running depression, response · pdf filedetecting depression running head: depression,...

84
Detecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality Assessrnent Inventory Derick Glen Adam Cyr M.A Thesis Lakehead University November, 2000 Subrnitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Arts, Clinical Psychology Supervisor: Dr. D. Mazmanian Second Reader: Dr. B. O'Connor Interna1 Examiner: Dr. M Bédard Extemal Examiner: Dr. R. Holden

Upload: doannhan

Post on 15-Feb-2018

236 views

Category:

Documents


5 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression

Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1

Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times

on the Personality Assessrnent Inventory

Derick Glen Adam Cyr

M.A Thesis

Lakehead University

November, 2000

Subrnitted in partial fulfillment of the degree of Master of Arts, Clinical Psychology

Supervisor: Dr. D. Mazmanian

Second Reader: Dr. B. O'Connor

Interna1 Examiner: Dr. M Bédard

Extemal Examiner: Dr. R. Holden

Page 2: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

National Library l*l ofCanada Bibliothèque nationale du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services senrices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, rue Wellington OnawaON KtAON4 Ottawa ON K1A OW Canada Canada

The author has granted a non- exclusive licence allowing the National Lïbrary of Canada to reproduce, loan, distxibute or seii copies of this thesis in microform, paper or electronic formats.

The author retains ownership of the copyright in this thesis. Neither the thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it may be printed or otherwise reproduced without the author's permission.

L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive permettant à la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou vendre des copies de cette thèse sous la forme de microfiche/iïlm, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique.

L' auteur conserve la propriété du droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés ou autrement reproduits sans son autorisation.

Page 3: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

. * Detecting Depression u

Abstract

The detection of individuais who are malingering psychological dyshction has proven

to be a difficult task (Rogers, 1997). This study was conducted to investigate whether

response times on the Personality Assessrnent Inventory could differentiate among

asymptomatic controls (n = 13 , clinically depressed individuals (o = 12), and a group

instructed to malinger depression (I? = 19). Conventional responses and item response

latencies were recorded for the Negative Impression, Positive Impression, Depression -

Affective, Depression - Cognitive, and Depression - Physiologicd scdes. Discriminant

fùnction analyses revealed that conventional scores correctly classined 100% of the

controls, 9 1.7% of the depressed, and 73 -7% of the malingerers. Standardized response

latencies correctly classified 73.3% of controls, 58.3% of depressed, and 84.2% of

malingerers. Classification rates for raw response latencies were 73.394, 50.0%, and

78.9% respectively. Finaily, a new scale composed of items fiom the above subscales

maximally discriminahg malingerers fkom depressed individuals could correctly

classi@ 100% of depressed and 91 -7% of malingerers. These fmdings are consistent

with other research (Fekken & Holden, 1994) suggesting that response latencies might

provide meaningful information.

Page 4: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

... Detecting Depression iu

Table of Contents

. . ................................................................................................ Abstract 11

................................................................................... List of Appendices iv ......................................................................................... List of Tables v

Introduction ........................................................................................... 1 .............................................................................. Response Styles 1

.......................................................... Malingering and Test Construction 3 .................................................................................. The MMPI-2 3

.......................................................................... Modem Approaches 4 ..................................................................... The PA1 Validity Scales 7

.......................... The Effectiveness of PA1 Impression Management M e m e s 8 .......................................................................... Response Latencies 11

............................................................... Response Latency Findings 14

............................................................................................... Method 17 .................................................................. Session 1 . Categorization 17

.................................................................................... Participants 17 ..................................................................... Measures 18 ..................................................................................... Procedure 19

............................................................... . Session 2 Experimentation 20 ................................................................................... Participants 20

...................................................................................... Measures 21 ............................................ .................................... Procedure .... 21

............................................................. Treatment of Response Times 23

............................................................................................... Results 28 ........................................................................ Descriptive Statistics 28

....................................................................................... Findings -29

.................................................................................. Discussion ........ 35 .................................................................................... Limitations 40

............................................................................. Fuîure Directions 42

.......................................................................................... References -44

.......................................................................................... Appendices 48

Page 5: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression iv

List of Appendices

Appendix A: Procedure for the recruitment of subjects at the LPH for the study "Detecting

Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personaïty

.......................................................... Assesment Inventory . " 48

...................................................... Appendix B: Debriefing Fom . Session 1 49

..................................................... Appendix C: GWBasic Cornputer Program 50

........................................ Appendix D: Instructions for Malingering Respondents 61 .

....................................................... Appendix E: Debriefing Fom - Session 2 62

Page 6: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression v

List of Tables

...................... Table 1: Means and Standard Deviations for the PA1 Scales of Interest 63

Table 2: Raw Responding T i e Means and Standard Deviations of Items Within a Scale

............................................ ........................... for RTI and RT2 .. 64

................... Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations for the PA1 2-scores of Interest 65

........... Table 4: Tukey Post-hoc Dzerences Between Groups for the PA1 Scale Scores 66

...................... Table 5: Tukey Post-hoc Differences Between Groups for the 2-scores 67

........................................... Table 6: Classification Results Using Scale Scores 68

.............................. Table 7: Classification Results Using Raw Response Latencies 69

................................................. Table 8: Classification Results Ushg 2-scores 70

Table 9: Classification Results Using Scores and Transfomed Response Latencies ....... 71

.................................... Table 10: Classification Results Using NLM Scale Scores 72

......................................... Table 1 1 : Classification Results Using NEM 2-scores 73

Table 12: Classification Results Using NIM Scale Score and NIM Raw Response

...................................................................................... Times 74

................ Table 13 : Classification Results Using NIM Scale Score and NIM 2-scores 75

Table 14: Significant T-test clifferences For 2-Scores Between the Depressed and

.................................................................... Malingering Groups 76

Table 15: Classification Rates Using the Z-scores From 10 Empirically Derived ..................................................................................... Items 77

Page 7: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 1

Using Response Times to Detect Depression and Malingering With

The Personality Assesment Inventory

Classical test theory assumes that an observed score is the result of an individual's

true score and measurement error (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1993). Measurement error in

psychologid testing may be attributed to error inherent in test construction and error

inherent in test administration. Errors in test construction may include irnproper item

selection, item analysis, and test standardkation. Error attributable to test administration

can include the effects of the tedng situation, test administrator characteristics, and test-

taker characteristics (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1993). SeEreport tests of personality functioning

are typically concemed with a subject responding in a mamer unrepresentative of their

'%rue" characteristics (Rogers, 1997) - measurement error due to test-taker characteristics.

,4n unrepresentative response style (or adopted response style) minimi;.es, to a greater or

lesser extent, the contribution of tme characteristics to an observed score.

Response Styles

There are a varïety of different response styles, each of which can distort an

individual's score in a p a r t i c h direction. (Some authors have made a distinction between

response set and response style [e.g., Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 19931. Consistent with the

articles reviewed within, the term response style will be used to indicate any responding that

deviates tIom accurate responding.) Examples of response style include acquiescence,

criticalness, extremity bias, and random respondùig. These types of response styles deviate

fiom accurate responding, distorting observed scores due to uncertainty, misunderstanding,

inciifference, or insolence. Another type of response style is dissimulation, or the systematic

exaggeration or minirnization of m e characteristics. This type of responding ranges fiom

Page 8: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecîing Depression 2

positive dissimulation (iidividuals tailoring their answers to create a favorable image) to

negative dissimulation (individuals tailoring their answers to create a negative image), with

accurate responding located midway. Positive dissimulation indudes fakiog good and

defensiveness; negative dissimulation includes faking bad, malingering, and exaggeration

(Graham, 1990). Altematively, Rogers (1997) has defined positive and negative

dissimulation as defensiveness and malingering, respectively, and has M e r delineated

each type of dissimulation as severe, moderate, or mild.

