• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

假装精神障碍的 PAI 负性扭曲量表的交叉验证:研究报告。

Cross-validation of the PAI Negative Distortion Scale for feigned mental disorders: a research report.

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX 76203, USA.

出版信息

Assessment. 2013 Feb;20(1):36-42. doi: 10.1177/1073191112451493. Epub 2012 Aug 1.

DOI:10.1177/1073191112451493
PMID:22855508
Abstract

A major strength of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is its systematic assessment of response styles, including feigned mental disorders. Recently, Mogge, Lepage, Bell, and Ragatz developed and provided the initial validation for the Negative Distortion Scale (NDS). Using rare symptoms as its detection strategy for feigning, the usefulness of NDS was examined via a known-groups comparison. The current study sought to cross-validate the NDS by implementing a between-subjects simulation design. Simulators were asked to feign total disability in an effort to secure unwarranted compensation from their insurance company. Even in an inpatient sample with severe Axis I disorders and concomitant impairment, the NDS proved effective as a rare-symptom strategy with low levels of item endorsement that remained mostly stable across genders. For construct validity, the NDS was moderately correlated with the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-Second Edition and other PAI feigning scales. For discriminant validity, it yielded a very large effect size (d = 1.81), surpassing the standard PAI feigning indicators. Utility estimates appeared to be promising for both ruling-out (low probability of feigning) and ruling-in (high probability of feigning) determinations at different base rates. Like earlier research, the data supported the creation of well-defined groups with indeterminate scores (i.e., the cut score ± 1 SEM) removed to avoid high rates of misclassifications for this narrow band.

摘要

人格评估量表(PAI)的一个主要优势在于其对反应模式的系统评估,包括伪装的精神障碍。最近,Mogge、Lepage、Bell 和 Ragatz 开发并提供了负向扭曲量表(NDS)的初步验证。该量表采用罕见症状作为其伪装检测策略,通过已知群体比较来检验 NDS 的有效性。本研究通过实施被试间模拟设计来交叉验证 NDS。要求模拟者伪装完全残疾,以从保险公司获得不应得的赔偿。即使在伴有严重轴 I 障碍和伴随损害的住院患者样本中,NDS 也证明是有效的,因为它采用了罕见症状策略,项目认可程度低,且在性别之间基本保持稳定。在结构效度方面,NDS 与报告症状的结构化访谈第二版和其他 PAI 伪装量表中度相关。在判别效度方面,它产生了非常大的效应量(d = 1.81),超过了标准的 PAI 伪装指标。效用估计似乎在不同的基础率下对排除(伪装可能性低)和纳入(伪装可能性高)判断都很有前景。与早期研究一样,数据支持创建明确定义的群体,去除不确定分数(即,分数 ± 1 SEM)以避免对这个狭窄带进行高比例的错误分类。

相似文献

1
Cross-validation of the PAI Negative Distortion Scale for feigned mental disorders: a research report.假装精神障碍的 PAI 负性扭曲量表的交叉验证:研究报告。
Assessment. 2013 Feb;20(1):36-42. doi: 10.1177/1073191112451493. Epub 2012 Aug 1.
2
The detection of feigning using multiple PAI scale elevations: a new index.使用多个 PAI 量表升高来检测装病:一个新指标。
Assessment. 2013 Aug;20(4):437-47. doi: 10.1177/1073191112458146. Epub 2012 Sep 3.
3
The detection of feigned disabilities: the effectiveness of the Personality Assessment Inventory in a traumatized inpatient sample.伪装残疾的检测:人格评估量表在创伤住院患者样本中的有效性。
Assessment. 2012 Mar;19(1):77-88. doi: 10.1177/1073191111422031. Epub 2011 Sep 27.
4
Does the disorder matter? Investigating a moderating effect on coached noncredible overreporting using the MMPI-2 and PAI.该障碍是否重要?使用 MMPI-2 和 PAI 调查对辅导的不可信夸大报告的调节效应。
Assessment. 2013 Apr;20(2):199-209. doi: 10.1177/1073191112464619. Epub 2012 Nov 1.
5
The SIMS Screen for feigned mental disorders: the development of detection-based scales.用于伪装精神障碍的西姆斯筛查表:基于检测的量表的开发。
Behav Sci Law. 2014 Jul-Aug;32(4):455-66. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2131. Epub 2014 Jul 24.
6
Detection of feigned mental disorders on the personality assessment inventory: a discriminant analysis.在人格评估量表上对伪装精神障碍的检测:一项判别分析
J Pers Assess. 1996 Dec;67(3):629-40. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_15.
7
New and improved? A comparison of the original and revised versions of the structured interview of reported symptoms.新的和改进的?对报告症状的结构化访谈原始版本和修订版本的比较。
Assessment. 2013 Apr;20(2):210-8. doi: 10.1177/1073191112464389. Epub 2012 Dec 14.
8
Testing the incremental utility of the negative impression-positive impression differential in detecting simulated personality assessment inventory profiles.测试负面印象-正面印象差异在检测模拟人格评估量表剖面图中的增量效用。
J Clin Psychol. 2008 Mar;64(3):338-43. doi: 10.1002/jclp.20439.
9
Malingering on the Personality Assessment Inventory: identification of specific feigned disorders.《人格评估量表中的诈病:特定伪装障碍的识别》
J Pers Assess. 2007 Feb;88(1):43-8. doi: 10.1080/00223890709336833.
10
Simulation of traumatic brain injury symptoms on the Personality Assessment Inventory: an analogue study.《人格评估量表中创伤性脑损伤症状的模拟:一项模拟研究》
Assessment. 2015 Apr;22(2):233-47. doi: 10.1177/1073191114539380. Epub 2014 Jun 24.