Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct, recidivism, and violence: A meta-analytic review.

Abstract

More than 30 studies have examined the ability of scores on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991, 2007) to predict violence or misconduct. The Antisocial Features (ANT), Aggression (AGG), and Violence Potential Index (VPI) Scales of the PAI, in particular, have received substantial attention as predictors of institutional infractions and criminal recidivism. The current study used meta-analysis to provide a comprehensive review of the ability of scores on these and other PAI scales to predict misbehavior. Scores on the ANT (d = .26 to .39) and AGG (d = .23 to .40) scales consistently emerged as small to moderate predictors of misbehavior. Effects tended to be larger in correctional than treatment settings (e.g., ANT d = .44 vs. .20), for institutional misconduct than recidivism (e.g., AGG d = .37 vs. .23), and for institutional misconduct studies with follow up periods of at least 1.5 years (e.g., ANT d = .46). Overall, findings provide support for the predictive validity of multiple PAI scales.

Predicting physically violent misconduct in prison: A comparison of four risk assessment instruments

“…The possibility of generalizing such studies to larger inmate populations is therefore limited. Another meta‐analysis of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) prediction validity of institutional violence and misconduct reached the same conclusion and underlined the need for more findings to correct the large variability observed in effects across studies (Gardner, Boccaccini, Bitting, & Edens, ). A recent comprehensive US study on a sample of 15,546 prisoners would support the use of PAI to assess misconduct, notably serious and assaultive behavior (Reidy, Sorensen, & Davidson, ).…”

Are fearless dominance traits superfluous in operationalizing psychopathy? Incremental validity and sex differences.

“…It is subdivided into three 8-item subscales: ANT-A (“Antisocial behavior,” α = 0.65), which assesses antisocial behaviors; ANT-E (“Egocentricity,” α = 0.66), which assesses antisocial traits like callousness and self-centeredness; and ANT-S (“Stimulus seeking,” α = 0.77), which assesses fearless risk-taking and sensation seeking. A recent meta-analysis (Gardner, Boccaccini, Bitting, & Edens, 2015) reported modest to moderate effect sizes for ANT in predicting community and institutional misconduct and violence.…”

The relation of borderline personality disorder to aggression, victimization, and institutional misconduct among prisoners

“…Studies have shown that the borderline features scale on the Personality Assessment Inventory (i.e., BOR) is positively correlated with number of disciplinary infractions during incarceration [13, 14]. Further, a meta-analysis showed that the BOR scale was moderately predictive of institutional misconduct across studies [15]. Research has yet to investigate the risk of engaging in institutional misconduct among people diagnosed with BPD (as opposed to individuals who endorse some BPD features on a self-report scale), limiting our understanding of the risk associated with this specific disorder.…”

“…There is ample research suggesting a strong positive association between the antisocial features scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory (i.e., ANT) and institutional misconduct [14, 15]. However, the BOR scale predicts unique variance in institutional misconduct above the ANT scale [14].…”