La capacité prédictive des échelles de validité du PAI pour simuler la capacité à feindre s’est révélée légèrement supérieure aux indices du MMPI-2.

Les participants à la recherche étaient des étudiants universitaires recrutés dans des cours de premier cycle en psychologie à l’Université de Toronto. Un total de 45 (12 hommes, 33 femmes) étudiants.

L’objectif de l’étude était de démontrer la capacité de feindre des candidats. Les participants à la recherche ont dû compléter le PAI et le MMPI-2 dans chacune des deux séances d’essai.

En conclusion, pour le PAI, l’Indice de la fonction discriminante de Rogers (RDF) était nettement supérieur aux autres indices de validité du PAI.

Dans l’ensemble, le RDF du PAI s’est avéré être légèrement supérieur à F et F (p) du MMPI 2 pour distinguer les protocoles des participants qui tentaient de feindre en répondant aux questionnaires.

R. Michael Bagby , Robert A. Nicholson , Jason R. Bacchiochi , Andrew G. Ryder & Alison S. Bury, The Predictive Capacity of the MMPI-2 and PAI Validity Scales and Indexes to Detect Coached and Uncoached Feigning , Journal of personality assessment, 2002

PAI VS MMPI

The research participants were required to complete both the PAI and MMPI–2 in each of two different testing sessions.

The research participants were university students recruited from undergraduate psychology courses at the University of Toronto. Atotal of 45 (12 men, 33 women) students 

The accurate detection of symptom fabrication or “faking-bad” is an important aspect of psychological assessment and almost all self-report measures of psychopathology include scales or indexes to detect fake-bad responding.

The assessment of symptom fabrication on self-report measures is important in two respects. First, ruling out the untoward influence of response distortion allows the clinician to determine whether the obtained test results are a true reflection of the patient’s condition, affording reasonable confidence in the accuracy and validity of the psychological assessment. Second, the detection of faking bad might, in its own right, be the referral question, as psychologists are increasing involved in assessments in criminal and civil legal matters (Williams, Lees-Haley, & Djanogly,1999).

The objective of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales and indexes to detect malingering. Research participants were either informed (coached) or not informed (uncoached) about the presence and operating characteristics of the validity scales and instructed to fake bad on both the MMPI-2 and PAI. The validity scale and index scores produced by these research participants were then compared to those scores from a bona fide sample of psychiatric patients (n = 75). Coaching had no effect on the ability of the research participants to feign more successfully than those participants who received no coaching. For the MMPI-2, the Psychopathology F scale, or F(p), proved to be the best at distinguishing psychiatric patients from research participants instructed to malinger, although the other F scales (i.e., F and Fb) were also effective. For the PAI, the Rogers Discriminant Function index (RDF) was clearly superior to the other PAI fake-bad validity indicators; neither the Negative Impression Management scale nor Malingering Index were effective at detecting malingered profiles in this study. Overall, RDF proved to be marginally superior to F and F(p) in distinguishing MMPI-2 and PAI protocols produced by research participants asked to malinger and psychiatric patients. Both the RDF and the F and F(p) scales, however, were able to increase the predictive capability of one another.