an examination of positive impression management validity scales in the context of parenting...

27
This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University] On: 20 November 2014, At: 04:24 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfpp20 An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments Julie M. Harper PhD a , Fred Schmidt PhD ba , L. Jane Cuttress MA b & Dwight Mazmanian PhD a a Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada b Children’s Centre Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Published online: 14 Apr 2014. To cite this article: Julie M. Harper PhD, Fred Schmidt PhD, L. Jane Cuttress MA & Dwight Mazmanian PhD (2014) An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14:2, 102-126, DOI: 10.1080/15228932.2014.890482 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2014.890482 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Upload: dwight

Post on 24-Mar-2017

222 views

Category:

Documents


4 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

This article was downloaded by: [Northeastern University]On: 20 November 2014, At: 04:24Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Forensic Psychology PracticePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wfpp20

An Examination of Positive ImpressionManagement Validity Scales inthe Context of Parenting CapacityAssessmentsJulie M. Harper PhDa, Fred Schmidt PhDba, L. Jane Cuttress MAb &Dwight Mazmanian PhDa

a Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay,Ontario, Canadab Children’s Centre Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay, Ontario, CanadaPublished online: 14 Apr 2014.

To cite this article: Julie M. Harper PhD, Fred Schmidt PhD, L. Jane Cuttress MA & Dwight MazmanianPhD (2014) An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context ofParenting Capacity Assessments, Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14:2, 102-126, DOI:10.1080/15228932.2014.890482

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2014.890482

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &

Page 2: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 14:102–126, 2014Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1522-8932 print/1522-9092 onlineDOI: 10.1080/15228932.2014.890482

An Examination of Positive ImpressionManagement Validity Scales in the Context

of Parenting Capacity Assessments

JULIE M. HARPER, PhDDepartment of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

FRED SCHMIDT, PhDChildren’s Centre Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada,

and Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

L. JANE CUTTRESS, MAChildren’s Centre Thunder Bay, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

DWIGHT MAZMANIAN, PhDDepartment of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada

Although professionals conducting parenting capacity assessments(PCAs) frequently rely on test validity scales to measure parentalefforts at social desirability, very limited data is available on theirperformance. The current study found strong concurrent valid-ity between the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and MillonClinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) validity scales. Resultswere also consistent with previous studies that suggest parentsengage in some level of impression management. However, thePAI appeared to identify far fewer parents as engaging in posi-tive impression management when compared to the MCMI-III orwhat has been published in previous studies on the MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Future directionsand recommendations regarding the use of validity scales in PCAsare provided.

KEYWORDS PAI, PIM, validity, parenting capacity, impressionmanagement

Address correspondence to Fred Schmidt, Family Court Clinic, Children’s CentreThunder Bay, 283 Lisgar Street, Thunder Bay, Ontario P7B 6G6, Canada. E-mail:[email protected]

102

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 103

Decisions regarding permanency planning for children in the child welfaresystem are among the most taxing and difficult for judges, judicial officers,and child welfare case workers to make. Given the complexity and gravityof such decisions, experts are often called upon to provide comprehensiveassessments of parents to aid in this process. Historically, parenting capacityassessments (PCAs) have been questioned for weak or inconsistent qualityand falling below acceptable forensic standards (Budd, Poindexter, Felix, &Naik-Polan, 2001). Despite the dramatic and lasting impact that PCAs canhave on parents and children, they continue to be under-researched. This isparticularly true when compared to other types of civil parenting evaluationslike child custody and access assessments (Ezzo, Pinsoneault, & Evans, 2007;Kuehnle, Coulter, & Firestone, 2000). There is a clear need to build the bodyof knowledge and understanding of PCAs on many fronts.

One specific area that requires greater attention is the impact of socialdesirability and impression management on psychometric measures com-monly used in PCAs. Understandably, there are strong motivations forparents to present in a favorable light as they face the prospect of potentiallyhaving their parental rights revoked or severely restricted (Carr, Moretti, &Cue, 2005). As a result, they may be highly motivated to enhance their levelof functioning on psychological measures. From the perspective of the PCAevaluator, then, it is very important to understand how frequently and in whatway parents engage in positive impression management so that accurateinterpretations can be made. Unfortunately, there has been limited researchexamining potential social desirability biases in the area of PCAs. Not only arethere a small number of studies, but this research has primarily focused onthe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the MillonClinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III; Blood, 2008; Carr et al., 2005; Ezzoet al., 2007; Stredney, Archer, & Mason, 2006). Little to no attention has beengiven to the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI).

Within the civil parenting literature, the MMPI-2 is consistently identi-fied as the most commonly administered psychological measure (Ackerman& Ackerman, 1997; Ackerman & Pritzl, 2011; Quinnell & Bow, 2001). Themajority of studies have focussed on child custody evaluations with norma-tive MMPI-2 data being published for this population group (Archer, Hagan,Mason, Handel, & Archer, 2012; Bagby, Nickolson, Buis, Radovanovic, &Fidler, 1999; Bathurst, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 1997; Siegel, 1996). Findingsfrom these studies have indicated that those undergoing child custodyevaluations generally exhibit defensive responding and heightened effortsat social desirability. Stredney and coworkers (2006) extended this childcustody research to PCA evaluations. They compared the MMPI-2 profilesof 127 parents undergoing a PCA with those obtained from past child-custody litigants. They found highly similar profiles and results. This led theresearchers to propose that there are many similarities in impression manage-ment tendencies across those undergoing PCAs and child custody evaluations

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

104 J. M. Harper et al.

(Stredny et al.). This latter finding generated further direct comparisons ofMMPI-2 profiles of parents undergoing a PCA with those completing a childcustody evaluation.

Ezzo et al. (2007) compared MMPI-2 profiles for child maltreating ver-sus non-maltreating parents undergoing a child custody evaluation. Theresults revealed that maltreating parents displayed elevations of five or morepoints higher on scales F, Pd, Pa, Sc, Ma, and Si and five points loweron the Correction (K) scale of the MMPI-2. Importantly, when consideringMMPI-2 validity scale configurations for both groups, defensive test-takingbehaviors were observed. These results were seen as being consistent withthe child custody literature, whereby parents are generally self-protective,defensive, and attempt to present in a positive light (Pope, Butcher, & Seelen,1993). One difference between the two child custody groups was that themaltreating parents had a mean score on the Lie (L) scale in the clinicalrange, while non-maltreating parents displayed borderline elevations on theL and K scales (Ezzo et al., 2007). The authors suggested that there may bedifferences in the level of impression management used by parents in childcustody and child welfare contexts. An important limitation of this study,however, stems from the nature of the maltreating sample of parents. Theywere not undergoing a formal PCA but were parents engaged in a childcustody battle who had a child welfare history.

Recently, Resendes and Lecci (2012) explored whether there were signif-icant differences between the MMPI-2 scores of a current PCA sample withalready published PCA (Stredney et al., 2006) and child custody (Bathurstet al., 1997) samples. Completing additional analyses on the data sets, theauthors found statistically significant differences across the standard valid-ity and eight of 10 clinical scales (Resendes & Lecci, 2012). Specifically,those undergoing a PCA displayed higher scores on all clinical and validityscales with the exception of the K scale, where the child custody samplescored higher. Interestingly, the higher clinical scale scores by the PCA sam-ple emerged even though they had a significantly higher L score. The PCAparents were characterized by significantly higher levels of psychopathologywhen compared to parents in the Bathurst et al. (1997) child custody sample.Parents undergoing a PCA were found to have a distinct validity profile withhigher L and F scale scores together with a lower K scale score. The authorsconcluded that the validity profiles of PCA and child custody samples maybe different and should not be combined in future research. This latter resultcontradicted the findings and conclusion of Stredney et al. (2006).