The exbernepositive end of the dissimulation response style continuum has been

described as faking good and severe defensiveness (Graham, 1990; Rogers, 1997). Faking

good is the denial of all negative characteristics so that an individual appears to be fiee of al1

psychological problems, however minor, simulating an aimost angelic character. On the

positive end of the dissimulation continuum, but not quite as blatantly removed fiom

accurate responding, is defensiveness (Graham, 1990). Defensive individuals are not as

obvious when presenting themselves in a positive light - they occasionally admit to faults.

Rogers (1 997) defined moderate defensiveness in a similar man.net, and he M e r defined

mild defensiveness as the minïmkation, but not denial, of psychological problems. The

range of possible motives for positive dissimulation is quite broad. Situations in which

positive dissimulation might occur include employment screening, psychiatric evaluations,

parole hearings, and child custody hearings (Holden, 1995; Rogers, 1997).

The extreme negative end of the dissimulation response style continuum has been

described by Graham (1990) as faking bad (also defined by Rogers, 1997, as severe

malingering). Faking bad is the endorsing of unrealistic negative characteristics.

Individuals who are faking bad are so extreme in their fabrication of symptoms that their

Page 9: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 3

presentation seems fantastic or preposterous. Malùigering, adjacent to faking bad on the

dissimulation continuum, is not as obvious. These individuals actively attempt to accurately

feign psychological disorders by presenting themselves as having either a few critical

symptoms or an array of other symptoms (Graham, 1990; defined as moderate malingering

by Rogers, 1997). Closest to accurate responding on the negative side of the dissimulation

response style continuum is exaggeration. Individuals who exaggerate typically have a

psychological disorder but attempt to exaggerate the levels of their symptoms. Exaggeration

has been defined by Rogers (1997) as "mild malingering" and M e r conceptualized as a

minimal distortion that has little effect upon differential diagnosis. Possible motives for

negative dissimulation include fuiancial gain for accident victims suing for damages,

financial gain for individuals claiming disability, for the procurement of drugs, or a plea for

help (Rogers, 1997; Rogers, Sewell, Morey, & Ustad, 1996). The Diagnostic and Statistical

Manuai of Mental Disorders - 4" Edition (DSM-N; Amencan Psychiatrie Association,

1 994) defines malingering as the intentional production of false or grossly exaggerated

symptoms that is motivated by extemal incentives. Thus, the DSM-IV categorization of

malingering is comparable to malingering or faking bad (Graham, 1990) or to what Rogers

(1997) refers to as moderate or severe malingering.

Malingering and Test Construction

The MMPI-2

Historically, psychologists have been aware of the potential effects of various

response styles and have included measures to assess their influence. For instance,

Bernreuter (1 933) thought that individuals were tailoring their responses to produce a

favorable self-image, for this reason he questioned the validity of self-report questionnaires.

Page 10: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 4

Meehl and Hathaway (1 946) declared "one of the most important failings of almost ail

personality tests is their susceptibility to 'faking' or 'lying"' (p. 525).

One of the most prominent psychological instruments to include measures of .

response styles is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality hventory (MMPI; Hathaway &

McKinley, 1943) and its successor the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlsirom, Graham, Tellegen, &

Kaemmer, 1989). Both instruments have three scales to detect if people are distorting

information about themselves. The L-scde assesses the extent to which peopIe are naïvely

presenting themselves in a positive light The K-scale assesses the extent to which people

present themselves in an overly positive light or an overly negative light. The F-scale

assesses the extent of deviant or atypical responding (e.g., acquiescence, random

responding) .

Although the MMPI-2 is widely used, some authors have cnticized the MMPI-2 as

being an unsuitable diagnostic instrument of psychopathology because it does not meet

current psychometric and theoretical standards. Helmes and Reddon (1993) examined the

MMPI-2 and reported both theoretical and structural problems. One theoretical problem is

the heterogeneous content within scales, which diminishes the meaning of scde scores.

Also, the categoncal modeling of the MMPI-2 designates a high scale score as indicating

probable group membership instead of the severity of the psychological constmct.

Structural problems reported by Helmes and Reddon (1993) include small and

unrepresentative sample sizes (a mode of 50 individuals from Minnesota for each scale),

high fdse positive rates for some scales, a high overlap of item content among scales

(reducing the specincity of scale meaning), a lack of cross-validation of item selection,

outdated and inadequate noms, and problems associated with measures of responw styles

Page 11: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 5

and social desirability (also see McCrae & Costa, 1983). Helmes and Reddon (1993) also

repmted other general problems such as imbalanced keying within items (Le., an unequal

number of tme- and fdse-keyed items), unscored items (62 items not scored on any clinical,

supplementary, vvalidity, or content scales), and unbalanced scale lengths (clinical scdes

range fiom 33 to 78 items).

Modern Approaches

Authors of psychological measures apply recent advances in psychometric theory to

avert, as best as possible, errors in test construction sirnilar to those pointed out by Helmes

and Reddon (1993) of the MMPI-2. For example, Jackson (1994) States that the goals of

- proper item selection are "(a) to enhance the interna1 consistency reliability of the scales; (b)

to suppress desirability response bias; (c) to maximize discrimination among the scales; and

(d) to identify items yielding scales with nonnal distributions" (p. 40). For the Jackson

Personality inventov - Revised (PI-R; 1994), Jackson began test construction with a pool

of 1800 items and finished with a final totd of 300 items. Some of the items removed to

suppress the desirability response bias included "1 am more easily Untated than others areyy

and "Most people would Say that 1 am cautious and conservative with my money" (Jackson,

1994, p. 43). Subsequent to thorough item selection and analysis for the JPI-R, Jackson

sought to mesure the influence of dissimulation upon test scores. Jackson (1 994) înstnicted

respondents to fake good and found only smaü changes for scale means and standard

deviations. He concluded that the small differences between groups of respondents were a

reflection of ''the method of scale construction in which desirability was suppressed"

(Jackson, 1994, p. 52). Therefore, proper item analysis and selection is the initial step taken

in test construction to minimize the effects of response style. Another psychometric

Page 12: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 6

measure that was constructed using contemporary psychometric theory is the Persondity

Assessrnent Inventoq (PM; Morey, 199 1).

The PA1 (Morey, 1991) is a 344-item Likert-type scale questionnaire designed to

assess a broad range of psychopathology through 22 non-overlapping scales. The 22 scales

of the PA1 include 4 validity scales, 1 1 clinical scales, 5 treatment scales, and 2 interpersonal

scales. The intemal consistency median alphas are -81 for the normative sample, .86 for the

chical sample, and .82 for the college sample. The test-retest reliability for testing 28 days

apart over the clinical scales was a median of -83 (Morey, 199 1). Morey adopted recent

advances in the field of psychomeâics for constructing the PAI, advances not availabie for

the MMPI and not utilised for the MMPI-2. Advances in psychometnc theory include new

models for understanding constnict validity and the influence of response styles. For

instance, Morey (1991) emphasised construct validity so "that no single quantitative item

parameter should be used as the sole criterion for item selection" (p. 63). Consequently, the

use of multiple criteria by Morey (1991) increased the utility of the scales by describing

various levels of severity. Morey (1 991) decided upon a four-point Likert-type response

scale to provide a greater varïability in response, allowing greater scale reliability with fewer

items. Other advances in psychometric theory inchde the evoluhon of alternative models to

classical psychometric theory and the development and refinement of sophisticated meîhods

of data reduction such as factor analysis and cluster analysis. For example, the PA1 was

constructed with no item overlap between scales to avoid artificial correlations between

scales, and item construction was based upon thoroughly researched theoretical constructs

with specific attention to multidimensional constnicts. Nine of the 1 1 clinical scales were 3

readily divisible (through cluster analysis) into sub-scales to further spec* notable features.

