Utility of the psychological screening inventory: A review

Abstract

The Psychological Screening Inventory (PSI; R. I. Lanyon, 1970, 1973, 1978, 1993, 2006) was developed as a cost-effective screening device in identifying persons for whom a more complete psychological evaluation should be conducted. The author reviews data bearing on the utility of the PSI in this regard and in more general applications. The Alienation scale showed strong effect sizes in distinguishing psychiatric inpatients from controls, the Social Nonconformity scale in distinguishing incarcerated groups from control, and the Discomfort scale in identifying persons with general psychological distress. These findings were supported by correlational data with comparable scales, and by a variety of smaller comparison studies. Meaningful discriminations were also shown for adolescents and for college-age young adults. Findings in studies of substance abusers and medical problems were also reviewed. Response Distortion scales showed effectiveness similar to that of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; J. N. Butcher, W. G. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989) validity scales. Validity was also shown for several of the seven available foreign language translations. It was concluded that the PSI is effective for the tasks for which it was designed.

‘Good Impression’ as a Moderator in Employment‐related Assessment

“…A questionnaire was developed consisting of the two good impression measures (GI‐1 and GI‐2) plus two additional measures. The Defensiveness (De) of the Psychological Screening Inventory is a well‐validated measure of this concept (see Lanyon, , ). The Impression Management (IM) scale of the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (Paulhus, ) was also employed.…”

The effect of underreporting response bias on the assessment of psychopathology.

“…The present research utilized data from the Psychological Screening Inventory (PSI), a 130-item questionnaire that was specifically developed and systematically validated to assess the three traditional categories of psychopathology, here termed general psychological distress, major psychiatric disorder, and significant antisocial characteristics (Lanyon, 1978(Lanyon, , 2006(Lanyon, , 2007. Demographic data are reported for each group except where indicated below.…”

Initial Development of a Brief Measure of Psychological Distress

“…Several inventories evaluate a number of symptoms associated with distress, including the Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R; Derogatis, 1977) and its abbreviated version, the 53-item Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1992); the 130-item Psychological Screening Inventory (PSI; Lanyon, 1970Lanyon, , 1973Lanyon, , 1978Lanyon, , 1993Lanyon, , 2007, which evaluates distress and several other constructs to assess the potential need for a complete psychological evaluation; the 60-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ; Goldberg & Blackwell, 1970), which assesses risk for developing psychiatric disorders through the domains of inability to carry out normal tasks of living and distress; and the 77-item Derogatis Stress Profile (Derogatis, 1977), which evaluates distress (or emotionality in response to stress) as one of several interactional components of stress as it is conceptualized by Lazarus (1966;see also Zalaquett & Wood, 1998). While these inventories assess broad dimensions of distress, they still impose a time burden upon patients and professionals when compared to shorter measures.…”