The MMPI-2 validity scales were also studied in another sample of par-ents who were specifically ordered to undergo a PCA evaluation (Carr et al.,2005). The authors found a significant level of impression management andan overall high percentage of invalid profiles (i.e., roughly 41%) when athreshold of T = 70 was used for the MMPI-2 validity scales. When usinga more specific criterion of the L scale to measure positive impressionmanagement, roughly 27% of the parents still obtained invalid profiles.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 105

Given the high level of social desirability, the authors reinforced the needto consider the impact of impression management when conducting PCAs.An important strength of the Carr et al. (2005) study was the examinationof potential moderators of positive impression management. This includedcomparison of mothers and fathers on MMPI-2 validity scale profiles and test-ing the association between intellectual functioning and positive impressionmanagement. Using the criterion of T = 70 on the L scale of the MMPI-2,a higher percentage of mothers (i.e., 34.4%) obtained invalid profiles whencompared to fathers (i.e., 16.7%). However, a parent’s level of intellectualfunctioning was not found to be related to positive impression management.

Parallel to the MMPI-2 studies, the validity profiles of the MCMI-III(Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997), another commonly used measure of psy-chopathology, has been reported in two PCA studies (Blood, 2008; Stredneyet al., 2006). In addition to the MMPI-2, Stredney and coworkers examinedthe MCMI-III validity profiles. With a Base Rate (BR) score of 75 or greateron the MCMI-III Desirability scale considered to reflect positive impressionmanagement, the sample’s mean elevation on the Desirability scale (BR =71.35) was found to be consistent with the elevated impression managementseen on the MMPI-2 (Stredney et al., 2006). Furthermore, elevated MCMI-IIIclinical scale scores occurred on the Histrionic, Narcissistic, and CompulsivePersonality scales (Stredney et al., 2006). This latter cluster of clinical scaleshave also been found to be elevated among child custody litigants (Lampel,1999; McCann et al., 2002) and interpreted as an attempt to present in afavorable light rather than reflecting the presence of psychopathology.

The validity scales of the MCMI-III were also examined in a large sam-ple of PCA parents (N = 325) by Blood (2008). Similar to the findings ofStredney et al. (2006), the mean Desirability scale score was elevated (BR =72.23), reflecting a bias toward impression management and social desirabil-ity (Blood). Consistent with Stredney and coworkers (2006), Blood foundsubclinical but moderate elevations across the Histrionic, Narcissistic, andCompulsive personality scales. Blood also compared the profiles of his PCAsample with that of a previous study that used the MCMI-III in a child custodycontext (i.e., McCann et al., 2001). The Desirability scale was significantly dif-ferent between the two samples and higher for parents who had completedthe child custody evaluation. While the results of Blood, Stredney et al., Carret al. (2005), and Resendes and Lecci (2012) are not consistent with regardto the comparison of validity scales across PCA and child custody samples,there was agreement with respect to the overall effect of impression man-agement on the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III validity scales. A high level of socialdesirability and impression management occurs within PCA samples, andany interpretation of test results must be cognizant of this effect.

A relative newcomer to the assessment of personality and psychopathol-ogy is the PAI (Morey, 2007). It has garnered increasing interest and use inthe area of child custody and PCA evaluations. It also continues to develop agrowing body of research supporting its utility within legal settings, primarily

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

106 J. M. Harper et al.

due to its psychometric strengths (Mullen & Edens, 2008). A recent reviewof international case law has shown a significant increase in the use of thePAI. Among legal cases published in Lexis-Nexis, there has been an increasefrom only 2 PAI cases published in 1995 to 21 cases in 2006 (Mullen &Edens, 2008). Findings from these published legal cases are consistent withthe multiple surveys of child custody forensic evaluators completed by MarcAckerman and colleagues. They found that the PAI was not used by anychild custody evaluators based on a survey completed during the 1990s(Ackerman & Ackerman, 1997). A similar survey conducted more than adecade later found that 28% of child custody evaluators were now usingthe PAI (Ackerman & Pritzl, 2011). This represents a significant shift and anincreased acceptance of the PAI as a sound measure that can be used inforensic contexts. A significant strength of the PAI, similar to the MMPI-2 andMCMI-III, is that it contains validity scales designed to assist in interpreta-tion and identification of invalid profiles. In the review by Mullen and Edens(2008), validity scales of the PAI were mentioned in 41.3% of the legal cases,highlighting the importance placed on identifying the accuracy of test resultswhen legal decisions are made.

Notably, only one published study has examined the use of the PAIwithin the context of PCAs (Carr et al., 2005). While the primary focus ofthe Carr et al. study was to examine the profile of MMPI-2 validity scales,they did have a subsample of parents (∼30%) who also completed the PAI.They found evidence for positive self-presentation based on the PositiveImpression Management (PIM) scale of the PAI. Roughly 18% of the fathersand 17% of the mothers obtained elevations within the invalid range onthe PIM scale. However, the rate of invalid PAI profiles was lower than the27% of parents with elevated L scale scores observed on the MMPI-2. Theavailability of only one study, using a subsample of parents, highlights thesignificant gap that currently exists in PAI validity scale interpretation. Giventhe seriousness and weight of PCA evaluations, the absence of empirical dataon the use of the PAI in PCA evaluations is extremely concerning. This latterpoint is particularly salient as the PAI appears to be used on an increasinglyfrequent basis in civil parent contexts.

PRESENT STUDY

The current study builds on the small existing literature examining dis-simulation patterns on established psychological tests used within PCAs.Previous studies have found that, as a group, parents completing PCAspresent themselves in an enhanced and positive manner. Awareness andappropriate consideration of this process is critical for the forensic evaluator.Within the context of PCAs, only one study has reported on the PAI (Carret al., 2005). This latter study was limited, however, as it consisted of less than

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 107

one-third of the overall PCA sample and did not publish mean PAI validity orclinical scale scores. The current results provide the first report of normativePAI scale score results for a large PCA sample of parents. In addition, valid-ity scales were examined in a subsample of parents who also completedthe MCMI-III as part of the PCA. It was expected that significant levels ofimpression management would be observed on both measures.

Finally, previous studies have given minimal attention to the potentialrole of various demographic variables as moderators of positive impressionmanagement and validity scale configurations across the PAI, MCMI-III, orMMPI-2. Past studies have been limited to the role that parent gender (Blood,2008; Carr et al., 2005) and intellectual functioning (Carr et al., 2005) has onthe level of social desirability. Using available demographic information inthe current dataset, the association between positive impression manage-ment and the following factors were examined: parent gender, family size,living arrangement of children, age of youngest child, parental history of lifestability, and parental perception of childhood relationships. As this analysiswas exploratory and unique, no a priori predictions were made.

METHOD

Participants

The current sample represented all consecutive PCAs, conducted over an11-year time period, as part of usual clinical services within a children’smental health center. Referred child welfare parents comprised family situa-tions where children were living at home (24.6%) or living in an alternativecare placement outside of the family home, such as foster or kinship care(63.6%). There were also situations where one or more children were placedin alternative care while one or more siblings were still living with the par-ent (7.7%). All families were involved with child protection services andwere identified as being high risk. A total of 195 parents or grandparents,representing 136 family units, were assessed. Participants included 84 males,including fathers and grandfathers, and 111 females, consisting of mothersand grandmothers. Fathers ranged in age from 18 to 67 years (M = 33.3 years,SD = 8.9 years), while mothers ranged from 17 to 64 years (M = 29.4 years,SD = 8.8 years). The majority of participants were married or in common-lawrelationships at the time of the PCA (60.5% married or common-law; 39.5%single). See Table 1 for demographic information.

Measures

PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT INVENTORY

The PAI is a 344-item measure of personality and psychopathology. ThePAI has four validity scales including: Inconsistency (ICN); Infrequency

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

108 J. M. Harper et al.

TABLE 1 Demographic Characteristics of PCA Sample

VariableMales

(n = 84)Females

(n = 111)Total Sample

(n = 195)

Mean Age (SD) 33.29 (8.92) 29.40 (8.80) 30.95 (9.02)Placement of Children

Living with parent 20 28 48Foster care 42 53 95Kinship care 11 18 29Some children in care 6 9 15Missing information 5 3 8

Marital StatusSingle 28 49 77Married/Common-law 56 62 118

Education<Grade 11 20 31 51Grade 12 17 14 31Some College/ University 3 10 13Missing 44 56 100

Number of ChildrenMean (SD) 1.99 (1.23) 2.19 (1.36) 2.11 (1.31)

(INF); Negative Impression Management (NIM); and Positive ImpressionManagement (PIM; Morey, 2007). Raw scores are transformed into T-scoresthat provide an interpretation relative to a standardized sample. The PAI wasdeveloped by a rational and empirical approach to scale development. Thismethod strongly emphasizes scale stability and correlates, placing impor-tance on the use of both theoretical and empirical criteria for item selection.Internal consistency of the PAI full scales were found to have median coef-ficient alphas of .81, .86, and .82 for the normative, clinical, and collegesamples, respectively (Morey, 2007). The mean test-retest reliability for thefull scales ranged from .75 to .79. Furthermore, the PAI has been wellvalidated in several treatment populations.

