Mental health practitioners may use a wide range of instruments to diagnose and develop the most effective treatment or prevention plans. Effective assessment tools are always evidence-based and validated in numerous studies, which makes them valid and reliable sources of data. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is one of the measures that are widely utilized by professionals in their research and practice. The framework was designed by Morey in 1991 and has proved to be an effective and convenient inventory that is still employed in different contexts (Burneo-Garcés et al., 2018). The researcher created a full and short form of the measurement that can be used for different purposes and meet the needs of mental health practitioners in various settings (Ward et al., 2018). This paper includes a brief evaluation of the PAI in terms of its measures, validity and reliability, as well as areas of use.
Assessment Measures
The PAI is a self-administered inventory developed to assess personality and psychopathological symptoms in adults. This tool provides detailed and relevant information to diagnose, screen, or plan the corresponding treatment and prevention strategies (Jeffay et al., 2020). The PAI was created with the help of the rational and quantitative method of the development of scales (Jeffay et al., 2020). The theoretical basis of the item development differs this tool from other inventories whose items are often informed by empirical data.
The administration of the tool takes approximately one hour, which is a shorter period compared to other inventories. The short form can take approximately half an hour to be administered, which makes it specifically popular among practitioners and with patients who have difficulty with investing more time in their psychological assessment (Jeffay et al., 2020). It has also been acknowledged that people tend to become fatigued soon, so they may be inattentive and less sincere or precise. Such states of the respondents can have adverse effects on the credibility of findings, which can influence the effectiveness of treatment plans created by practitioners or reliability of conclusions made by researchers. The instrument consists of 344 items that can be divided into 22 scales (McCredie & Morey, 2018). These are nonoverlapping scales that include 11 clinical scales, 5 treatment scales, 4 validity scales, and 2 interpersonal scales (Ward et al., 2018). The short form includes 160 items that can be divided into 20 out of 22 scales that cover all the areas mentioned above.
The subscales address some of the major domains that are helpful in identifying the peculiarities of the personality and psychological state of a person. The validity subscales shed light on such areas as positive and negative impression management, infrequency, and inconsistency (Jeffay et al., 2020). The clinical scales cover the following: depression, anxiety and associated disorders, mania, somatic complaints, borderline and antisocial features, paranoia, schizophrenia, as well as drug and alcohol issues. The treatment scales address such aspects as stress, aggression, treatment rejection, and suicidal ideation, while the interpersonal scales focus on warmth and dominance (Jeffay et al., 2020). The short form of the inventory addresses almost the same domains, excluding the stress and inconsistency scales (Ward et al., 2018). Clearly, these omissions make the short scale less detailed, but it is still effective for diverse purposes and populations. The clinical subscales are often seen as central and provide information regarding clinical syndromes (Burneo-Garcés et al., 2018). The treatment subscales are regarded as complementary and are utilized to identify the potential treatment.
One of the strengths of the measurement is its validity scales that enable researchers to detect the response tendencies that are different from accurate response sets. This is specifically important for self-administered measurements as people may try to conceal or fake some information due to their own reasons. Some participants may want to give answers that are socially acceptable, while others may pay little attention to the entire process and complete the form randomly. Researchers and practitioners can examine the patterns related to such deviations in different samples (McCredie & Morey, 2018). The scales developed to identify systematic positive and negative responding is another benefit of the tool. These scales are instrumental in tracing extreme symptoms and characteristics. These items help in detecting the areas of major concern that require immediate action. The items that stand for unrealistic positive features help practitioners to identify those who are willing to provide socially acceptable answers rather than be sincere.
It is noteworthy that the tool was created in English. However, the two versions have been translated into 18 languages, including but not confined to Spanish, German, Korean, Arabic, Turkish, Polish, and Vietnamese (Jeffay et al., 2020). Such variants as Australian English, Mexican Spanish, or Canadian French PAI tools are also available. At that, Jeffay et al. (2020) emphasize that only the English, Spanish, Greek, and German versions were empirically validated, which poses certain limitations for the use of the instrument in other languages.
As far as linguistic features of the inventory are concerned, some of the benefits of the PAI are its brevity and clarity. The tool is easy to comprehend as it requires up to the fourth-grade level of reading skills, which makes it applicable to numerous groups, including those who have quite limited reading skills in English. The tool is widely employed with such populations as immigrants and incarcerated people.
