Search

Psychological assessments can be essentially invalidated by examinees' intentional response styles, such as feigning (i.e., fabrication or marked overreporting of symptoms/impairment) and defensiveness (i.e., denial or minimization of symptoms/impairment). As a psychometric strength, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) has established validity indicators for identifying both response styles. With the United States' increasing ethnic and cultural diversity, predominantly Spanish-speaking individuals are now estimated in the range of 15 million persons. Unfortunately, very little research has been conducted on the Spanish-translated PAI regarding its effectiveness in clinical populations. Using a between-subjects design, a sample of mostly Spanish-speaking outpatients was randomly assigned to genuine, feigning, or defensive conditions. For feigning, PAI malingering indicators using rare symptoms strategies (i.e., Negative Impression [NIM] and Negative Distortion [NDS] scales) demonstrated moderate to large effect sizes. For defensiveness, the Defensive (DEF) index proved the most effective with a very large effect size (M = 1.68). Different cut scores were examined to increase the clinical utility of the Spanish PAI for determining response styles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic practitioners are regularly called on to conduct highly consequential evaluations of risk for recidivism and violence. Accordingly, numerous specialized risk assessment measures have been developed to evaluate an array of relevant variables. As one conceptual approach, the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) assesses criminal thinking as a dynamic criminogenic need with predictive validity beyond historical factors. Because of its high reading level, however, a simplified version (PICTS-SV) was recently developed. The current investigation sought to (a) examine the two versions' direct concurrence and (b) test the PICTS-SV's vulnerability to risk minimization (RM). Two separate studies recruited 150 participants from a court-mandated substance use treatment facility. Study 1 established the PICTS-SV's concurrent validity with the PICTS, especially at the composite level. Study 2 observed its robust resistance to RM distortion, although some validity scale revisions appear warranted. Overall, these results support the PICTS-SV's utility for informing effective interventions and accurate risk determinations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Accurate interpretations of psychological assessments rely heavily on forthright reporting. However, researchers and practitioners recognize that examinees can easily invalidate their test results by underreporting symptoms or overstating positive attributes. Rogers (2008) delineated two distinct but related forms of positive impression management (PIM): defensiveness (denying symptoms and psychological impairment) and social desirability (putting forth an exaggeratedly positive image). Although these two have often been combined in past research, this study sought to investigate each separately via a mixed within- and between-subjects simulation design. Simulation scenarios included a special rehabilitation program for the defensiveness (DF) condition and a competitive job for social desirability (SD). The study used the Personality Inventory for DSM–5 (PID–5; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) and recruited 106 inpatients from a psychiatric hospital. As expected, inpatients with prominent personality traits substantially suppressed them under both PIM conditions. Having shown the susceptibility of the PID–5 to intentional distortion, two empirically derived and conceptually based validity scales were next developed to address this important concern. Pending further validation, they might contribute to screening PIM presentations, thus promoting the PID–5's clinical utility. Continued research is needed across multiscale inventories for differentiating PIM presentations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Forensic assessments must always consider whether examinees are putting forth genuine effort or seeking to feign legally relevant incapacities. Miranda abilities are no exception when a putatively invalid Miranda waiver might result in the full suppression of an outright confession. Using a within-subjects simulation design, jail detainees were administered a representative Miranda warning and two Standardized Assessment of Miranda Abilities (SAMA) measures: Miranda Vocabulary Scale and Miranda Quiz. As expected, detainees have no difficulty in feigning severe deficits in their recall of the Miranda warning and portraying markedly impaired abilities on both SAMA measures. However, using floor-effect detection strategies, several feigning indicators proved effective at identifying likely feigned Miranda abilities. As an ancillary issue, the Inventory of Legal Knowledge was found to be very effective using both the traditional and revised scoring. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Recognized for nearly four decades, most juvenile suspects waive their Miranda rights and almost immediately provide self-incriminating evidence. Miranda-specific measures were eventually developed to understand their capacities and limitations. With extensive revisions, the Miranda Rights Comprehension Instruments (MRCI) were normed and validated. Beyond reliability, the current study addresses the convergent and discriminant validity of the MRCI. In response to Frumkin and Sellbom’s criticism of the MRCI’s norms, the current research provides representative data on 245 legally involved juveniles with percentiles to facilitate the interpretation of MRCI data. The current investigation is also the first MRCI study to link directly Miranda comprehension (i.e., the knowing prong) to Miranda reasoning (i.e., the intelligent prong) of waiver decisions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]