MILLON CLINICAL MULTIAXIAL INVENTORY-III

The MCMI-III is a 175-item inventory measuring the presence of personalitydisorders and psychopathology. Raw scores are converted into Base Rate(BR) scores that reflect the prevalence rates of disorders in the population(Millon, 1994; Millon et al., 1997). The MCMI-III is composed of five clus-ters of indices: (1) Modifying Indices that consist of three scales designedto measure validity (Disclosure Scale, Desirability Scale, and DebasementScale); (2) Clinical Personality Patterns Scale measuring personality styles;(3) Severe Personality Scales, which denote severe forms of the basic per-sonality patterns; (4) Clinical Syndromes Scales, which assess distortions inthe basic personality patterns; and (5) Severe Syndromes Scales measur-ing severe symptomatic psychopathology (Van Denburg & Choca, 1997).Psychometrically, the MCMI-III has test-rest coefficients ranging from .82 to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 109

.96 for each scale, with a retesting interval from 5 to 14 days (Millon, 1994).Internal consistency estimates range from .66 to .90 (Millon, 1994).

ADULT ADOLESCENT PARENTING INVENTORY-2

The AAPI-2 is a 40-item measure used to assess parenting and child rear-ing attitudes of adolescents and parents. Results are compared to establishednorms for adult parents and non-parents; however, there is no validity indexassociated with this measure (Conners, Whiteside-Mansell, Deere, Ledet, &Edwards, 2006). The AAPI-2 was normed on a large sample (N = 1,427) ofadult and adolescent parents (abusive and non-abusive) from 23 differentstates in the United States. Separate norms were developed for mothers andfathers, according to age group (i.e., adult versus adolescent). The responsesyield five subscale scores that provide a risk index in relation to five con-structs that are thought to be associated with abuse and neglect (Bavolek& Keene, 2001). These five constructs include: Inappropriate Expectations,Empathy, Belief in Corporal Punishment, Role Reversal, and Independence(Bavolek & Keene, 2001). Higher scores on each of the five constructs reflectmore positive and appropriate attitudes and beliefs about parenting prac-tices. Internal consistencies reported for the five factors of the AAPI-2 arestrong ranging from .80 to .92 (Bavolek & Keene, 2001). As some datawere collected prior to the publication of the revised AAPI-2, a portion ofthe data set includes use of the original AAPI. The AAPI-2 consists of thesame subscales as the AAPI but has an additional fifth scale referred to asIndependence.

STATE-TRAIT ANGER EXPRESSION INVENTORY-2

The STAXI-2 is a 57-item measure that assesses three general areas of func-tioning: state anger, trait anger, and anger control. Responses are convertedinto percentiles based on norms (Spielberger, 1999) with higher scores oneach scale representing more severe problems with anger. The normativesamples for the STAXI-2 are based on more than 1,900 individuals from twopopulations including normal adults (n = 1,644) and hospitalized psychiatricpatients (n = 274). Internal consistency ranged from .73 to .95 and was notinfluenced by gender or psychopathology (Spielberger, 1999).

Procedure

The PAI, MCMI-III, AAPI-2, and STAXI-2 were administered to parents as partof usual forensic practice when completing PCAs. While the PAI was com-pleted on all parents, the other three measures were not consistently admin-istered and completed based on clinical judgment of the assessor. All parentswere referred for a PCA from one child welfare organization. Referrals were

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

110 J. M. Harper et al.

made by child protection case workers if it was determined that a parentwas at very high risk for abuse or neglect and/or to aid in permanency plan-ning for the children. Roughly 72% of the families had one or more childrenremoved from their care due to issues of abuse and neglect. The assessmentswere requested to provide additional information regarding the needs andbest interests of the children together with the capacity of parents to provideadequate care. This information was used to either facilitate reunification ora permanency plan for the children. In roughly 25% of the families, childrenwere living with their parents but were under a supervision protection orderof child welfare services. In this latter case, the child welfare system andcourts were monitoring the care of the children with the PCA requestedto help facilitate this process. Parents completed psychological testingunder the supervision of a registered doctoral-level psychologist or master’slevel psychological associate. All test measures were later computer-scored.Test results and demographic information, based on file information, wereentered into a de-identified database for the purpose of analyses. Ethicalapproval was obtained from the children’s mental health center and the localuniversity research ethics board prior to the commencement of the study.

RESULTS

Preliminary Analyses

Frequencies were analyzed to ensure that data entry was free oferrors. Histograms were generated to check scales for univariate out-liers, skewness, and kurtosis. Log transformations were conducted acrossthe following scales of the PAI to reduce skewness and kurtosis: INF,Anxiety, Depression, Schizophrenia, Antisocial, Anxiety-Related Disorders,and Somatoform. Square root transformations were conducted on the fol-lowing scales of the PAI to reduce skewness and kurtosis: Aggression, NIM,Alcohol, Drug, and Suicide. Log transformations were conducted acrossthe following scales of the MCMI-III to reduce skewness and kurtosis:Avoidance, Self-Defeating, Somatoform, Dysthymic, Thought Disorder, MajorDepression, and Borderline Personality disorder. Square root transformationswere conducted on the following scales of the MCMI-III: Aggressive/Sadistic,Schizotypal, Histrionic and Desirability scales. Following transformations, allscales, except for the PAI Drug scale, were within acceptable limits of nor-malcy. Overall there were 194 PAIs and 60 MCMI-IIIs that were analyzedfrom the entire sample of 195 parents who underwent a PCA.

PAI Results

PAI VALIDITY SCALE CONFIGURATION

Overall PAI validity and clinical scale scores are displayed in Table 2 accord-ing to parent gender and full sample. The PAI manual (Morey, 2007) specifies

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 111

TABLE 2 PAI Mean t Score Values for Full Sample and by Gender

Total (N =194) Males (n =84) Females (n =110)

PAI Scale M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) p value∗

Inconsistency 52.52 (9.29) 51.67 (9.15) 53.17 (9.39) .27Positive Impression 50.64 (10.87) 52.52 (10.77) 49.20 (10.78) .04Negative Impression 53.27 (12.35) 51.37 (11.83) 54.72 (12.59) .04Infrequency 54.89 (9.52) 54.77 (9.15) 54.99 (9.83) .95Borderline 55.86 (11.34) 53.79 (10.45) 57.44 (11.78) .024Depression 55.00 (12.19) 52.35 (10.44) 57.03 (13.05) .01Antisocial 53.43 (9.75) 56.69 (10.76) 50.95 (8.11) <.001Alcohol 49.63 (10.13) 52.12 (10.73) 47.74 (9.26) .002Mania 51.30 (9.96) 52.23 (9.91) 50.60 (9.99) .26Anxiety 53.47 (11.51) 50.98 (9.61) 55.37 (12.48) .01Anxiety-Related 53.67 (12.01) 50.77 (10.41) 55.79 (12.73) .003Schizophrenia 51.88 (12.04) 51.42 (11.54) 52.23 (12.46) .71Aggression 51.18 (11.70) 50.37 (10.96) 51.80 (12.25) .42Paranoia 56.73 (11.53) 55.42 (11.32) 57.73 (11.64) .17Stress 57.86 (10.55) 57.16 (10.20) 58.38 (10.81) .42Somatic 53.53 (10.58) 52.20 (9.38) 54.54 (11.35) .14Drug 56.36 (12.76) 57.06 (12.91) 60.27 (48.24) .76Suicide 50.38 (9.45) 50.49 (10.64) 50.30 (8.48) .96Social Support 51.43 (12.50) 49.62 (10.49) 52.80 (13.73) .07Dominance 49.94 (10.31) 51.82 (10.37) 48.50 (10.09) .03Warmth 50.15 (10.49) 49.65 (9.75) 50.54 (11.06) .56Defensiveness Index 50.29 (11.97) 52.39 (11.65) 48.71 (12.02) .04Cashel Discriminant 54.20 (8.68) 63.71 (9.76) 54.58 (7.78) .49Malingering Index 53.38 (11.61) 51.34 (10.51) 54.93 (12.20) .033Roger’s Discriminant 54.42 (10.96) 52.16 (9.77) 56.15 (9.98) .006Suicide Potential 54.05 (14.29) 51.63 (12.48) 55.90 (15.31) .04Violence Potential 54.20 (13.10) 53.86 (13.79) 54.46 (12.61) .75Treatment Process 54.71 (12.26) 55.14 (13.19) 54.39 (11.54) .67Alcohol Estimated 56.69 (6.19) 58.14 (7.02) 55.59 (5.25) .006Drug Estimated 54.95 (7.60) 56.81 (8.55) 53.53 (6.48) .004Mean Clinical Elevation 53.74 (8.14) 53.12 (7.46) 54.23 (8.65) .36

