Edens John F, Poythress Norman G, Watkins-Clay M Monica
Department of Psychology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX 75275, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2007 Feb;88(1):33-42. doi: 10.1080/00223890709336832.
In this study, we compared the utility of three instruments, the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (Smith & Burger, 1997), and the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) to detect malingering among prisoners. We examined 4 inmate samples: (a) prisoners instructed to malinger, (b) "suspected malingerers" identified by psychiatric staff, (c) general population control inmates, and (d) psychiatric patients. Intercorrelations among the measures for the total sample (N = 115) were quite high, and receiver operating characteristic analyses suggested similar rates of overall predictive accuracy across the measures. Despite this, commonly recommended cut scores for these measures resulted in widely differing rates of sensitivity and specificity across the subsamples. Moreover, although all instruments performed well in the nonpsychiatric samples (i.e., simulators and controls), classification accuracy was noticeably poorer when attempting to differentiate between psychiatric patients and suspected malingerers, with only 2 PAI indicators significantly discriminating between them.
在本研究中,我们比较了三种工具的效用,即人格评估量表(PAI;莫雷,1991年)、伪装症状结构化量表(史密斯和伯格,1997年)以及报告症状结构化访谈(SIRS;罗杰斯、巴格比和迪肯斯,1992年),以检测囚犯中的伪装行为。我们研究了4组囚犯样本:(a)被指示伪装的囚犯,(b)由精神科工作人员认定的“疑似伪装者”,(c)普通在押人员对照样本,以及(d)精神科患者。总样本(N = 115)中各测量方法之间的相互关联度相当高,且接受者操作特征分析表明各测量方法的总体预测准确率相近。尽管如此,这些测量方法通常推荐的临界值在各子样本中的敏感性和特异性率差异很大。此外,虽然所有工具在非精神科样本(即伪装者和对照样本)中表现良好,但在试图区分精神科患者和疑似伪装者时,分类准确率明显较低,只有2个PAI指标能显著区分二者。