Page 13: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 7

For example, the Depression sub-scales distinguish between cognitive, affective, and

physiological features, whiie the Schizophrenia sub-scales distinguish between psychotic

experiences, social detachment, and thought disorder. As a result of the application of

contemporary psychornetric views, the PA1 embodies current psychornetric and theoretical

standards.

The PAX Validitv ScaIes

The PA1 contains four validity scdes - Inconsistency, Infiequency, Negative

Impression, and Positive Impression. Clinicians are able to use the inconsistency scale to

discern the consistency with which individu& answered questions with sunilar content.

The Mequency scale is useful for i d e n m g individuals who may have answered the PM

in an atypical manner due to random responding, indifference, carelessness, confusion, or

reading difficulties. Also, the PM has two validity scales and two other vaiidity measures

that may be used by clinicians to assess the possibility of positive impression management

and the possibility of malingering. The PM has two indicators to assess the likelihood of

positive impression management: the Positive Impression scde (PM; Morey, 1991) and the

Defensiveness Index (Morey, 1996). The P M scale is a measure of the degree to which

respondents are presenting a very favourable impression or the denial of relatively minor

fa& (e.g., reversed keyed question 1 44. Sometimes I'm too impatient). The Defensiveness

Index has eight patterns of endorsement that tend to be observed more fiequentiy with

individuals instnicted to present positive impressions (e.g., one item is a Treatment

Rejection scale score r 45T). The PM dso has two indicators to detect the possibility of

malingering: the Negative Impression scale (NIM; Morey, 199 1) and the Malingering Index

(Morey, 1996). The NIM scale is a measure of the degree to which respondents are

Page 14: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 8

presenting an exaggerated negative impression, more negative than a clinical explmation

wodd warrant (e-g., question 129. I think 1 have 3 or 4 completely dinerent personaiity

inside me). The Malingering Index has patterns of endorsement that tend to be observed in

individuals instmcted to simulate a severe mental disorder (e.g., one item is a Depression

scale score > 85T and a Treatment Rejection scale score 2 45T). Morey (1991) stated that

high scores on the positive and negative impression management scales rnay not always

represent purposeful deception. Instead, it may be that the score in question was due to

careless responding or an exaggeration of good or bad qualities.

The Effectiveness of PAI Impression Management Measures

To examuie the effectiveness of the PIM scde, Morey (1 991) asked college *dents

enrolled in abnomal psychology to sirnulate a very favourable self-impression. Results

presented in the PAI manual indicate that a P M scale score of 18 or above (57T)

successfdly identified 8 1.8% of these individuals. Unfortunately, at the same cut-off score,

30.4% of n o d s were identîfied as presenting themselves in a very favourable light (a

speciticity with respect to normals of 70%, Morey & Lanier, 1998). Therefore, when a

profile includes a PIM score of 18 - 22, Morey (1 991) recommends that caution be

exercised with interpretation of clinical scores because they may be distorted. A P M score

of 23 (68T) or above resulted in the correct identification of 43.2% of the college students

who were instructed to present themselves in a positive light and incorrectly identified only

3.1 % of nomal individuals as presenting themselves in an overly positive light. P M scale

scores of 23 (68T) or above indicate an individual who portrays themselves as k ing fiee

fiom common shortcomings to which most individuals would admit, consequently it is

recommended that no other clinical scale be interpreted. Morey and Lanier (1998) re-

Page 15: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 9

examined the effectiveness of the PIM scale, again instnicting respondents to manage their

results in a positive rnanner. Although Morey and Lanier (1998) implemented the same

sample sizes and methods as descnbed within the PAI manuai, their results indicated the

PIM scale score of 20 (6 1 T) had sensitivity of 82% for the detection of positive impression

management while the specificity of detection was 93%. Morey and Lanier (1 998) also

demonstrated that the Defensiveness Index, although a valid measure of positive impression

management, was less likely to identify defensive responders who had been idiomed of

how tests measure deception.

To examine the effectiveness of the NIM scale, Morey (1991) askecl subjects "to

simulate the responses of a person with a mental disorder" (p. 96). Results presented in the

PA1 manual indicate that the recommended empirical-derived NIM scale cut-oE score of 8

(73T) or above successfûliy identified 95.5% of these individuals, but it also identified 4.4%

of the normal population as potential malingerers. Morey and Lanier (1 998) re-examined *

the effectiveness of the NIM scale by asking students to simulate the responses of someone

with a severe mental disorder. They found that the MM scale score of 9 (771) had a

sensitivity of 90.9% and a specificity of 86.7%. Rogers, Omduff, and Sewell(1993), using

hancial incentives, examined the ability of the NIM scale to detect the malingering of

various mental disorders with naïve and sophisticated simulators (i?troductory and graduate

psychology students respectively). For these participants, the NIM scale had a successfidly

identified 90.9% attempting to feign schizophrenia, 55.9% sirnulating depression, and

38.7% simulating an anxiety disorder. Only 2.5% of conbol participants were identified as

simulators. Rogers et al. (1996) used discriminant analysis to examine the ability of the PA1

to detect malingerers and found that they could identiQ 68.9,44.7, and 81.8% of naïve

Page 16: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 10

malingerers for schizophrenia, generalized anxiety, and major depression. These figures,

however, also misclassified almost 20% of the clinical population. Rogers et al. (1996) also

found that sophisticated sinidators (doctoral psychology students gïven a week to prepare)

were idenfied 55.0,0.0, and 19.0% of the time for the above disorders respectively. The

Malingering Index was only slightly beîîer at detecting malingerers (Rogers et al., 1993), but

like the NIM, it had difficulty detecting the less severe mental disorders (Le., depression and

anxiety). In their previous study Rogers, Orndorff, and SeweIl(1993) found no ciifferences

between sophisticated and naïve participants in avoiding detection of mdingering as judged

by NIM scale. Nor did these authors find that the level of preparation affected NIM

outcome scores. The previously cited Morey and Lanier (1998) study had cited the variation

in the effectiveness of the NIM scale found by Rogers et al. (1996), but Morey and Lanier

(1998) deviated fiom the original instructions presented in the PAI manual by adding the

adjective "severe" to mental disorder. Due to the hdings fkom the previously cited study

by Rogers et al. (1996) that described the effectiveness of the NIM scaie as dependent on the

mental disorder that was being malingered, it is possible that by using the word "severe"

Morey and Lanier (1998) influenced the results.

A dissertation by Gaies (1 993) specifically idenîified average Mhd T-scores

associated with the malingering of depression for informed (NIM of 13, 92T) and naïve

malingerers (NIM of 10,81T). Gaies (1993) findings are comparable to the hdings

reported by Morey (1 99 1 ) that NIM scale scores of 8-12 (71 -9 1 T) indicate a moderate

elevation in exaggerated davourable impression. It is surpnsing to find that the informed

rnalingerers had higher NIM scale scores than did naïve participants. Higher NIM scores by

infomied malingerers in the dissertation by Gaies (1 993) indiCa& that infonned rnalingerers

Page 17: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detechng Depression 1 1

anmitted to problems not associated with depression (the NIM scale asks questions that are

not usually admtted or experienced by ciinical subjects). A possible reason for the

infomed malingeras hi& NIM scale scores was that they were aliowed to keep a

description of depression and were encouraged to refer to their descriptions throughout the

completion of the PM. This description included anxiety, brooding, obsessive wony, panic

attacks, and possible hallucinations and delusions. Due to this description, the test subjects

may have incorrectly inferred some of the NTM items as being syrnptomatic of depression.