∗p values for gender comparisons by individual scale.

that INF T-scores of 75 and above represents a significant elevation. Thiswas found in 6 of the 110 (5.4%) mothers and 4 of the 84 (4.8%) fathers.PIM T-scores at or above 66 represent a significant elevation and suggest thepresence of positive impression management. This was found in 6 of the110 (5.5%) mothers and 10 of the 84 (11.9%) fathers. NIM Scores at or above92 represents an invalid profile that should not be interpreted. SignificantNIM elevations were found in 2 of 110 (1.8%) mothers and 1 of the 84 (1.2%)fathers. Pearson Product Moment Correlations were conducted to examinethe relationship between the overall mean of the PAI clinical scale scoresand the PIM scale. The results revealed a significant negative correlation, r(194) = –.75, p < .001.

A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA)was performed to compare clinical scale elevation differences between all

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

112 J. M. Harper et al.

invalid (based on all four validity scale scores) and valid profiles of the PAI.Assumption testing was conducted to check for normality, linearity, univari-ate and multivariate outliers, homogeneity of variance-covariance matrices,and multicollinearity. Mahalanobis distances revealed two multivariate out-liers, which given the nature of the current exploratory study were retainedin the database. The assumption of homogeneity of variance-covariancematrices was not maintained. More conservative alpha levels for dependentvariables were set for univariate F tests. There was a statistically significantdifference between those who had valid and invalid profiles on the com-bined dependent variables: F (14,178) = 2.945, p < .001; Wilks’ Lambda =.812; partial eta squared = .188 (18%). When the results for the dependentvariables were considered separately, three scales reached statistical signif-icance, using a Bonferroni adjusted alpha level of .004. This included theBorderline scale: F (1, 191) = 10.856, p = .001, partial eta squared = .054;the Anxiety Related Disorders scale: F (1, 191) = 8.395, p = .004, partial etasquared = .042; and the Stress scale: F (1, 191) = 8.409, p = .004, partialeta squared = .042. An inspection of the mean scores indicated that thosewho had valid profiles reported higher levels of Borderline symptoms (M =56.93, SD = 9.94 versus M = 49.46, SD = 16.42), Anxiety Related Symptoms(M = 54.30; SD = 10.60 versus M = 49.57; SD = 18.01), and Stress (M =58.74; SD = 10.21 versus M = 52.6, SD = 11.20).

To ensure a thorough understanding of valid and invalid profiles, addi-tional analyses were examined with the two multivariate outliers removed.Similar to the previous results including the assumption of homogeneity ofvariance-covariance matrices not being maintained, there was a statisticallysignificant difference between those who had valid and invalid profiles onthe combined dependent variables: F (14, 176) = 3.319, p < .001; Wilks’Lambda = .791; partial eta squared = .209 (20.9%). When the results for thedependent variables were considered separately using a Bonferrroni adjustedalpha level of .004, three additional PAI scales were significantly different inaddition to the aforementioned Borderline, Anxiety Related Disorders andStress Scales. Thus, the following results were obtained: Borderline scale: F(1, 189) = 15.523, p = <.001, partial eta squared = .076; the Anxiety RelatedDisorders scale: F (1, 189) = 11.654, p = .001, partial eta squared = .058;the Stress scale: F (1, 189) = 10.585, p = .001, partial eta squared = .053;the Depression scale: F (1, 189) = 8.925, p = .003, partial eta squared =.045; the Schizophrenia scale: F (1, 189) = 11.494, p = .001, partial etasquared = .057; and the Somatic scale: F (1, 189) = 11.715, p = .001, partialeta squared = .058. Similar to previous reported results, an inspection of themean scores indicated that those who had valid profiles reported higher lev-els of Borderline symptoms (M = 56.99, SD = 9.94 versus M = 48.15, SD =15.16), Anxiety Related symptoms (M = 54.31; SD = 10.64 versus M = 48.26;SD = 16.93), Stress symptoms (M = 58.80; SD = .10.22 veersus M = 51.85,SD = 10.67), Depression symptoms (M = 55.62, SD = 10.96 versus M =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 113

49.96, SD = 15.99), Schizophrenia symptoms (M = 52.64; SD = 10.93 ver-sus M = 46.04; SD = 15.18), and Somatic symptoms (M = 54.25; SD =.10.26 versus M = 47.81; SD = 9.17).

PAI PROFILES BY GENDER

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare scores for fathersand mothers across PAI validity and clinical scales. Given the number oft-tests required for this comparison, statistical significance was set at p <

.001 to reduce the likelihood of Type I errors. There were no significant dif-ferences across validity indices using the more conservative alpha level (seeTable 2). On the Antisocial subscale, fathers (M = 56.69, SD = 10.76) weresignificantly higher than mothers (M = 50.95, SD = 8.11); t (192) = 4.20,p < .001. There was also a trend toward significance for both Alcohol (p =.002) and Anxiety Related Disorders scales (p = .003). Specifically, fathersreported elevated levels of alcohol and lower levels of anxiety-related symp-toms relative to mothers. Notably, there was a trend toward significance forthe Rogers Discriminant Function Index (p = .006) and both of the Drug(p = .004) and Alcohol (p = .006) Estimated indices. Specifically, motherswere more likely to endorse a profile consistent with malingering (RogersDiscriminant Index), while fathers scored higher on the supplemental indicesthat measured alcohol and drug habits.

PREDICTORS OF PIM SCALE SCORES

Roughly 25% of the child welfare parents completed the PCA while maintain-ing custody of their children within their home. Assessments were completedwith these families to facilitate treatment and decrease their high-risk levelfor abuse or neglect. To determine whether having custody of the chil-dren lessened the need for impression management on the PIM scale, anindependent-samples t-test was conducted comparing parents who did anddid not have custody of their children at the time of the PCA. The overallPIM value of 49.57 for parents who did have custody of their children wasnot significantly different from the value of 50.89 for parents who did nothave custody, t (1, 169) = .17, p = .68.

Using available demographic data, additional factors possibly associ-ated with positive impression management were explored. A simultaneousmultiple regression was conducted to evaluate the predictive ability of thefollowing factors: parent gender, number of children included in the PCA,living status of the child (whether at home or alternative care), and age ofyoungest child included in the assessment. Using these variables, 163 of the195 parents assessed had complete data and could be included. These pre-dictors were entered into a multiple regression with the PIM score as thecriterion variable. All four predictors produced an R2 of .085, F (4, 159) =

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

114 J. M. Harper et al.

3.69, p = .007. The adjusted R2 value of .062 indicated that roughly 6% ofthe variability in the PIM score was predicted by the parent’s gender, num-ber of children assessed, living status of child, and age of youngest child.An inspection of individual predictors revealed that the parent’s gender (β =–3.37, p = .04) and number of children included in the PCA (β = 1.87, p =.003) were significant predictors of the PIM score. The direction of the rela-tionship suggested that fathers were more likely to obtain higher PIM scoreswhen compared to mothers. Also, parents who had more children were morelikely to obtain higher PIM score values when compared to parents who hadfewer children. The living status of the child and age of youngest child werenot associated with PIM scores in the multiple regression analysis.

