Detecting Feigning in Adolescents on the Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent Form

Much of the research on identifying feigning in psychological assessment has focused on adults with less attention to adolescents. The purpose of the present study is to expand the limited literature on detecting feigning in adolescents using the Personality Assessment Inventory - Adolescent. The st...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of personality assessment 2020-11, Vol.102 (6), p.751-757
Main Authors: Malm, Steven P., Pierson, Eric E., Finch, W. Holmes, Spengler, Paul M., Johnson, James, Morey, Leslie C.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Adolescent
Adolescents
African Americans
Distortion
Female
Humans
Impression management
Male
Malingering
Malingering - diagnosis
Mental depression
Neuropsychological Tests - standards
Personality Assessment - standards
Personality Inventory - standards
Personality tests
Psychological assessment
Random Allocation
Reproducibility of Results
Secondary schools
Standardization
Teenagers
Young adults
Young men
Young women
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Much of the research on identifying feigning in psychological assessment has focused on adults with less attention to adolescents. The purpose of the present study is to expand the limited literature on detecting feigning in adolescents using the Personality Assessment Inventory - Adolescent. The study included 114 nonclinical adolescents (ages 15 to 18) recruited from high schools in the Midwest who were randomly assigned to experimental groups: honest nonclinical, uncoached feigning, and coached feigning. 50 randomly selected individuals with depression from the PAI-A clinical standardization sample were included as the honest clinical group. Sample demographics included a mean age of 16.64 years; 51.2% young men, 48.2% young women; 85.4% Caucasian, 6.7% African American, 5.5% Hispanic, and 2.4% Asian. 80% of feigning profiles reported clinical levels of depression. MANOVA results showed strong support for the Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF; d range = 1.85-2.05). The Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale also demonstrated promise (d range = 0.77-1.08), while the smallest effects for detecting feigning were found for the Malingering Index (d range = 0.58-0.70). The negative distortion indices showed good utility in differentiating between groups. Cut-scores and pragmatic implications are presented.
ISSN:0022-3891
1532-7752
DOI:10.1080/00223891.2019.1693389