Concurrent validity of the personality assessment screener in a large sample of offenders.

Abstract

Mental health problems are disproportionately prevalent in forensic and correctional settings, and there have been numerous attempts to develop screening tools to evaluate individuals in such contexts. This study investigates the clinical utility of the Personality Assessment Screener (PAS; Morey, 1997), a brief self-report measure of risk for emotional and behavioral dysfunction, in a large mixed-gender offender sample (N = 1,658). The PAS is a 22-item measure derived from the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007), a more comprehensive self-report instrument widely used to assess for psychological disturbances among forensic and correctional populations. We examined the ability of the PAS to concurrently predict clinically significant elevations on the PAI and several other indicators of symptomatology and dysfunction. Collectively, results suggest that PAS total and element (subscale) scores show considerable promise in screening inmates for serious problems with emotional and behavioral functioning, though interpretive ranges used to categorize PAS scores in clinical and community settings may require revision for criminal justice populations. We discuss the applied value of the PAS for detecting specific areas of dysfunction relevant to risk management (e.g., aggression, suicidality) and for concentrating resources on offenders with the most immediate and severe need for psychological services. (PsycINFO Database Record

Examining the utility of the Personality Assessment Screener in three criminal justice samples.

“…Seven of the eight subscales of the PPI can be organized into two higher order dimensions labeled fearless dominance (PPI-I) and impulsive antisociality (PPI-II). Consistent with prior studies (Kelley et al, 2018), we expected the Hostile Control element to preferentially correlate with PPI-I, given that this subscale identifies individuals who are interpersonally forceful and bold. PPI data were available only for the Florida prison sample.…”

“…Table 3 also reports classification statistics for the combined sample described earlier. Kelley et al (2018) suggested that a raw score of Ն29 might provide a more useful decision point in correctional settings. Table 3 also provides classification statistics for this particular cut score across our three samples.…”

“…Despite the positive pattern of results, existing interpretative guidelines offered by Morey (1997) proved somewhat problematic in the Kelley et al (2018) sample. In particular, approximately 90% of the participants in this study were above the recommended cut score of 19, minimizing its utility as a screen that could effectively rule out individuals in need of more comprehensive mental health evaluations.…”

“…Two prior small-scale studies have reported that PAS total scores and select element scores are significantly associated with some forms of psychopathology, including depression, suicidality, and dissociative symptoms (Harrison & Rogers, 2007;McLeod, Byrne, & Aitken, 2004). In a much larger and more recent study, Kelley, Edens, and Douglas (2018) found the PAS to significantly predict the presence of significant areas of dysfunction on the PAI as well as correlate moderately to strongly with various theoretically relevant criterion measures (i.e., negative affect, impulsivity, psychopathic personality traits, prior suicide attempts) among individuals involved in the criminal justice system (N ϭ 1,658). For the most part individual elements did not outperform the PAS total score in predicting criterion measures, although Anger Control, Suicidal Thinking, and Hostile Control did demonstrate a few more robust associations (e.g., Hostile Control was uniquely related to certain psychopathic traits and Suicidal Thinking was preferentially related to a history of suicide attempts).…”

Personality Assessment Inventory’s Utility in Pre-Treatment Assessment for Violent Offenders

“…Two facilitators terminated employment before the authors were able to conduct interviews with them, so additional facilitator perspectives would be valuable. Future research might consider using the Personality Assessment Screener (see Kelley, Edens, & Douglas, 2018), a shorter version of the PAI, or potentially selecting out the scales of interest within the PAI rather than requiring IPV offenders complete the entire 344 item PAI.…”