Additional meaningful variables were present in the data set but only fora minority of the parents, with roughly one-third to one-half being available.While these analyses should be considered exploratory and interpreted withcaution, they were completed due to the unique nature of the information.As part of the PCA, parents were asked to self-report the following infor-mation: residential stability as a child (i.e., number of moves while growingup); quality of relationship with their father, quality of relationship with theirmother, whether the parent felt wanted as a child, and whether the parent feltlike they belonged as a child. Since this self-report information on quality ofrelationships was ordinal in nature (i.e., 5-point rating scale), a point biserialcorrelation was used to determine the association between these variablesand PIM scores on the PAI. The following correlations were obtained: resi-dential stability (r = –.305, p = .007, n = 77); quality of relationship withfather (r = .304, p = .004, n = 90); quality of relationship with mother (r =.309, p = .002, n = 95); felt wanted as a child (r = .341, p = .001, n = 92);and felt like belonged as a child (r = .445, p = .000, n = 94).

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN PAI VALIDITY INDICES AND OTHER CLINICAL

MEASURES

Correlations were also conducted to evaluate the relationship between valid-ity indices of the PAI with other psychometric measures completed during thePCA including the STAXI-2 and AAPI-2. The PIM scale was negatively asso-ciated with the STAXI-2 Trait Anger scale, r (54) = –.68, p < .001, and AngerExpression scale, r (54) = –.68, p, .001. The PIM scale was also found tobe significantly and positively correlated with the Empathy, Punishment, andIndependence scales of the AAPI-2. These correlations are in the expecteddirection with parents reporting fewer anger problems and higher posi-tive parenting skills as higher positive impression management tendencieswere identified through the PIM scale. Correlations between the PAI validityindices and the STAXI-2 and AAPI-2 scores are reported in Table 3.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 16: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 115

TABLE 3 Association between PAI Validity Indices and the STAXI-2 and AAPI-2

PAI

PIM NIM INF INC

STAXI-2 (n = 54)State Anger .08 .02 .20 −.02Trait Anger −.68 ∗∗∗ .34 ∗ .12 .15AngerExpression

−.68 ∗∗∗ .42 ∗∗∗ .13 .37 ∗

AAPI-2 (n = 129)Expectations .08 −.01 −.18 ∗ −.28 ∗∗

Empathy .24 ∗∗ −.23 ∗∗ −.23 ∗∗ −.41 ∗∗∗

Punishment .19 ∗ −.14 −.09 −.26 ∗∗

Family Roles .11 −.06 −.04 −.25 ∗∗

Independencea .36 ∗ −.57 ∗∗ −.15 −.50 ∗∗

Note: an = 32 for this subscale.∗p < .05. ∗∗p < .01. ∗∗∗p ≤ .001.

MCMI-III Results

MCMI-III VALIDITY SCALE CONFIGURATION

The presence of positive impression management on the MCMI-III iscaptured by the Desirability scale. A BR score of 75 or greater is consid-ered to reflect the presence of positive impression management. As dis-played in Table 4, the total sample score on the Desirability scale was73.00, with fathers (BR = 79.22) scoring higher than mothers (BR =69.14) on this scale. Roughly 52% of parents obtained a BR score of75 or greater on the Desirability scale of the MCMI-III. When using amore conservative criterion of BR = 85 for the Desirability scale, 25%of the parents were still identified with significant levels of positiveimpression management. An independent-samples t-test was also con-ducted to compare validity scale means between parents with childrenliving in the home and those with children living in alternative care.No significant differences were found across any of the three validityscales.

MCMI-III PROFILES BY GENDER

An independent-samples t-test was conducted to compare MCMI-III person-ality and clinical scale scores for fathers and mothers. Given the number oft-tests conducted, the requirement for statistical significance was set at p <

.001 to reduce the potential for Type I errors. There were no statistically sig-nificant differences between mothers and fathers across validity and clinicalscales with this conservative alpha value (see Table 4).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 17: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

116 J. M. Harper et al.

TABLE 4 MCMI-III Mean BR Scores for Full Sample and by Gender

Total (N = 60) Males (n = 23) Females (n = 37)

MCMI-III Scale M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) p value∗

Disclosure 51.33 (19.74) 49.74 (19.19) 52.00 (20.28) .66Desirability 73.00 (20.26) 79.22 (16.62) 69.14 (21.53) .04Debasement 40.23 (26.08) 30.57 (25.06) 46.24 (25.17) .02Schizoid 40.77 (24.98) 34.96 (27.54) 44.38 (22.90) .16Avoidant 33.12 (29.88) 27.65 (29.55) 36.51 (29.98) .13Depressive 32.78 (31.37) 27.87 (34.85) 35.84 (29.08) .34Dependent 44.32 (25.79) 48.87 (23.50) 41.49 (27.04) .29Histrionic 65.69 (21.63) 64.70 (19.62) 66.30 (23.03) .67Narcissistic 67.55 (16.08) 65.65 (14.08) 68.73 (17.29) .48Antisocial 47.15 (26.25) 47.74 (27.09) 46.78 (26.09) .89Sadistic 42.07 (27.62) 38.04 (29.38) 44.57 (26.58) .36Compulsive 63.73 (19.40) 57.74 (14.30) 67.46 (21.32) .06Negativistic 39.23 (28.28) 38.39 (32.50) 39.76 (25.78) .87Self-Defeating 31.32 (31.76) 26.70 (31.55) 34.19 (31.98) .13Schizotypal 39.35 (29.39) 31.26 (29.43) 44.38 (28.60) .06Borderline 33.22 (27.27) 34.52 (25.73) 32.41 (28.50) .47Paranoid 47.22 (29.41) 37.22 (31.40) 53.43 (26.67) .05Anxiety 36.62 (30.97) 35.96 (31.32) 37.03 (31.19) .90Somatoform 24.13 (27.51) 19.87 (27.56) 26.78 (27.57) .04Bipolar: Manic 53.07 (21.93) 54.52 (18.17) 52.16 (24.17) .67Dysthymic 25.00 (27.44) 29.96 (28.50) 28.14 (26.68) .02Alcohol Dependence 43.68 (27.57) 42.48 (29.17) 44.43 (26.91) .79Drug Dependence 50.28 (27.24) 48.61 (24.67) 51.32 (29.01) .71PTSD 32.52 (26.59) 28.73 (25.97) 34.78 (27.05) .40Thought Disorder 26.57 (24.11) 25.57 (25.19) 27.19 (23.74) .37Major Depression 23.55 (25.98) 16.70 (24.91) 27.81 (26.04) .01Delusional Disorder 44.10 (32.28) 40.74 (29.18) 46.19 (34.29) .53

∗p values for gender comparisons by scale.

