Specificity and item endorsement rates of personality assessment inventory over-reporting scales across ethnic, gender, and diagnostic groups in a forensic inpatient sample.

The accurate evaluation of response style, particularly with respect to overreporting, is imperative in forensic settings wherein an external incentive to feign exists. Given the high cost of false positive errors in this context, as well as the associated cost of false negative errors, evaluators need to ensure that overreporting methods are effective with the unique patient populations with whom they work. Complicating this issue is that forensic samples often differ in predictable ways from the normative samples upon which typical psychological assessment instruments were normed. The purpose of the present investigation was to evaluate the specificity of the overreporting indices on the Personality Assessment Inventory, one of the most commonly used personality inventories, in a forensic sample with no ostensible incentive to feign. Although item endorsement and configural elevations on the Negative Impression Management (NIM) scale and the Malingering Index (MAL) were associated with genuine psychopathology, results indicated that the overall specificity estimates across groups were generally adequate. Further, and consistent with prior research, Rogers Discriminant Function (RDF) performed poorly in this sample.