For instance, item 249 on the PA1 (a cntical NIM item) states "Sometimes my vision is only

in black and white." Therefore, for the Gaies (1 993) dissertation, the hi& NIM scale scores

for informed participants may have been due to the description of depression she provided.

The effectiveness of the NIM scale to discnminate between people with mental

disorders, people without mental disorders, and people that mahger, is agreed upon to be

fairly good (e.g., Morey & Lanier, 1998; Rogers et al., 1996). However, there is a need for

improvement in the detection of malingering due to the discrepancy among h d i n g . There

is also the need to reduce the number of fdse positives. When attempting to detect

malingering using the NIM scale, there is variation in effectiveness according to the feigned

mental disorder. For example, individuals imtmcted to feign anxiety disorders are much

more difficult to detect than individuals instnicted to feign schizophrenia (Rogers et al.,

1996). Consequently, when examining malingering, it is important to examine the

effectiveness of the PA1 scales with respect to a particular mental disorder.

Response Latencies

Measures of psychopathology have historically relied upon conscious choices from

the respondent as a means of detecting the possibility of deception. For instance, the NIM

Page 18: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 12

scale (Morey, 19%) uses responses to cpestions such as "Sometimes 1 cannot remember

who 1 am" and "Sometùnes my vision is only in black and white" to assess the validity of

the participant's responses. But more recently, response latencies typicaIly used in the

biologïcal and cognitive areas of psychology have dso attracted attention fiom other fields

of psychology (Fekken & Holden, 1992; Holden, Fekken, & Cotton, 199 1 ; Neubauer &

Malle, i 997).

Response latency is the time-span fiom the moment of stimulus presentation until

the response behaviour occurs. Holden, Fekken, and Cotton (1991) have described the

production of a response fiom an item on a questionnaire as an integrative process that has

the stages of stimulus encoding, stimulus comprehension, the decision process, and finally

the response selection. Item length and subject reading speed afFect the encoding portion of

the response latency, while stimulus comprehension is largely af5ected by the item

ambiguity and inteiligence (g) of the subject. The number of alternative choices and the

motor speed of the respondent a u e n c e response selection. Variables inherent in an

individual such as reading speed, intelligence (g), and motor speed are stable within-subject

factors; that is, they will have an equivalent effect upon al1 questions. For example, all other

variables behg equal, very quick readers will have faster response times than vev slow

readers due to their qui& encoding times. Variables such as item length, item ambiguity,

the number of alternative choices, and item extremity remain constant between groups of

subjects. These factors of response latency (Le., reading speed, intelligence, motor speed,

encoding, comprehension, response selection) can, therefore, be statisticaily portioned fiom

the response latency data by examining the within- and between-subject clifferences (Holden

et al., 1991).

Page 19: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detedug Depression 13

The decision portion of the response latency has been proposed by Holden et al.

(1991) to be af3ected by item extremity and schema organization. Item extremity is the

degree to which questions m e r in the extent to whîch their purpose is obvious in purpose to

the respondent. For example, an obvious question taken fiom the PAI that assesses

depression may ask, 'Tve forgotten what it's lïke to feel happy." A subtle question

assessing depression may ask, ''1 can't seem to concentrate very well" (Morey, 1991).

Research indicates that people answer obvious questions quickly but respond slowly to

subtle questions (Holden et ai., 1991). Brunetti, Schlottmann, Scott, and Hollrah (1998)

used response latencies with the MMPI to assess validity of test responding. In accordance

with the theory proposed by Fekken and Holden (1 999, Brunetti et al. (1 998) found that

response times were related to the adopted schema (malingering) in that it took longer to

reject obvious items that were wepresentative of their adopted schema. Brunetti et al.

(1998) reasoned that response times were fastm with accepted schema-relevant items and

slower with rejected schema-relevant items.

Schema organization reflects the complexity and order of an individual's schema.

Lewicki (1 984) stated that the rate of socid information processing (i.e., response tirne) is

affected by self-schema Self-schema may influence the manner in which incoming data are

interpreted or coded for the provision of more information, it may infiuence social

information processing to protect or enhance self-concept, and self-schema may influence

the potential to facilitate the categorization of others. Lewicki (1 984) examined response

latencies in regards to schemas and demonstrated that salient or strong personality

characteristics are generally more accessible to the perceiver than are shortcomings, thereby

producing faster reaction times. An individual who rnalingers would be modimg hisher

Page 20: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 14

schema, consequently creating salient pseudo-personality characteristics. This in tmn would

mod* the decision process portion and response latency.

Holden et al. (1 99 1), expanding upon previous response latency findings, presented

a mode1 for detecting psychopathology, which proposes that response latencies have

construct validity for indicating specinc dimensions of psychopathology. Their mode1

predicts that respondents who adopt a schema (positive or negative dissimulation) will

respond more quickly to items congruent with their adopted schema and slower to items

inconsistent with their adopted schema. Specifically, Fekken and Holden (1 994) descnbe

the relationship between schema organization and response latencies as follows: "when

endorsing an item, the presence of an elaborate, well organized schema is reflected in a shoa

differential response latency; when rejecting an item, the presence of that same elaborate,

well organized schema is reflected in a long latency" (p. 107). In addition, Holden and

Kroner (1992) have theonsed that incongniities (Le., long latencies due to the rejection of

items that reflect an individual's adopted schema) will necessarily occur. Incongruïties may

occur because respondents will not want to appear to be too good or too bad in an attempt to

avoid the detection of dissimulation. Therefore, respondents will endorse some of the

schema-relevant items as not being applicable to them and this will be evident in longer

response latencies in comparison to schema-irrelevant items. These conclusions by Holden

and Kroner (1 992) are supported by findings of Brunetti et al. (1998) that the rejection of

obvious versus subtle schema-relevant items will produce longer response time latencies.

As a result, there may be higher variances for malingered scales than for non-malingered

scales.

Remonse Latencv Findings

Page 21: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 15

Holden and Kroner (1 992) measured the response latencies of prison inmates using

three self-report inventories: the Basic Personality Inventory, the Marlowe-Crowne Social

Desirability Inventory, and the Edwards Social Desirability Inventory. PreZiminary

multivariate analyses of variance indicated significant group differences between the

standard, faking good, and faking bad conditions. Using discriminant function analysis,

Holden and Kroner (1992) were able to cox~ectly classi@ 52 of the 87 subjects (59.8%),

while traditional scales of dissimulation correctly classified 55 or the 87 inmates (63.2%)).

These authors aiso conclude that "any self-report measure of psychopathology should, in

theory, be amenable to yieiduig response latencies that may be used to produce indices of

invalid responding" (Holden & Kroner, 1992, p. 172). Response score latencies have also

been shown to add ùicremental validity to MMPI scores for predicting training time in the

miiitary (Siem, 1996). Holden, Woermke, and Fekken (1993) found that only a moderate

correlation existed between item response tirne and item-total correlation, indicating that

differential response latencies contain variance extraneous to the item response process.