MCMI–III COMPARISON ACROSS PCA STUDIES

A comparison between elevations on the MCMI-III in the current PCA sampleand results from a previous study (Blood, 2008) can be found in Table 5.Specifically, the percentage of parents found at BR cut-off scores greaterthan 75 were generated. Of particular interest to this study, the percentage ofparents with Desirability validity scale elevations above a BR of 75 was foundto be 52%. This is in comparison to the 47% found by Blood. The Disclosureand Debasement validity scales, as well as the other clinical scales, werehighly similar across the two PCA samples. To determine the equivalencyof the current sample with Blood, t-test comparisons were made using themean scale scores across all MCMI-III scales. The p values for this analysisare presented in Table 5. Only one scale, Bi-polar: Manic, was significantat the .05 level, with parents in the current sample obtaining a significantlyhigher score than parents in the Blood study.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 18: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 117

TABLE 5 Percentage of MCMI-III Scale Elevations at BR ≥ 75 and Scale Mean Comparisonsfor Parenting Capacity Assessment Samples

MCMI-III Scale Current Samplea Blood (2008)a p valueb

Disclosure 15 12 .36Desirability 52 47 .77Debasement 5 6 .76Schizoid 5 15 .46Avoidant 13 15 .39Depressive 17 17 .34Dependent 13 18 .55Histrionic 37 26 .14Narcissistic 27 22 .07Antisocial 12 8 .44Sadistic 12 3 .33Compulsive 32 26 .64Negativistic 15 13 .97Self-Defeating 15 20 .40Schizotypal 3 4 .40Borderline 3 6 .84Paranoid 17 15 .98Anxiety 17 31 .74Somatoform 3 3 .71Bipolar: Manic 10 7 .04Dysthymic 7 7 .35Alcohol Dependence 8 4 .91Drug Dependence 10 9 .13PTSD 2 4 .66Thought Disorder 3 < 1 .99Major Depression 3 6 .61Delusional Disorder 8 8 .48

aRounded percentages for current sample and Blood (2008).bt-test p values for individual scale mean score comparisons between current sample and Blood (2008).Originally published in Blood, Lowell. (2008). The Use of the MCMI-III in Completing Parenting CapacityAssessments. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8, 24–38. doi: 10.1080/15228930801947286.

PAI and MCMI-III Validity Scale Agreement

Pearson product moment correlations were conducted to evaluate the rela-tionship between validity indices of the PAI and MCMI-III. As expected, therewere significant correlations across all validity indices (Table 6). Notably, thePIM scale was negatively associated with disclosure and debasement sub-scales of the MCMI, r (59) = –.73, p < .001 and r (59) = –.72, p < .001,respectively, and positively associated with the MCMI-III Desirability scale,r (59) =.39, p = .003. By contrast, the NIM subscale of the PAI obtainedstrong and significant positive correlations with the MCMI-III Disclosure andDebasement indices and a negative association with the Desirability scale.These correlations are in the expected direction and show concordanceacross the PAI and MCMI-III validity scales.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 19: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

118 J. M. Harper et al.

TABLE 6 Correlation Coefficients across Validity Indices of the PAI and MCMI-III (n = 59)

Personality Assessment Inventory

INF PIM NIM INC

MCMI-III Scale r p r p r p r p

Disclosure 0.34 .009 −0.73 <.001 0.73 <.001 0.41 .001Desirability −0.33 .010 0.39 .003 −0.60 <.001 −0.37 .004Debasement 0.29 .028 −0.72 <.001 0.62 <.001 0.47 <.001

DISCUSSION

The present results build on and complement the small but growing PCAliterature on positive impression management. This study represents the firstlarge PAI dataset for parents who had completed a PCA and complementsthe published PAI normative data for parents undergoing a child custodyevaluation by Hynan (2013). In this sample, the PIM scale from the PAI wasfound to be strongly associated with the overall mean elevation for clinicalscales. The higher the level of impression management portrayed by parents,as reflected by the PIM scale, the lower the overall clinical scale scoresobtained on the PAI. This was also observed on other clinical measureslike the STAXI-2 and AAPI-2. Higher PIM scores were associated with morefavorable and positive self-reports regarding anger or parenting knowledgeand practices. This suggests that the PIM scale is detecting and measuringthe tendency of parents to present in a more favorable light and minimizemental health difficulties. In addition, the current results provide normativedata regarding PAI validity and clinical scale scores for a relatively largesample of parents who underwent a PCA.

There were few invalid PAI profiles in this child welfare sample.Comparison of valid and invalid PAI profiles, however, revealed sig-nificant differences on several clinical scales, even when using a veryconservative criterion. This suggested that positive impression managementand response bias appeared to have some impact on specific clinicalscale elevations. Notably, those with valid profiles had significantly higherPAI scale elevations on the Borderline, Anxiety-Related Disorders, Stress,Depression, Schizophrenia, and Somatic scales. As anticipated, those withinvalid profiles were more likely to report decreased symptoms across thosedomains. It may be that parents who were attempting to present in afavorable light were intentionally trying to not appear stressed, anxious,depressed, or emotionally dysregulated during the PCA. This, again, is con-sistent with the interpretation that the validity scales are identifying parentswho are attempting to present in a favorable light. However, when using thecut-off for invalid responding on the PIM validity scale (i.e., T > 66), only

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 20: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 119

8.3% of the parents were identified with invalid profiles. Although there wasa significantly reduced sample of parents (n = 60) with the MCMI-III, roughly52% of that subsample had invalid profiles based on the Desirability scale.These results indicate that the MCMI-III may be detecting invalid respondingmore frequently than the PAI.

An unexpected finding from this PAI sample was the mean PIM scalescore for both fathers and mothers. While the PIM scale appeared to operateas a measure of positive impression management, the mean overall PIM scalescore of 50.64 for this sample was not elevated. This is not expected, giventhe small existing literature on the MCMI-III and MMPI-2, which suggestmuch higher rates of impression management in PCA samples. It is also lowerthan the PIM scale score of 60.24 reported by Hynan (2013) in a child custodysample. More specific and direct comparison of the mean PIM scale scorewith other PCA studies is not possible at this time. The only available PAIcomparison comes from the study by Carr and coworkers (2005). As they didnot report mean scale scores for their subsample of parents who completedthe PAI, it is not possible to make direct comparisons. However, Carr et al.did report the percent of parents with invalid profiles based on the criterionof T = 66 on the PIM. In comparison, the current sample was found toobtain a lower rate of invalid profiles, with roughly 5% of mothers and 12%of fathers obtaining invalid PIM scores. This contrasts with the roughly 17%of mothers and 18% of fathers with invalid profiles obtained by Carr et al.One possible explanation for this discrepancy could be the reduced samplesize of the PAI administrations in the Carr et al. study. For example, parentswith more severe problems or defensiveness may have been administeredthe PAI to complement the MMPI-2 that was routinely administered. Thismay have inflated the percentage of parents with invalid PIM profiles inthe Carr et al. study. It is also possible that this finding represents genuinedifferences between the two samples. In this latter case, it will be criticalfor additional data from new samples to be published, which may help toclarify and provide a clearer understanding of the PAI validity scales. As theCarr et al. study represented a partial sample of parents and the currentstudy is based on parents from one child welfare organization, more dataare required before any firm conclusions can be reached about normativePAI validity and clinical scale patterns within PCA samples.

Given the possible difference in positive impression management detec-tion between the PAI and MCMI-III in this sample, additional secondaryanalyses were completed to see whether a possible selection bias accountedfor this effect. Using an independent-samples t-test, PAI scale scores for par-ents who were administered the MCMI-III were compared to the PAI scalescores for those who were not administered the MCMI-III. No profile differ-ences, including the PIM scale, were noted except on the PAI Warmth scale(p < .05). In this latter case, parents who were given the MCMI-III obtaineda significantly higher score on the Warmth scale. While the PAI scale scores

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 21: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

120 J. M. Harper et al.

did not detect a selection bias between parents who did and did completethe MCMI-III in this study, it does not mean that one did not exist. However,it is important to note that there is a strong similarity between the MCMI-IIIDesirability scale scores in this sample (BR = 73.00) with Blood (2008), whohad a mean BR score of 72.33, and Stredney et al. (2006), who had a meanBR score of 71.35. This would reinforce and suggest that this sample may berepresentative to other PCA samples. It was also noted in this sample that thePIM scale score was negatively related to the overall PAI mean clinical scaleelevation and correlated in the expected direction with other collateral psy-chological test measures (i.e., AAPI-2 and STAXI-2). The PIM scale was alsostrongly correlated in the expected direction with the MCMI-III Desirabilityscale. Thus, it appeared to function as a measure of social desirability andpositive impression management. Nonetheless, based on overall mean ele-vation, the PIM scale appeared to identify fewer parents in the invalid rangewhen compared to other established measures of psychopathology like theMMPI-2 and MCMI-III. This has important practice implications for evaluatorswho rely on the PAI validity scales to identify a parent’s efforts to be decep-tive on a PCA. If relying solely on the PIM scale elevation, evaluators, insome instances, may interpret a parent’s mental health as being sound whenunderlying psychopathology may be present. These results suggest that thePAI may be less effective at identifying individuals who are intentionallyattempting to deceive and may be a more conservative measure of positiveimpression management. Sole reliance on the PAI to detect dissimulationwithin the context of PCAs may be questionable.