The PAI Validity and Reliability
As mentioned above, the PAI has been extensively used in diverse settings and has been validated by many researchers. The initial version of the tool moderate αs on validity scales were reported by Morey (Jeffay et al., 2020). Jeffay et al. (2020) note that normative sample validity was between.45 and.71, college students validity ranged from.23 to.77, and clinical patients validity was between.23 and.77. It is possible to note that the level of validity of the tool in question is sufficient, making it an effective measurement. This inventory is properly validated in such samples as community adult dwellers (1000 people), college students (1051 individuals), and clinical patients (1265 individuals). At that, the PAI is also utilized with other groups as well, although more extensive validation is needed for the groups other than those mentioned above. The degree of internal consistency is high and reaches up to.80, so the reliability of the inventory is high. The availability of data on the evaluation of the PAI displays considerable attention to the inventory. It is possible to assume that other validations are yet to come.
Ward et al. (2018) evaluated the short form of the PAI and compared it to the full form. The researchers also reviewed the studies that assessed the effectiveness and usability of the PAI. It is acknowledged that the short form of the inventory is characterized by a smaller internal consistency coefficient as compared to the full version (Ward et al., 2018). As far as scale agreement in the two forms is concerned, it ranges between 0.64 and 0.94, while Morey reported that the agreement was 0.81-0.95. Ward et al. (2018) mention studies conducted with forensic inpatients and notes that the internal consistency estimates were high and ranged from 0.77 to 0.90.
In their own assessment, Ward et al. (2018) evaluated the PAI with outpatient mental health center patients. The researchers note that for eight out of eleven clinical scales, the two forms’ correlation was higher than 0.90, and it was 0.85-0.89 for the other three subscales. Ward et al. (2018) conclude that the full form of the PAI displayed higher validity scores compared to the short term, but the difference was not statistically significant. The researchers add that the difference between the two versions is numerical rather than statistical. Moreover, they suggest that clients may be fatigued when completing the full form and pay more attention to the front rather than the back page. Ward et al. (2018) also stress that the short form is an effective tool that identifies all the major symptoms and traits of clients, excluding depression and suicidal ideation. Wright (2020) notes that the PAI is less effective in identifying depressive symptoms, compared to DSM-5 tool. Hence, it is recommended to use the full form or supplement the short version with additional measurements aimed at evaluating these conditions.
It is necessary to add that the PAI has been used in various settings and contexts, and certain discrepancies across different samples have been identified. These inconsistencies are thought to be linked to the specifics of the used methodologies as researchers employed different validity criteria or numbers of scales (Burneo-Garcés et al., 2018). The most common differences emerge in the studies, including normative and clinical samples.
Types of Evaluations
As mentioned above, the PAI is utilized in numerous contexts and samples to assess various psychopathology and personality aspects. This inventory is helpful in clinical settings and outpatient contexts to diagnose and develop treatment plans, as well as prevention strategies for individuals (Groth-Marnat & Wright, 2016). The practitioner can identify the exact mental health issue and create an effective evidence-based treatment plan (or prevention measures) for a specific patient. Personality assessment is critical for students as they can choose the right professional path or improve their interpersonal relationships based on the results. Adults may also benefit from completing the PAI form as the mental health practitioner can assist in improving their private or professional lives through the changes in their behavioral patterns based on their features.
In addition to the individual work, the PAI can be utilized to assess group characteristics. For instance, McCredie and Morey (2018) employed the PAI to identify the peculiarities of the so-called MTurk workers, the registered users of Amazon’s Mechanical Turk platform who complete various surveys for a fee. The relevance and reliability of such studies have been discussed in academia as there are doubts regarding the quality of their responses. It is noted that such respondents can try to answer as fast as possible to participate in as many surveys as possible to earn more money. Such behaviors can have a negative impact on the quality of studies. The researchers examined the most prominent characteristic features of this cohort, which has multiple research implications. McCredie and Morey (2018) note that the population is characterized by lower social engagement and higher negative affect. The authors stress that these qualities should be considered when using the platform, which can be specifically important for marketing research where these respondents are often seen as a valuable source of information.
One of the widespread uses of the tool is forensic research. Although the PAI was not developed for such purposes, the inventory is instrumental in addressing several goals, including but not confined to classification, intervention, and prevention (Burneo-Garcés et al., 2018). The identification of personality peculiarities of this cohort is essential for the development of prevention measures in and out of prisons. Such data can be employed for correctional purposes with those on parole or people with deviant behavioral patterns. The instrument can also be utilized to detect features of some offenders, which can be helpful in investigations or court cases.