Fekken and Holden (1 994) found a moderate intemal consistency reliability (mean of .34), a

weak parailel fomis reiiability (means of. 1 7), and a moderate test-retest stability of response

times (mean of .34). They dso found evidence suggesting that the latencies for endoeing

trait relevant items were negatively related to trait rneasures, whereas the latencies for

rejecting items were positively related. Holden (1995) found that through the use of

response latencies and discriminant kc t ion analysis, he could significantly distinguish

between malingerers and honest test responders with University students using a 1 58-item

true/false personnel questionnaire.

Page 22: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 1 6

Researchers thus far have not compared the response latencies of depressed

individuals to a group of individuals instructed to malinger depression. For practical

applications of response latency findings for individuals malingering fïndings, it is essential

to compare genuîne respondùig by indi~iduds who are genuinely depressed with individuals

who have been instnicted to mahger depression to ver@ real differences between the two

groups of respondents. O d y by way of direct cornparison between the two groups will

researchers be able to endorse the use of response latencies as measure, supplementary to an -

individual's cognizant choice of responses, to aid clinicians in i d e n m g possible

psychopathology. Researchers have theorized that a depressive individual is likely to

produce different response latencies than would a non-depressed individual (Kuiper &

MacDonald, 1982). Thomas, Goudemand, and Rousseau (1 999) examined the attentional

processes of subjects with major depression and found that depressive individuals had

generally a longer reaction time for al1 tasks. Particularly troublesorne for the depressive

individuals were the effortful tasks that required decision making. Therefore, for individuals

with a depressive schema, longer response latencies may be particularly expected when

effortful decisions need to be made. Specifically, depressives have been found to pay more

attention to negative self-relevant information (Kuiper & MacDonald, 1982) and may

therefore produce longer response times to self-relevant information (i.e., questions probing

levels of depression). This k d i n g is in sharp contrast to hdividuals dissimulating

depression, who will tend to answer scherna-relevant questions more quickly than questions

not related to their adopted schema

Kaplan and Saccupo (1993) state that "in psychological testing.. . . we acknowledge

that there wiill always be some inaccuracy or error in our measurements. Our task is to f b d

Page 23: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 17

the magnitude of this error and to develop ways to rninimize it" (p. 99). The purpose of the

present study is to use response latencies to detect diffkrences between depressed, faked

depressed, and nondepressive individuals. Previous research suggests that the operating

schema will have an impact upon response time. Unlike previous research that has based

evaluations on non-clinical samples, the current study used a clinicat sample of depressed

individuals and took efforts to ensure that the controls and rnalingerers were fiee of any

psychological disorder. Previous research has also ignored other possible important

characteristics (e.g., vocabulary Ievel) of the samples used This study will attempt to

addresses these important gaps in the current fiterature.

We hypothesize the following related to the NIM, PM, Depression (DEP), and DEP

subscales of the PM:

1 - Faster raw response times and faster standardized response latencies will be recorded for

individuals malingering depression than for individuals in the control and the depressive

groups. This ciifference is hypothesized due to the rnalingerers' salient schema of

depression.

2. Slower raw response times and standardized response latencîes will be recorded for

inaviduals experiencing depressive symptoms than for individuals in the control and

malingering group. This merence is hypothesized due to the findings of Thomas et al.

(1 996) stating that depressed individuals have slower response tirnes for al1 tasks.

3. Larger group differences will be evident with the DEP-cognitive subscale due to its

obvious item content. This hypothesis results fÏom the fïndings by Holden et al. (1991) that

response latencies Vary with item extrernity.

Page 24: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 18

4. The use of response times will add incremental validity to the detection of individuals

experiencing depression and individuals malingering depression. Scale scores have been

proven to be effective at detecting malingering and it is hoped that response times wiU be

able to increase this detection rate.

Method

Testhg was completed over two sessions. The first session was used to iden*

participants as controls, malingerers, or depressed according to the criteria reviewed in the

following sections. During the second session the PM was sdmùiistered and response times

were recorded.

Session 1 - Cateeorization

Participants

Session 1 consisted of two groups of participants, the f k t of which was 122 university

-dents enrolled in an introductory psychology course at Lakehead Universi~ Thunder

Bay, Ontario. Student participants received a bonus mark toward their final introductory

psychology grade for involvement in the study. The second group of participants consisted

of seven individuals receiving treatment fiom the Outpatient Department at the Lakehead

Psychiatric Hospital (LPH). These participants were recruited with the help of unit nurses

who were explained the entrance criteria (see Appendix A). Nurses were requested to aid in

recruiting participants to maintain patient confïdentiality and speed the recruitment process.

Measures

Three instruments were used during Session 1. Participants were asked to complete the

Stnictured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Screen Patient Questionnaire (SCKD Screen PQ;

Fkst, Gibbon, Williams, & Spitzer, 1997), the Beck Depression Inventor). - 2 @DI-2; Beck,

Page 25: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 19

Steer, & Brown, 1996), and the Shipley M t u t e of Living Scale - Revised (Shipley;

Zachary, 1991). Total t h e of testing was approximately 40 minutes.

The computerized SCID Screen PQ is a stmctured i n t e ~ e w designed to assess

psychopathology for DSM-N Axis I disorders. Questions were presented to participants

using the Windows 95 operathg system on a 15-inch colour monitor. The SCID Screen PQ

interview covers 6 major diagnostic categones within DSM-IV Axis I (Mood, ANUety,

Substance Use, Somatoform, Eating, and Psychotic disorders). It requires a grade seven

reading level and takes under 20 minutes to complete. The SCiD Screen PQ was designed to

be over-inclusive for positive responses to symptomotology. Questioning fiom the

experimenter followed the computerized interview to substantiate the presence of any

symptomotology characteristic of Axis 1 disorders.

n i e BDId is a 21 -item self-report inventory used to assess the severity of depressive

symptoms in adults and adolescents. Testing time for the BDI-2 is under 1 0 minutes. Beck

et al. (1996) reported that the %DI-2 has high reliability for outpatients and college students

(coefficient alphas of .92 and .93 respectively). Beck et al. (1 996) also reported a test-retest

correlation of .93 for therapy sessions one week apart. The BDI-2 has been widely accepted

and used by psychologists to measure the seventy of depressive symptomotology in

depressed and in normal populations (Piotrowski & Keiler, 1 992).

The Shipley (Zachary, 199 1) is designed to assess general intellectuai functioning in

adults and adolescents aged 14 and over and takes under 20 minutes to complete. The

Shipley consists of a 40-item vocabulary subtest and a 20-item abstract thinking subtest. Of

interest to the present study were the possible confounding influences of verbal ability upon

response times. The full test was, therefore, not necessary and only the vocabulary subtest

Page 26: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 20

was administered. Zachary (1 99 1) asserts that the vocabulary subtest generally measures the

respondent's verbal ability, which is compnsed of acquired howledge, long-term memory,

verbal comprehension, concept formation, and reading ability. The vocabulary subtest is

self-administered and time of testing is up to 10 minutes. A corrected split-half reliabilïty

coefficient of .92 for the total score fias been reported using the Spearman-Brown

computatiod formal. The test-retest reliability over a median interval of 12 weeks was .60

for the vocabulary score. In addition, the correlation between the Shipley total score and the

Wechler Adult Intelligence Scale - Revised has been reported as -74 (Zachary, 199 1).

Procedure

Participants were administered the SCXD Screen PQ, which allowed the researchers to

1) confm that subjects in the depressed sample met critena for depression; and 2) determine

that participants in al1 categones did not meet criteria for any DSM-N Axis 1 disorders (other

than depression for individuals withui the depressed sarnple). Session 1 then proceeded with

the administration of the BDI-2. The BDI-2 was used to determine if participants of Session

1 were eligible to participate in Session 2. Specifically, individuals with scores of 8 or below

and individuals with scores of 17 or above were eligible to participate in the second session.

