Keiski Michelle A, Shore Douglas L, Hamilton Joanna M, Malec James F
Indiana University, Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Indianapolis, IN, USA
University of Windsor, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Assessment. 2015 Apr;22(2):233-47. doi: 10.1177/1073191114539380. Epub 2014 Jun 24.
The purpose of this study was to characterize the operating characteristics of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales in distinguishing simulators feigning symptoms of traumatic brain injury (TBI) while completing the PAI (n = 84) from a clinical sample of patients with TBI who achieved adequate scores on performance validity tests (n = 112). The simulators were divided into two groups: (a) Specific Simulators feigning cognitive and somatic symptoms only or (b) Global Simulators feigning cognitive, somatic, and psychiatric symptoms. The PAI overreporting scales were indeed sensitive to the simulation of TBI symptoms in this analogue design. However, these scales were less sensitive to the feigning of somatic and cognitive TBI symptoms than the feigning of a broad range of cognitive, somatic, and emotional symptoms often associated with TBI. The relationships of TBI simulation to consistency and underreporting scales are also explored.
本研究的目的是描述人格评估量表(PAI)效度量表在区分完成PAI时伪装创伤性脑损伤(TBI)症状的模拟者(n = 84)与在表现效度测试中获得足够分数的TBI临床患者样本(n = 112)时的操作特征。模拟者分为两组:(a)仅伪装认知和躯体症状的特定模拟者,或(b)伪装认知、躯体和精神症状的整体模拟者。在这个模拟设计中,PAI过度报告量表确实对TBI症状的模拟敏感。然而,与通常与TBI相关的广泛认知、躯体和情绪症状的伪装相比,这些量表对TBI躯体和认知症状的伪装不太敏感。还探讨了TBI模拟与一致性和低报告量表的关系。