Since the measurement is translated into several languages (with some of them properly validated), it can be helpful with culturally diverse populations. Its brevity and clarity make it appropriate for the utilization with immigrants. At that, more research is needed in this area as the translated scales need to be validated accordingly. Burneo-Garcés et al. (2018) emphasize that although the Spanish-speaking population in the USA is considerable, the Spanish version of the PAI is not properly validated. It is noted that the PAI should be assessed in terms of its use with particular groups of samples (such as incarcerated people).
The PAI can be used to assess the viability of other measurements. Busch et al. (2016) evaluate the DSM-5 alternative model with the help of the inventory in question. The researchers checked the validity and reliability of the DSM-5 alternative model and found that the framework can be employed to assess personality functioning level and elevated traits scores. Therefore, it is possible to utilize the PAI to evaluate diverse assessment tools, which is important for research and practice. Researchers will be able to validate numerous models and assessment instruments that can help in attaining diverse goals (diagnosing, treatment, prevention, screening, and so on).
It is also important to add that the PAI is a helpful instrument as it is supplemented by diverse guidelines, manuals, and descriptions, as well as classifications. Practitioners and researchers can easily interpret the obtained results and focus on their investigation rather than the interpretation of data. The developed materials are user-friendly for both researchers and participants, which makes the tool utilized so widely. The development of different versions of the inventory suggests its universality as well. In addition to the PAI in different languages, the inventory for adolescents (PAI-A) has been introduced and proved to be effective.
Conclusion
To sum up, it is possible to state that the Personality Assessment Inventory is an effective tool to evaluate personality and psychopathological issues in adults. The tool is utilized in clinical and normative contexts, as well as with students. The PAI has been translated into over ten languages and has a full and short version. The instrument is supplemented with helpful materials, making it easy to use for researchers and practitioners. Numerous studies validated the tool, and it has been found that the PAI is reliable and valid, so it can be used to attain the established objectives. Importantly, according to several studies, the PAI is characterized by certain limitations regarding the identification of depression and suicidal ideation levels. It is suggested that the inventory should be used with the assessment tools appropriate for the detection of the states mentioned above. This supplementation is specifically important when the short form of the PAI is utilized.
It is possible to conclude that the PAI can be utilized in clinical and normative contexts in practice and research. The population of people who can benefit from the use of the inventory is wide as adolescents, students, young adults, spouses, immigrants, employees, incarcerated people, offenders on parole, and other groups can be assisted. These people may improve their mental health status or the quality of their life with the help of the tool that can be used to diagnose the issues effectively and create an effective treatment plan.
At the same time, further progress related to the inventory is possible. For example, the tool can be adjusted for the work with children. The PAI can be further adapted for the work with other linguistic cohorts. New translations can be introduced, which will assist in improving practice within the U. S. healthcare system due to the cultural diversity of the country. The measurement can also be utilized in other countries. Ongoing validation is another area for improvement as the tool and its new versions need evaluation as well. Therefore, the PAI is an effective personality and psychopathology assessment tool that can be utilized in diverse settings and requires further validation.
References
Burneo-Garcés, C., Fernández-Alcántara, M., Aguayo-Estremera, R., & Pérez-GarcÃa, M. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Spanish adaptation of the Personality Assessment Inventory in correctional settings: An ESEM study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 102(1), 75-87. Web.
Busch, A. J., Morey, L. C., & Hopwood, C. J. (2016). Exploring the assessment of the DSM–5 alternative model for personality disorders with the Personality Assessment Inventory.Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 211-218. Web.
Groth-Marnat, G., & Wright, A. J. (2016). Handbook of psychological assessment (6th ed.). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Jeffay, E., Sekely, A., Lacerte, M., & Zakzanis, K. K. (2020). Reliability of the French-Canadian adaptation of the Personality Assessment Inventory: Medical–legal implications. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 1-14. Web.
McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2018). Who are the Turkers? A characterization of MTurk workers using the Personality Assessment Inventory. Assessment, 26(5), 759-766. Web.
Ward, T., Arnold, K., Cunningham, M. C., & Liljequist, L. (2018). Three validation studies of the personality assessment inventory short form. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 74(12), 2264-2275. Web.
Wright, A. (2020). Conducting psychological assessment: A Guide for Practitioners (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.