Individuals who scored 8 and below (i.e., individuals indicating iittle or no depressive

symptoms) were randornly divided into the control and malingering groups. Individuals who

scored 17 or higher (Le., reporting moderate to severe depressive symptomotology) were

eligible for the depressed group. A score of 17 or above is recomrnended by the authors of

the BDI-2 (Beck et al., 1996) for conductuig research with individuals who are currently

expenencing depressive symptoms. Following the BDI-2, the Shipley was administered. At

the end of the session participants were given verbal feedback on the purpose of Session 1

Page 27: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 2 1

and were given a debriefing form (Appenduc B). Individuals who met the BDI-2 cut-offs

were asked to participate in Session 2. Upon agreement, a second session was scheduled for

universisr students at their earfiest convenience. Participants fiom the LPH were given a 15-

minute break, &er which the second session began. Immediate testing was conducted for

these participants for the purpose of convenience.

Session 2 - Experhentation

Participants

Fifty-five university students and six participants fiom the Outpatient sample met the

BDI-2 cut-off scores and partook in the second session. University Students were given a

bonus mark on their final grade in their introductory psychologr class for participation in the

second session. Following the completion of testing, individuals who did not meet cnteria

were removed fiom data analysis and the remairing participant data were examined for

outliers (to be described in the following section). The final sample consisted of forty-five

university students (35 females and 8 males) and one LPH participant (1 fernale). The mean

age of the sample was 20.30 years. Ethnic and racial information wzs not collected.

Measures

Participants began the second session by completîng the Balanced Inventory of Social

Desirability Responding - Version 6 Form 40 (BIDR, Pauihus, 1 984, l988), followed by the

BDI-2 (Beck et al., 1996), and a computerized version of the PM (Morey, 19%)

prograrnmed by the authors. Total t h e of testing was approximately 50 minutes.

The BIDR is a 40-item inventory designed to assess self-deceptive positivity and

impression management. Self-deceptive positivity is the tendency to give self-reports that

are honest but positively based, while impression management is the deliberate self-

Page 28: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 22

presentation to an audience that daers fiom true self-presentation. Coefficients alpha ranged

from .68 to -80 for self-deceptive positivity- and fkom -75 to -86 for impression management

(Paulhus, 1984, 1988). In addition, test-retest reliability over a 5-week period was reported

as .69 for self-deceptive positivity and -65 for impression management (Paulhus, 1984,

1 988). The BIDR data were not included in present analyses.

Procedure

The second session began with the administration of the BIDR. It was administered

before PA1 responding insûuctions were given. The BIDR was administered to collect

ixiformation for future research. Following the BIDR, participants were once again asked to

complete the BDI-2 to ensure that levels of depressive symptorns had not deviated fiom

group membership requirements. The second BDI-2 was scored following the completion of

the session. As such, the computerized PA1 was administered regardless of the BDI-2 score

at the tirne of testing.

The PM was presented on an IBM compatible computer using a 15-inch colour

monitor. Test questions were programmed with GWBasic and displayed using the

Windows95 operathg system (see Appendix C for the command h e s of the computer

program). Ten additional questions were added to the PAI to accustom participants to the

test format. The prograrn displayed questions one at a time to which participants responded

by typing keys I (False), 2 (Slightly True), 3 (Mainly True), or 4 (Very Tnie). The

participants' responses to each question were recorded and the computer prograrn measured

the response time fiom moment of test item presentation to the moment of key press (RTl).

h e d i a t e l y after answering each question, participants were asked to confimi their ansvzr

by entering y (yes) or n (no). A second response tirne, defined as the time fkom moment of

Page 29: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 23

initial presentation until the moment of confimation, was also recorded (Rn). Should the

participant disagree with h i s k r choice @y choosing n at point of c o ~ a t i o n ) , the response

latency time recorded for RTl was reset and measured fiom the instant of disagreement until

the new answer was keyed.

Non-depressed participants were randomly assigned to either the control or the

malingering condition. Individuals participating in the control and depressed conditions were

asked to complete the PA1 as honestly as possible. Participants in the malingering condition

were asked to attempt to deceive the test by responding as if they were depressed.

Immediately before testing, individuals in the malingering condition were provided with

wxitten instructions for completing the PA1 (Appendix D). These instructions were read

aloud by the experirnenter and the participants were given the opportunity to ask questions.

The instructions aven to these participants were intended to assist them to eEectively

malinger. A portion of these instructions involved tetling participants that the questionnaire

is designed to detect lying; thus they were also given the additional task to avoid detection as

a person who is faking depression They were then told that a $25 prize would be awarded to

the person who avoids detection as a faker and presents with the highest level of depression.

This method for detemiinùig effective malingering was adopted from the format employed

by Rogers et al. (1 993,1996). Specifically, effective malingering was detemüned by (a) 2 T-

score on the Negative Impression Management scale of Tq0 and (b) the highest elevation

on the depression scale. Participants within the depressed condition and the control condition

were each eligible for a random draw of $25. Following the PA1 administration, individuals

were verbaliy debriefed on the purpose of Session 2, given a debriefing form (Appendix E),

and provided with the opportunity to ask questions.

Page 30: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 24

As previously rnentioned, the total number of Session 2 parîicipants was 61 (55

university students and six outpatients fiom the LPH). Before data analysis began, groups

were examined to ensure that they met previously stated criteria Five participants were

removed from subsequent analyses due to BDI scores that were eitha too high or too low;

one participant was removed due to age differences; and nine participants were removed due

to their endorsements of comorbid a x i s I disorders during the SCID interview. The resulting

h d sample included 15 participants in the control condition, 19 participants in the

malingering condition, and 12 participants in the depressed condition. There were no

differences between groups on sex k2 (2) = -1 1, n-S.], age IF (2,43) = 1.8 1, n-s.], and Shipley

scores [F (2,43) = -665, n.s.1. There were signifïcant group clifferences in BDI-2 scores at

tirne of PA1 administration [F (2,43) = 2 1 0.68, p < -00 1 1. Tukey post-hoc analyses of the

BDI-2 scores revealed that the control and maiingering groups differed significantiy fYom the

depressed group. The BIDR results were not examùied for the present study.

Treatment of Response Times

As previously noted, a response latency has many components. These components

can be roughly separated into individual characteristics (Le., reading speed, intelligence,

encoding, comprehension, decision, motor speed) and item characteristics (length,

vocabdary, complexity, ambiguityy number of choices). Authors (e.g., Fekken & Holden,

1992; Neubauer & Malle, 1997; Robie et al., 2000) agree on the importance of minimizùlgy

as much as possible, the variance in response latencies due to individual attributes and item

attributes, without removing variance due to the schema driven decision process. This

decision process is the c m of al1 research in response iatencies because researchers

Page 31: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

D e t e h g Depression 25

conjecture that particular decisions regardhg item content (e.g., simple decisions or difficult

decisions) will be evidenced as differences in response latencies.

The method used to remove variance attzibutable to individual and item

characteristics has not yet been agreed upon and varies fiom author to author (e.g., Fekken

& Holden, 1992; Neubauer & Mdle, 1997; Robie et al., 2000). Most authors cite the works

of Fekken and HoIden (1992) and their double-standardization procedure. The procedure by

Fekken and Holden begins with a -score transformation, the &st standardizaîion in the

double-sbndardization procedure, for each individual on hidher set of raw response

latencies. In this way their response latencies are transformed into a deviation of the

individual's mean responding time; this deviation fiom mean responding may be

attributable to item characteristics and the decision process. In eEect, the first

standardization removes the error variance attributable to individuai characteristics that

remain stable across items. The double-standardization procedure then continues with the 2-

scores obtained fiom the first transformation and standardizes those scores across items. In

this way, the variance due to item attributes are contrded, and it is hypothesized that the

remaining differences in scores foliowing the double-transformation represent differences in

the schema driven decision process. Other authors have disputed Fekken and Holden's

rationale (Neubauer & Malle, 1997; Robie et al., 2000).

