A case law survey of the Personality Assessment Inventory: examining its role in civil and criminal trials

Personality assessment inventory (PAI) in forensic and correctional settings: A comprehensive review

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.

The Personality Assessment Inventory in U.S. Case Law: A Survey and Examination of Relevance to Legal Proceedings

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), a popular measure of personality, psychopathology, and interpersonal functioning, has demonstrated utility to address various psycholegal questions. This case law review examines a large sample of randomly selected published U.S. case law decisions to ascertain how the PAI has been applied and considered by legal decision makers. The review indicates the instrument is popular in criminal and civil legal settings, particularly in preadjudication forensic mental health evaluations (e.g., competency to proceed) and cases considering social security disability benefits. Forensic evaluators and legal actors primarily consider the results of the PAI as indicators of examinee impression management, psychopathology, and interpersonal functioning, although this varied by psycholegal context. The admissibility of the instrument was rarely challenged, although some challenges to the forensic evaluator's interpretation and conclusions emerged. Despite the PAI's popularity, the utility of the instrument is determined by specific, empirically supported, contexts. As such, forensic evaluators must consider how the PAI may inform decision making given examinee characteristics and the psycholegal question.

The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): Treatment Scales and Interpersonal Characteristics in a Sample of Men Charged with or Convicted of a Sexual Offense

An individual's interpersonal features are pertinent to treatment within clinical populations. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) contains two scales that assess the interpersonal features of warmth (WRM) and dominance (DOM), as well as two additional measures to assess to treatment prediction, process, and rejection (RXR; TPI). The current study examined associations between these PAI scales in a sample of 92 men who underwent comprehensive evaluations of sexual behavior after being charged with or convicted of a sexual offense. Analyses indicated that RXR was positively associated with WRM and DOM, TPI was negatively associated with WRM, and the two interpersonal scales of WRM and DOM were positively correlated with each other. A significant inverse relationship was found between the two treatment scales RXR and TPI indicating that motivation for treatment may have a limited relationship with the treatment process. WRM significantly predicted scores on the TPI, and both WRM and DOM predicted individual scores on RXR. Higher scores on positive impression management (PIM) were predictive of lower TPI and higher RXR, as individuals with higher stakes cases may score higher on PIM and underreport obstacles within treatment or be unwilling to accept the need for treatment. Overall, findings suggest that interpersonal characteristics identified by the PAI scales may be advantageous in approaching treatment within this population.

Faking Bad in Workers Compensation Psychological Assessments: Elevation Rates of Negative Distortion Scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory in an Australian Sample

The workers compensation system provides a clear external incentive for deliberate feigning of physical or mental illness to some individuals. Although it has been asserted that all pre-liability workers compensation psychological assessments should involve assessment of deliberate feigning, the lack of an agreed standard for assessing this response style creates a substantial challenge in practice. Over the last two decades, substantial attention has been given to measures of psychopathology that also include validated negative distortion indices. The Personality Assessment Inventory) has been validated in both the clinical and forensic population, and is reportedly used by many Australian psychologists. This study explores rates of elevation of negative distortion scales on the PAI as a potential indicator of deliberate feigning in a large Australian workers compensation sample.

Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory in Fitness-for-Duty Evaluations of Physicians

This study provides normative data regarding the use of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in physician fitness-for-duty evaluations. Information was derived from a sample of 371 physicians who took the PAI as part of a comprehensive fitness-for-duty evaluation. A multidisciplinary evaluation team, not blinded to psychological testing results, recommended whether or not each physician was fit to practice, allowing for the differentiation of results by this finding. The majority of PAI protocols were valid and interpretively useful. Descriptive statistics are presented for validity, clinical, treatment, interpersonal, and subscale scores. Mean differences for those found fit versus unfit to practice are also presented. Significant elevations for clinical scales are rare in physicians referred for fitness-for-duty evaluations. Although mean differences were small between the fit and unfit groups, there were significant mean differences found. Guidance is offered for interpreting the PAI in this population.

Using the Personality Assessment Inventory Antisocial and Borderline Features Scales to Predict Behavior Change: A Multisite Longitudinal Study of Youthful Offenders

A substantial amount of research has examined the developmental trajectory of antisocial behavior and, in particular, the relationship between antisocial behavior and maladaptive personality traits. However, research typically has not controlled for previous behavior (e.g., past violence) when examining the utility of personality measures, such as self-report scales of antisocial and borderline traits, in predicting future behavior (e.g., subsequent violence). Examination of the potential interactive effects of measures of both antisocial and borderline traits also is relatively rare in longitudinal research predicting adverse outcomes. The current study utilizes a large sample of youthful offenders ( N = 1,354) from the Pathways to Desistance project to examine the separate effects of the Personality Assessment Inventory Antisocial Features (ANT) and Borderline Features (BOR) scales in predicting future offending behavior as well as trends in other negative outcomes (e.g., substance abuse, violence, employment difficulties) over a 1-year follow-up period. In addition, an ANT × BOR interaction term was created to explore the predictive effects of secondary psychopathy. ANT and BOR both explained unique variance in the prediction of various negative outcomes even after controlling for past indicators of those same behaviors during the preceding year.

The inconsistency of inconsistency scales: a comparison of two widely used measures

This study compared the inconsistent responding validity scales of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI)/PPI-Revised (PPI-R) in two correctional samples to determine the extent to which they overlap in identifying invalid profiles. Results revealed substantial differences in the way the inconsistent responding validity scales of these measures performed. In particular, the PAI identified far fewer participants as having responded inconsistently compared with the PPI/PPI-R. We discuss the implications of our findings for clinical practice, and potential concerns with the use of a single measure to identify inconsistent responding in clinical practice and research.