Performance of Personality Assessment Inventory and Rorschach Indices of Schizophrenia in a Public Psychiatric Hospital.

Psychological Services (Impact Factor: 1.08). 01/2004; 1(2):107-110. DOI: 10.1037/1541-1559.1.2.107

ABSTRACT The present study investigated the performance of indices of schizophrenia from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI-SCZ; L. C. Morey, 1991) and Rorschach (Rorschach SCZI; J. E. Exner, 1993) in a heterogeneous sample of 24 inpatients at a public psychiatric hospital in the southeastern United States. Results indicated modest agreement between the PAI-SCZ and Rorschach SCZI. More important, the PAI-SCZ but not Rorschach SCZI reliably differentiated inpatients with schizophrenic-spectrum diagnoses from inpatients with other psychiatric diagnoses. In settings in which psychotic disorders falling outside the schizophrenic spectrum are common, the PAI-SCZ may be better suited than the Rorschach SCZI to aid in the differential diagnosis of schizophrenia. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

1 Follower
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study contributes to the ongoing construct validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991 , 2007 ) by identifying nontest life-event correlates of the PAI full scales and subscales in a sample of psychiatric patients. The life-event data used in this study included education, marital status, and employment, as well as a history of suicide attempts, psychiatric hospitalizations, trauma, medical problems, hallucinations, paranoid ideation, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, and arrest. Correlations were calculated to explore the convergent and discriminant validity of the PAI scales relative to the life-event data. The results showed that the majority of the PAI scales (11 of 13) had meaningful correlations with at least 1 life-event variable. The PAI BOR scale had the greatest number of correlations and was associated with 8 life-event variables. In contrast, the PAI ANX and MAN scales had no correlations above a predetermined threshold (r ≥.21). These findings add to the growing body of empirical correlates of the PAI and generally provide support for the construct validity of the PAI scales.
    Journal of Personality Assessment 05/2012; 94(6):593-600. DOI:10.1080/00223891.2012.681817 · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We systematically evaluated the peer-reviewed Rorschach validity literature for the 65 main variables in the popular Comprehensive System (CS). Across 53 meta-analyses examining variables against externally assessed criteria (e.g., observer ratings, psychiatric diagnosis), the mean validity was r = .27 (k = 770) as compared to r = .08 (k = 386) across 42 meta-analyses examining variables against introspectively assessed criteria (e.g., self-report). Using Hemphill's (2003) data-driven guidelines for interpreting the magnitude of assessment effect sizes with only externally assessed criteria, we found 13 variables had excellent support (r ≥ .33, p < .001; ∴ FSN > 50), 17 had good support (r ≥ .21, p < .05, FSN ≥ 10), 10 had modest support (p < .05 and either r ≥ .21, FSN < 10, or r = .15-.20, FSN ≥ 10), 13 had little (p < .05 and either r = < .15 or FSN < 10) or no support (p > .05), and 12 had no construct-relevant validity studies. The variables with the strongest support were largely those that assess cognitive and perceptual processes (e.g., Perceptual-Thinking Index, Synthesized Response); those with the least support tended to be very rare (e.g., Color Projection) or some of the more recently developed scales (e.g., Egocentricity Index, Isolation Index). Our findings are less positive, more nuanced, and more inclusive than those reported in the CS test manual. We discuss study limitations and the implications for research and clinical practice, including the importance of using different methods in order to improve our understanding of people. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).
    Psychological Bulletin 08/2012; DOI:10.1037/a0029406 · 14.39 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 22, 2014