Morey L C, Lanier V W
Department of Psychology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37240, USA.
Assessment. 1998 Sep;5(3):203-14. doi: 10.1177/107319119800500301.
The characteristics of six different indicators of response distortion on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) were evaluated by having college students complete the PAI under positive impression management, malingering, and honest responding conditions. The six indicators were the PAI Positive Impression (PIM) and Negative Impression (NIM) scales, the Malingering and Defensiveness Indexes, and two discriminant functions, one developed by Cashel and the other by Rogers. Protocols of students asked to malinger were compared with those of actual clinical patients, while protocols of students asked to manage their impression in a positive direction were compared with those of students asked to respond honestly. Comparisons between groups were accomplished through the examination of effect sizes and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves. All six indicators demonstrated the ability to distinguish between actual and feigned responding. The Rogers function was particularly effective in identifying malingering. The Cashel function was less effective than other measures in identifying positive impression management, although it appears to also have promise as an indicator of malingering.
通过让大学生在积极印象管理、诈病和诚实作答条件下完成人格评估问卷（PAI；莫雷，1991），对PAI六种不同反应偏差指标的特征进行了评估。这六个指标是PAI积极印象（PIM）和消极印象（NIM）量表、诈病和防御性指数，以及两个判别函数，一个由卡舍尔开发，另一个由罗杰斯开发。将被要求诈病的学生的记录与实际临床患者的记录进行比较，同时将被要求向积极方向管理印象的学生的记录与被要求诚实作答的学生的记录进行比较。通过检查效应大小和接受者操作特征（ROC）曲线来完成组间比较。所有六个指标都显示出区分真实作答和伪装作答的能力。罗杰斯函数在识别诈病方面特别有效。卡舍尔函数在识别积极印象管理方面不如其他测量方法有效，尽管它似乎也有望作为诈病的一个指标。