An alternative interpretation to the lower rate of invalid PAI profiles,when compared to the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III, may come from the results ofsimilar comparisons completed in non-forensic population groups. For exam-ple, within an inpatient population, the PAI obtained fewer invalid profileswhen compared to the MMPI-2 (LePage & Mogge, 2001). Similarly, Braxton,Calhoun, Williams, and Boggs (2007) compared validity rates of both theMMPI-2 and PAI in a large sample of veterans. They found that fewer pro-files were considered invalid due to positive impression management onthe PAI when compared to the MMPI-2. The authors concluded that thelower rate of invalid profiles on the PAI may stem from important differ-ences in construction. For example, the MMPI-2 requires a higher readinglevel, is considerably longer, and is constructed with overlapping test itemson the validity and clinical scales. This overlap has the potential to distortthe assessment of validity. Moreover, parallel to the MMPI-2, the MCMI-IIIvalidity scales also overlap and share many similar items with the clinical per-sonality disorder scales. This overlap is highly problematic for validity scaledetection. For example, Schoenberg, Dorr, Morgan, and Burke (2004) founda high association between the validity scales of the MMPI-2 and MCMI-IIIwith the clinical scales, suggesting that this may confound the detection ofimpression management with level of psychopathology. In contrast, the PAI

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 22: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 121

validity scales do not share any items with the PAI clinical scales. Braxtonet al. questioned whether these differences in test construction may play arole in the higher rate of invalid profiles on the MMPI-2. This leaves thepossible differences in detection of invalid responding on the PAI, MMPI-2,and MCMI-III as an open question. It may be related to differences in thedetection of impression management but may also be related to differencesin test difficulty and construction. It will be imperative for future research tountangle these potential factors in response detection for the PAI, MMPI-2,and MCMI-III. In the interim, given the apparent differences in validity scaleperformance and the lack of information on PAI validity scales in forensicsettings, it is prudent for the forensic evaluator to be cautious when usingand interpreting the PAI within PCA assessments.

When validity and clinical scale profiles were compared across gender,few differences were noted. Marginal differences were found between moth-ers and fathers on the PIM and Desirability validity scales (p = .04). On bothscales, fathers more likely to demonstrate a positive impression manage-ment pattern when compared to mothers. Blood (2008) also found fathersto obtain higher Desirability scores. This pattern of fathers exhibiting greaterpositive impression management tendencies, however, has not been consis-tently found on the MMPI-2. For example, Carr et al (2005) found mothers toobtain a greater percentage of invalid MMPI-2 profiles based on the L scaleelevations (T > 70) when compared to fathers, 34.4% and 16.7%, respec-tively. When based on the K scale, invalid profiles occurred at a much lowerand similar rate for mothers (6.6%) and fathers (4.8%). Moreover, within childcustody samples, gender differences on MMPI-2 validity scales tapping intoimpression management were not different (Archer et al, 2012; Bagby et al,1999; Bathurst et al., 1997). From a clinical perspective, the PIM scale differ-ences between fathers and mothers in this sample was small (∼ 2 points)and likely has limited practical utility. Conclusions regarding possible genderdifferences in positive impression management are difficult to make in lightof these inconsistent findings. Moreover, discussion of gender differences onthe MCMI-III should be exercised with caution, as it has been criticized forpossessing a gender bias (Hynan, 2004). Finally, with respect to the clini-cal scales, three PAI scales were significantly different between fathers andmothers. Consistent with traditional expectations, fathers obtained signifi-cantly higher scores on the PAI Antisocial and Alcohol scales of the PAI,while mothers scored higher on the Anxiety Related Disorders scale.

Similar to previous studies, the highest elevations on the MCMI-III clin-ical scales in this study were found on the Compulsive (BR = 63.73),Narcissistic (BR = 67.55), and Histrionic (BR = 65.69) scales. According toHalon (2001), these scales have been found to be elevated among individu-als completing child custody assessments for divorce proceedings (McCannet al., 2001). This was also found in the parenting capacity assessments com-pleted by Blood (2008). This is consistent with past reports on the MCMI-III

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 23: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

122 J. M. Harper et al.

whereby elevations on Histrionic, Compulsive, and Narcissistic scales are tobe interpreted with caution. Researchers generally believe this profile to bean artifact of social desirability or the presence of positive psychological traitsand are not necessarily representative of psychopathology (Lenny & Dear,2009; McCann et al., 2001).

Exploratory analyses were also conducted to better understand possiblefactors associated with positive impression management on the PAI. Contraryto expectations, child placement was not related to positive impression man-agement. It was expected that parents who had children living in the homewould feel less pressure or need to present in a favorable light. This did notappear to matter based on the PIM scale of the PAI. It was found, however,that the number of children involved in the assessment did affect the PIMscore. Parents who had more children had a greater propensity to engage inthe use of positive impression management. This suggests that as the numberof children in a PCA increases, there may be a stronger tendency or need topresent in a favorable light. Evaluators completing PCAs should be mindfulof this possible effect. As well, the association of other possible factors withPIM were examined in a subsample of parents. First, it was found that themore residential moves a parent experienced while growing up as a child,the lower their PIM score on the PAI. This suggested that parents with greaterresidential stability as a child were more likely to present in a positive light.Also examined was a cluster of variables related to overall acceptance andquality of family relationships as a child. These variables included the qual-ity of relationship with each parent and feeling wanted and accepted as achild. All of these variables were found to have a positive association withthe PIM scale. That is, the better parents perceived their relationship to bewith their parents as a child and the more they felt wanted as a child, thegreater the likelihood that the PIM scale was elevated. This suggests that PIMscale scores may be affected by and related to more positive childhood rela-tionships and greater residential stability. In light of this result, the PIM scalecould be interpreted to tap into personality factors associated with quality ofchildhood experiences and later self-presentation as an adult. Uziel (2010),in a review of social desirability scales, suggests that impression manage-ment may be related to many different areas of functioning besides an effortto be deceptive. Uziel describes how impression management scales maybe related to normal personality factors such as interpersonal behavior orpersonal well-being. The data obtained from this sample, finding positivechildhood experiences and residential stability being associated with higherscores on the PIM scale, would appear to reinforce this conclusion. Thus,elevations on social desirability scales may be impacted by factors otherthan the intention to conceal personal limitations.

Exploratory analyses also found significant positive associationsbetween positive impression validity indices of the PAI across measuresof anger. Similar to McEwen, Davis, MacKenzie, and Mullen (2009), the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 24: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 123

current study found that those with higher scores on the PIM scale of the PAIreported lower Trait Anger on the STAXI-2. Essentially, those who are try-ing to appear in a favorable light tend to not endorse anger-related feelings.As PCAs are generally conducted when there are questions and concernsregarding a parent’s ability to care for a child, parents may engage in impres-sion management regarding the extent of their anger and are less likely toreport clinically significant values on the Trait Anger subscale of the STAXI-2.Exploratory analyses also found significant positive correlations between thePIM and the Empathy, Punishment, and Independence scales of the AAPI-2.Those high on PIM were more likely to report empathetic attitudes towardtheir children, were more likely to endorse non-punitive parenting styles,and possessed attitudes that encouraged and empowered children to prob-lem solve and make decisions. Thus, the PIM scale was associated with morefavorable parenting attitudes and discipline practices. This suggests that par-ents knew what may have been an expected answer and were more likelyto deny values consistent with punitive parenting and corporal punishment.