Neubauer and Malle (1 997) stated that they agree with the removal of variance due

to item characteristics but they disagree with the removal of variance due to individual

charactenstics. They believe that while individual ". . .variance might reflect individual

ciifferences in reading speed, it may also contain individual merences in self-knowledge,

which are crucial" (p. 1 1 1). Neubauer and Malle (1 997) favored the l o g a r i t c

Page 32: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 26

transformation of response times, followed by mean deviating the transfomeci latencies for

each item. That is, they calculated a mean for each item and fiom that score they subtracted

the individual's item log latency. However, it seems that the argument put forth by

Neubauer and Malle (1 997) is flawed. Firsf it is unlikely that individual differences in self-

knowledge are removed fiom with the single standardization process. In fact, individual

difYerences in seIf-knowledge wiil Wcely be amplified by removing the variance attributable

other individual characteristics, such as reading speed. This is due to the very nature of self-

knowledge; it is more salient for some items and less distinct with other items. The process

of standardization removes the same proportion of variance attributable to individual

ciifferences for each item, and therefore, standardization cannot remove the effects of seK-

knowledge, which as argued by Neubauer and Malle (1997), is dzferent for each item.

Neubauer and Malle (1 997) also stated that they have "statistical reservations about Holden

et al.3 'double-standardization' procedure" (p. 11 1), because the removal of individual

dinerences creates artificial negative correlations among subscales latencies if the rnean raw

subscde latencies differ fiom each other (i.e., slow response latencies become positive -

scores, quick response latencies become negative -scores). It is incomprehensible how

these correlations could be &cial if the two scales have different mean latencies. The fact

the correlation is negative instead of positive makes little difference. Finally, Neubauer and

Malle (1 997) pedorrned their analyses on both the raw and transformed response latencies

and found no diserences in signincant findings between the two methods. This implies that

their chosen method for response latency transformation was unnecessary.

Robie et al. (2000) also argue against the double-standardization method but adopt a

different position fiom Neubauer and Malle (1 997). Robie et al. (2000) argue that there is

Page 33: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 27

no strong empKica.1 evidence that the double-standardization method removes variance due

to individual and item characteriçtics. Robie et al. (2000) also state that the fïndings fiom

the double standardization method are not eady put into practice because the mean and

standard deviations fiom separate groups are used in some of the calculations to determine

the adjusted latencies in the faking group (Le., the second standardization across items). The

method chosen by Robie et al. (2000) regressed response latencies on a measure of item

complexity for each individual. Then they used the standardized residuals for each item for

each individual in an individual level regression analyses to obtain what they believed are

estimates of response latencies that explicitly control for sentence complexity and reading

speed- The tool used to measure item complexity was the Flesch-Kincaid grade index.

These authors also estunated item complexity with other meamire and found that all

measures were intercorrelated at .95 (Robie et al., 2000). While it is true that the double

standardization procedure relinquishes applicability, the procedure used by Robie et al.

(2000) introduces e m through the rneasurement of item complexity, followed by

individuai regressions on that ùnperfect measure. Although these authors performed an

adequate job at identifjing the item grade level, in the absence of any control for individual

merences in vocabuIary level they assume that dl items of certain grade levels affect d l

individuals equdy. It may be that some very intelligent individuals are not afEected by item

complexity while some less intelligent individuals may be greatly affected by item

complexity.

The first part of Holden et d.'s (1 99 1) double-standardization procedure, that is

single standardization, appears to be the most appropnate for this study. Cornparisons will

be made across groups and not at the item level; therefore, there is no need for the second

Page 34: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 28

standarcbation of response latencies. Any effects attributable to item characteristics are

controiled because all groups receive the same items in the same order of presentation.

Also, there may be a problem with the second standardkation in that it assumes that the

a ~ b u t e s of the item will affect al1 groups equally. Instead, it rnay be that item attributes,

such as low complexityy are maximally able to distinguish depressed individuals fkom

individuals attempting to feign depression; an individual experiencing depression may take

more time with a simple item because it has greater meaning for him or her. In addition,

response times standardized within subjects are easily understood and the z-scores can be

readily transfonned back into seconds. In cornparison to scores that are standardized,

double standardized scores are more difficult to interpret and understand in seconds. This

study wiU use the procedure set forth by Fekken and Holden (1992) but only the single

standardization wiil be applied.

Response times were initially examined for outhers. Following the procedure of

previous researchers (Fekken and Holden, 1 992, 1994; Holden 1999, all RTl s and RT2s

were analyzed for times less than 0.5 seconds and greater than 40 seconds and changed to

0.5 and 40 seconds, respectively (5 RTs, -002% of the data, were greater than 40s). Next,

RTI and RT2 were standârdized within individuals to remove idiosyncratic differences in

speed of responding. - . All -scores less than-3 or greater dian +3 were set to these respective

values. The modification of -scores was preferable to the removable of potentially

meanin@ data, especially with the proposed hypothesis that longer latencies will be

recorded for items that are more meanin- to an individual. Following the example of

previous research (Fekken & Holden, 1992, 1994), only -cores for RT1 (initial

responding) were used. The initial response times are poçhilated to represent a more

Page 35: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 29

impulsive or less thought out answer to item presentation. For the following sets of

statistical procedures, raw response times were examined to verify the effectiveness of the

standardkabon procedure.

Results

Any interpretation of resdts regarding response latencies requires direct

comparisons with scale score findings. In addition, the effectiveness of response latencies in

i d e n m g malingerers can only be determined in cornparison with the proven efficacy of

the PA1 scale scores. Each statistical step, therefore, begins by examining groups for

s i p i k a n t diEerences in scale score responses.

Descrktive Statistics

Descriptive scale score statistics for the NIM, PM, DEP, and DEP subscales are

presented in Table 1. Mean raw response time totals for RTl were as follows: Control

1342.9 s (SD = 299.0 s); Malingering 1405.8 s = 253.6 s); and Depressed 1565.1 s (So

= 377.1 s). Raw response time totals for RT2 were: Control 1584.7 s (SD = 3 3 0.9 s);

Malingering 1612.2 s (- = 284.7 s); and Depressed 1805.7 s (- = 470.4 s). Descriptive

statistics for the mean response time to items in the NIM, PIM, and DEP scales are

presented in Table 2.

For al1 analyses, -scores for each item were added across the scales of interest due

to their nature, namely that the sum of an individual's -scores is O. In actuality the sum of

the -scores was slightly negative, a mean of -.O2 per item, due to the adjustment of z-scores

greater than +3. The means for -scores across groups were: NIM -0.47 (SD 2.79), PIM -

0.40 (- 2.82), DEP -3.90 (- 4-30), DEP-Affective -0.84 a 2-25), DEP-Cognitive -7.16

Page 36: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 30

(So 2.3 8), DEP-Physiologicd -0.9 1 (SD 2.73). Descriptive statistics for -ore group

means are presented in Table 3.

Findings

A one-way aaalysis of variance was used to examine Merences between groups for

total raw response times and total -scores (i.e., for a 3 4 4 items). Con- to expectations,

no significant differences were found between groups for overall raw response times F T l F

(2,43) = 1.86, as.; RT2 F (2,43) = 1.5 1, n-s.], and according to expectation, no significant

merences were found between groups for total Z-scores [F (2,43) = .36, n.s.1.

