Hoelzle James B, Meyer Gregory J
Department of Psychology, University of Toledo, OH, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2009 Mar;91(2):175-86. doi: 10.1080/00223890802634316.
We investigated methodological and sample-based characteristics that might contribute to discrepancies in the structure of the 22-scale Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007). In Study 1, we used parallel analysis, Velicer's minimum average partial procedure, and random variables to determine the appropriate number of principal components to retain in a clinical sample (N = 227). We retained 3 oblique dimensions that broadly emphasized (a) general distress, (b) elevated mood and dominance, and (c) substance abuse and psychopathy. In Study 2, we applied the same uniform criteria and procedures to 5 previously published samples and conducted orthogonal vector matrix comparisons to determine how congruent 3- and 4-dimensional structures were across samples. Results suggested the PAI has 3 dimensions that are highly congruent across samples. Using Morey's normative sample, we provide the formulas needed to compute T scores for each component so they can be used in clinical work with patients. We discuss clinical implications and directions for future PAI research.
我们调查了可能导致22项人格评估量表（PAI；莫雷，1991年，2007年）结构差异的方法学和样本特征。在研究1中，我们使用平行分析、韦利泽的最小平均偏相关程序和随机变量来确定临床样本（N = 227）中应保留的主成分数量。我们保留了3个斜交维度，它们大致强调：（a）一般困扰；（b）情绪高涨和支配性；（c）药物滥用和心理病态。在研究2中，我们将相同的统一标准和程序应用于5个先前发表的样本，并进行正交向量矩阵比较，以确定3维和4维结构在不同样本间的一致性程度。结果表明，PAI有3个维度在不同样本间高度一致。我们使用莫雷的常模样本，提供了计算每个成分T分数所需的公式，以便它们可用于临床患者工作。我们讨论了临床意义以及PAI未来研究的方向。