Limitations and Forensic Implications

There are a number of limitations of this study that require careful con-sideration. Parents and families were all referred from one child protectionorganization. It is possible that the results from this parochial sample maylimit generalization to other PCA evaluations. It is also important to note thatthe referral process for these families was driven by the judgment of childprotection case workers who required assistance in working with high-riskfamilies or establishing a permanency plan for children. While the majorityof parents were involved in the legal system because of their high-risk levelfor child abuse and neglect, the completed PCAs were not court-orderedby a judge. This mix of factors might compromise the external validityof these findings in some unknown manner. Furthermore, while PAI datawere complete, corroborating measures used in the analyses (i.e., MCM-III,AAPI-2, and STAXI-2) were not. This is a significant limitation with respectto the supporting results using these additional measures. While a selec-tion bias was not apparent with respect to the MCMI-III data, this does notmean that potential biases were not present based on some other unknownfactors or variables outside of the PAI. Use of these subsamples for thecorroborating analyses may have affected the findings, and this limitationshould be considered when interpreting the overall conclusions of the study.

The current study adds to the available literature on PIM withinthe context of PCAs. As the PAI is a broad measure of personality andpsychopathology that is gaining increasing use, the current results haveimportant practice implications for forensic evaluators who use this instru-ment. First and foremost, evaluators should be aware that the PAI mightidentify fewer parents within the invalid range for positive impression

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 25: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

124 J. M. Harper et al.

management when compared to other broad measures of personality andpsychopathology. This difference may be due to being a more conserva-tive measure of social desirability detection and/or related to differencesin test construction. Regardless of the basis for this finding, such differ-ences in validity scale performance must be considered when interpretingtest findings during a PCA. This fact also highlights the need to be cautiouswhen using psychological measures that do not include validity indices asthe presence or level of impression management is not assessed. Despitethe challenges involved in interpretation of PIM within a forensic context,it is imperative to maintain awareness of and sensitivity to the impact itmay have on test results. Results of the current and past studies point tothe importance of incorporating direct and functional methods to assessparenting skills and the parent-child relationship. Heavy reliance on self-report measures for interpretation of parenting capacity is limited given theheavy demands to present in a favorable light and the challenges involved inaccurately detecting such social desirability pressures. Ideally, psychologicalmeasures can be use to complement functional and multi-method evaluationstrategies and are not used as the primary basis to reach conclusions.

REFERENCES

Ackerman, M. J., & Ackerman, M. C. (1997). Custody evaluation practices: A surveyof experienced professionals (revisited). Professional Psychology: Research andPractice, 28, 137–145. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.28.2.137

Ackerman, M. J., & Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A20-year follow-up. Family Court Review, 49, 618–628. doi:10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01397.x

Archer, E. M., Hagan, L. D., Mason, J., Handel, R., & Archer, R. P. (2012). MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evaluation litigants. Assessment, 19, 14–20.doi:10.1177/1073191110397469

Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999).Defensive responding on the MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations.Psychological Assessment, 11, 24–28. doi:10.1037/1040–3590.11.1.24

Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A., & Gottfried, A. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 inchild custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205–211. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.205

Bavolek, S. J., & Keene, R. (2001). The Adult-Adolescent Parenting Inventory(AAPI-2) administration handbook. Park City, UT: Family DevelopmentResources.

Blood, L. (2008). The use of the MCMI-III in completing parentingcapacity assessments. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8, 24–38.doi:10.1080/15228930801947286

Braxton, L. E., Calhoun, P. ., Williams, J. E., & Boggs, C. D. (2007). Validity rates ofthe Personality ssessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 26: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

Impression Management in Parenting Assessments 125

Inventory-2 in a VA medical center setting. Journal of Personality Assessment,88, 5–15. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8801_02

Budd, K. S., Poindexter, L. M., Felix, E. D., & Naik-Polan, A. T. (2001). Clinicalassessment of parents in child protection cases: An empirical analysis. Law andHuman Behavior, 25, 93–108. doi:10.1023/A:1005696026973

Carr, G. D., Moretti, M. M., & Cue, B. J. H. (2005). Evaluating parenting capacity:Validity problems with the MMPI-2, PAI, CAPI and ratings of child adjustment.Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36 , 188–196. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.2.188

Conners, N. A., Whiteside-Mansell, L., Deere, D., Ledet, T., & Edwards, M. C. (2006).Measuring the potential for child maltreatment: The reliability and validity ofthe Adult Adolescent Parenting Inventory-2. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 39–53.doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.08.011

Ezzo, F. R., Pinsoneault, T. B., & Evans, T. M. (2007). A comparison of MMPI-2 profiles between child maltreatment cases and two types of custody cases.Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7 , 29–43. doi:10.1300/J158v07n02_02

Halon, R., (2001). The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III: The normal quartet inchild custody cases. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 19, 57–75.

Hynan, D. J. (2004). Unsupported gender differences on some personality disorderscales of the Millon Clinical Multiaxal Inventory-III. Professional Psychology:Research and Practice, 35, 105– 110. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.35.1.105

Hynan, D. J. (2013). Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory in child-custodyevaluation. Journal of Forensic Psychology, 5, 120–133.

Kuehnle, K., Coulter, M., & Fireston, G. (2000). Child protection evaluations:The forensic stepchild. Family and Conciliation Courts Review, 38, 368–391.doi:10.1111/j.174-1617.2000.tb00580.x

Lampel, A. (1999). Use of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III in evaluationchild custody litigants. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17 , 10–31.

Lenny, P., & Dear, G. E. (2009). Faking good on the MCMI-III: Implicationsfor child custody evaluations, Journal of Personality Assessment, 9, 553–559.doi:10.1080/00223890903228505

LePage, J. P., & Mogge, N. L. (2001). Validity rates of the MMPI-2and PAI in a rural inpatient psychiatric facility. Assessment, 8, 67–74.doi:10.1177/107319110100800106

McCann, J. T., Flens, J. R., Campagna, V., Collman, P., Lazzaro, T., & Connor, E.(2001). The MCMI-III in child custody evaluations: A normative study. Journalof Forensic Psychology Practice, 1, 27–44. doi:10.1300/J158v01n02_02

McEwan, T. E., Davis, M. R., MacKenzie, R., & Mullen, P. E. (2009). The effects ofsocial desirability response bias on STAXI-2 profiles in a clinical sample. BritishJournal of Clinical Psychology, 48,431–436. doi:10.1348/014466509X454886

Millon, T. (1994). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III). Minneapolis,MN: National Computer Systems.

Millon, T., Davis, R., & Millon, C. (1997). MCMI-III manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis,MN: National Computer Systems.

Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory professional manual (2nd ed.).Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 27: An Examination of Positive Impression Management Validity Scales in the Context of Parenting Capacity Assessments

126 J. M. Harper et al.

Mullen, K. L., & Edens, J. F. (2008). A case law survey of the Personality AssessmentInventory: Examining its role in civil and criminal trials. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 90, 300– 303. doi:10.1080/00223890701885084

Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (1993). The MMPI, MMPI-2 and MMPI-Ain court: A practical guide for expert witnesses and attorneys. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Quinnell, F. A., & Bow, J. N. (2001). Psychological tests used in child custodyevaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 491–501. doi:10.1002/bsl.452

Resendes, J., & Lecci, L. (2012). Comparing the MMPI-2 scale scores of parentsinvolved in parental competency and child custody assessments. PsychologicalAssessment, 24, 1054–1059.doi:10.1037/a0028585

Schoenberg, M. R., Dorr, D., Morgan, C. D., & Burke, M. (2004). A comparisonof MCMI-III personality disorder and modifier indices with the MMPI-2 clin-ical and validity scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 82, 273–280.doi:10.1207és153277252jpa8203_03

Siegel, J. C. (1996). Traditional MMPI-2 validity indicators and initial presentation incustody evaluations. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 14, 55–62.

Spielberger, C. (1999). STAXI-2 State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory-2:Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Stredney, R. V., Archer, R. P., & Mason, J. A. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III charac-teristics of parental competency examinees. Journal of Personality Assessment,87 , 113–115. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_10

Uziel, L. (2010). Rethinking social desirability scales: From impression managementto interpersonally oriented self-control. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5,243–262. doi:10:1177/1745691610369465

Van Denburg, E. J, & Choca, J. P. (1997). Interpretation of the MCMI-III. In T. Millon(Ed.), The Millon inventories: Clinical and personality assessment (pp. 41–58).New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

thea

ster

n U

nive

rsity

] at

04:

24 2

0 N

ovem

ber

2014