (2007). Detection of malingering in psychiatric unit and general population prison inmates: A comparison of the PAI, SIMS, and SIRS. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 33–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890709336832
9.
GainesM. V.GilesC. L.MorganR. D. (2012). The detection of feigning using multiple PAI Scale elevations: A new index. Assessment, 20(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112458146
10.
GirominiL.BarbosaF.CogaG.AzeredoA.ViglioneD. J.ZennaroA. (2020). Using the Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 27(6), 504–516. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1570929
11.
GirominiL.Carfora LettieriS.ZizolfiS.ZizolfiD.ViglioneD. J.BrusadelliE.ZennaroA. (2019). Beyond rare-symptoms endorsement: A clinical comparison simulation study using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29). Psychological Injury and Law, 12, 212–224. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09357-7
12.
GirominiL.PignoloC.YoungG.DroginE. Y.ZennaroA.ViglioneD. J. (2021). Comparability and validity of the online and in-person administrations of the Inventory of Problems-29. Psychological Injury and Law, 14(2), 77–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-021-09406-0
13.
GirominiL.ViglioneD. J.PignoloC.ZennaroA. (2018). A clinical comparison, simulation study testing the validity of SIMS and IOP-29 with an Italian sample. Psychological Injury and Law, 11, 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9314-1
14.
GirominiL.ViglioneD. J.PignoloC.ZennaroA. (2020). An Inventory of Problems-29 sensitivity study investigating feigning of four different symptom presentations via malingering experimental paradigm. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(4), 563–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1566914
15.
HawesS. W.BoccacciniM. T. (2009). Detection of overreporting of psychopathology on the Personality Assessment Inventory: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015036
16.
HeilbronnerR. L.SweetJ. J.MorganJ. E.LarrabeeG. J.MillisS. R., & Conference Participants. (2009). American academy of clinical neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903155063
17.
IlgunaiteG.GirominiL.BosiJ.ViglioneD. J.ZennaroA. (2020). A clinical comparison simulation study using the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) in Lithuania. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2020.1725518
18.
LangeR. T.SullivanK. A.ScottC. (2010). Comparison of MMPI-2 and PAI validity indicators to detect feigned depression and PTSD symptom reporting. Psychiatry Research, 176(2–3), 229–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2009.03.004
19.
LarrabeeG. J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040701494987
20.
MeehlP. E.RosenA. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, patterns, or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52(3), 194–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0048070
21.
MertenT.MerckelbachH. (2020). Factitious disorder and malingering. In GeddesJ. R.AndreasenN. C.GoodwinG. M. (Eds.), The new Oxford textbook of psychiatry (3rd ed., pp. 1342–1349). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1136/practneurol-2018-001950
22.
MoreyL. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
23.
MoreyL. C. (1996). An interpretive guide to the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Psychological Assessment Resources.
24.
MoreyL. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) professional manual (2nd ed.). Psychological Assessment Resources.
25.
MoreyL. C.QuigleyB. D. (2002). The use of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in assessing offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 46(3), 333–349. https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X02463007
26.
MoreyL. C.WarnerM. B.HopwoodC. J. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory: Issues in legal and forensic settings. In GoldsteinA. M. (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and forensic roles (pp. 97–126). John Wiley & Sons.
27.
PierreJ. M.ShnayderI.WirshingD. A.WirshingW. C. (2004). Intranasal quetiapine abuse. American Journal of Psychiatry, 161(9), 1718–1718.
28.
PignoloC.Di NuovoS.FulcheriM.LisA.MazzeschiC.ZennaroA. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1226–1236. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000560
29.
RaiJ. K.AnK. Y.CharlesJ.AliS.ErdodiL. A. (2019). Introducing a forced choice recognition trial to the Rey Complex Figure Test. Psychology & Neuroscience, 12(4), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1037/pne0000175
RogersR. (2008). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In RogersR. (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 14–35). Guilford Press.
32.
RogersR.GillardN. D. (2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In RosenfeldB.PenrodS. D. (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174–188). John Wiley & Sons.
33.
RogersR.SewellK. W.MartinM. A.VitaccoM. J. (2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10, 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103010002007.
34.
RogersR.SewellK. W.MoreyL. C.UstadK. L. (1996). Detection of feigned mental disorders on the Personality Assessment Inventory: A discriminant analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_15
35.
RomaP.GirominiL.BurlaF.FerracutiS.ViglioneD. J.MazzaC. (2020). Ecological validity of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29): An Italian study of court-ordered, psychological injury evaluations using the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) as criterion variable. Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 57–65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09368-4
36.
RussellD.MoreyL. C. (2019). Use of validity indicators on the Personality Assessment Inventory to detect feigning of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. Psychological Injury and Law, 12, 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09349-7
ShermanE. M. S.SlickD. J.IversonG. L. (2020). Multidimensional malingering criteria for neuropsychological assessment: A 20-year update of the malingered neuropsychological dysfunction criteria. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 35(6), 735–764. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaa019
39.
SmithG. P.BurgerG. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Journal of the American Academy on Psychiatry and Law, 25, 180–183.
40.
StreinerD. L. (2003). Diagnosing tests: Using and misusing diagnostic and screening tests. Journal of Personality Assessment, 81(3), 209–219. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8103_03
41.
ThomasK. M.HopwoodC. J.OrlandoM. J.WeathersF. W.McDevitt-MurphyM. E. (2012). Detecting feigned PTSD using the personality assessment inventory. Psychological Injury and Law, 5(3–4), 192–201. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-011-9111-6
42.
ViglioneD. J.GirominiL. (2020). Inventory of Problems–29: Professional manual. IOP-Test.
43.
ViglioneD. J.GirominiL.LandisP. (2017). The development of the Inventory of Problems-29: A brief self-administered measure for discriminating Bona Fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 534–544. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1233882
44.
ViglioneD. J.WrightD. M.DizonN. T.MoynihanJ. E.DuPuisS.PizitzT. D. (2001). Evading detection on the MMPI-2: Does caution produce more realistic patterns of responding?Assessment, 8(3), 237–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110100800301
45.
WallsB. D.WallaceE. R.BrothersS. L.BerryD. T. R. (2017). Utility of the Conners’ Adult ADHD Rating Scale validity scales in identifying simulated attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and random responding. Psychological Assessment, 29(12), 1437–1446. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000530
46.
WidowsM. R.SmithG. P. (2005). SIMS-Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
47.
WintersC. L.GirominiL.CrawfordT. J.AlesF.ViglioneD. J.WarmelinkL. (2020). An Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP–29) study investigating feigned schizophrenia and random responding in a British community sample. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 28(2), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2020.1767720
48.
YoungG. (2015). Malingering in forensic disability-related assessments: Prevalence 15±15%. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9232-4
49.
YoungG. (2017). PTSD in court. Part III. Malingering, assessment/ testing, and the law. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 52, 81–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.03.001
50.
YoungG. (2019). The cry for help in psychological injury and law: Concepts and review. Psychological Injury and Law, 12(3–4), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09360-y
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