Scale scores were examined for differences using a multivariate analysis of variance

(MANOVA), and found signincant ef5ect of group, W&' Lambda F (10,78) = 16.08, p <

-001. Univariate significant differences between groups were as follows: NIM [F (2,43) =

18.97, < .001], PIM (F (2,43) = 9.23, g < .001], DEP IF (2,43) = 64.80 ,~ < .001], DEP-

Affective [F (2,43) = 80.16, E c .001], DEP-Cognitive [F (2,43) = 53.75, p < .001], and

DEP-Physiological [F (2,43) = 25.22, p < .0G1]. Tukey post-hoc tests of significant

differences between groups are presented in Table 4. Examination of these post-hoc results

revealed significant differences between almost al1 possible comparisons, indicating that al1

groups significaotly differed fkom each other in the level of item endorsement.

A MANOVA was then performed to examine group differences on raw response

times (both RT1 and Rn). Multivariate tests found a significant effect of group, W W s

Lambda F (1 0,78) = 3 . O ~ , E = .002. There were significaht univariate differences for NIM

RT1 [F (2,43) = 3.714, p = .016], and the DEP-Cognitive RTI [F (2,43) = 5.627, E = .01].

Tukey post-hoc analyses with NiM RTl times indicated signincant dserences between the

Control and Malingering group @ = .024) and between the Control and Depressed group @

Page 37: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 3 1

= -047). DSerences for the DEP-Cognitive subscale were between the Depressed and

Control groups @ = -0 15) and between the Depressed and Malingering group @ = -022).

This fiduig indicates that the maluigerers responded to the NIM questions in the same

average time (4.24 s) as depressed individuals, whereas they f d e d to respond to DEP-

Cognitive items in a similar manner as the depressed individuals.

A MANOVA was used to examine group merences for 2-scores. Mdtivariate tests

indicated a significant effect of group, Wilks Lambda F (1 0, 78) = 3.3 6, Q = -00 1.

Univariate results were as foUows: NIM (2,43) = 8.14, E= .001], P M r ( 2 , 4 3 ) = 5.04,

E = .O 1 Il, DEP [F (2,43) = 2.27, ILS.], DEP-Affective IF (2,43) = 3.00, n.s.1, DEP-

Cognitive [F (2,431 = 4.09, Q = 0.241, and DEP-PhysioIogical [F (2,431 = -65 1, n.s]. The

Tukey post-hoc results are iisted in Table 5. The larger F Ratios obtained using -scores, in

cornparison to the raw scores, indicate that the -scores were more effective in

distinguishing ciifferences between groups . Likewise, the larger F ratios obtained using

scale scores also indicate the supenority of scale scores in distinguishing group merences.

Next, we wished to determine ifresponse times are able to add incremental validity

for detecting individuais expenencing depression and individuals malingering depression

discriminant fbnction analyses were conducted. Dischinant fimctions were performed for

scale scores, raw response times, transformed response times, a combination of s a l e scores

and raw response times, and a combination of scale scores and transformed response times.

Only those variables found to have significant univariate F ratios from the MANOVA

analyses (i.e., only variables that were significantly different between groups) were entered

into the discriminant hction.

Page 38: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 32

A direct discriminant fünction analysis was performed to determine how well scale

scores (MM, PIM, DEP-Affective, DEP-Cognitive, DEP-Physiological) could correctly

classi@ individuals. The three groups were signincantly distinguishable a2 (10, N = 46) =

91 -73, Q < -001. After removal of the largest disrriminant fünction the remaining function

was also signincanf x2 (4, N = 46) = 17.69, E = -001. The two functions accounted for

90.4% and 9.6%, respectively, of the between group variability. The correct classification

rate for the three groups through chance alone is 34.5%. The correct classification rate for

the three groups using scores to discriminate was 87.0%. Table 6 presents the specific

class~cation results using scale scores.

A direct discriminant function analysis was performed to determine how well raw

response h e s (NIM-raw, DEP-Cognitive-raw) could correctly c lasse individuals. The

three groups were significandy distinguishable (4, N = 46) = 18.3 5, E = -0011. M e r the

removal of the Grst discriminant fuaction, the remaining fiinction was also signincant x2 (1,

N = 46) = 8.04, = .005]. The two fûnction accounted for 56.9% and 43.1%, respectively,

of the between group variability. The correct classification rate using response times was

69.6%. Table 7 presents the specinc classification rates.

Next, the effective classification rates for -scores (NIM, PM, DEP-Cognitive) were

examined with a direct discriminant function analysis. The three groups were agah

distinguishable k2 (6, N = 46) = 24.18, Q -= .O0 11. M e r the removal of the first function,

the remaining function was also significant [y2 (2, N = 46) = 7.02, E < -051. The two

function accounted for 73.5% and 26.94, respectively, of the between graup vaiability.

Page 39: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 3 3

Table 8 presents the specific classincation results using -ores to discriminate between the

tbree groups. The correct classification rate for the -scores was 73 -9%.

As reported the raw response times and transfonned response times were fair

indicators of group membership but not nearly as effective as the s a l e scores. To determine

if the response times (raw and transformed) added incremental abiïty to classify

participants, we entered the scale scores and the raw response times, followed by the scale

scores and the transfonned response times into a direct discriminant function analyses. A

direct discriminant fiinction analysis was perfonned on the scale scores @iIM, P M , DEP-

Affective, DEP-Cognitive, DEP-Physiological) and the raw response times (MM-raw,

DEP-Cognitive-raw). nie three groups were signincantiy distinguishable x2 (14, N = 46) =

92.56, p < .001. After removal of the largest discriminant function the remaining function

was also significant, X2 (6, N = 46) = 18.88, p = .004. The two hct ions accounted for

89.8% and 10.2%, respectively, of the between group variability. The correct classification

rate for the three groups using scores to discriminate was 87.0%. Therefore, the addition of

raw response times did not increase the abiïity to differentiate between groups.

A direct discriminant fûnction analysis was pdormed on the s a l e scores (MM,

PM, DEP-Affective, DEP-Cognitive, DEP-Physiological) and the raw response times

(NIM-raw, DEP-Cognitive-raw). The three groups were significantly distinguishable, a2

(16, N = 46) = 93 - 8 2 , ~ < .O0 1. After removal of the largest discriminant function the

remaining hc t ion was also significant, y2 (7, N = 46) = 2 1.61, p < -003. The two fûnctions

accounted for 87.8% and 12.2%, respectively, of the between group variability. The correct

classification rate for the three groups using scores to discriminate was 89.1%. While the

Page 40: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 34

increase in classification is only 2.1%, an examination of the classification rates presented

Table 5 and Table 8 indicates the ciifferences as being the ability to properly i d e n a

malingerers, an increase fkom 73.5% to 78 -5%.

In clùlical practice, the fïrst attempt to detect rnalingerers examines the respondent's

NIM scaie score (Morey, 1996). We therefore examined the NIM scde and the NIM

transformed response times, separately and in combination, for theK ability to properly

classi@ the three groups. A direct discriminant function analysis was performed, the NIM

scale was able to sigmfïcantly distinguish groups k2 (2, N = 3 1) = 27.20, E < .001]. The

correct classification rate using the NIM scale scores for the three groups was 56.5% (see

Table 10 for specific classification rates). A direct discriminant hc t ion analysis for the

raw response times did not produced a signifiant fünction, 1L2 (2, N = 46) = 8.22, E = .016.

The correct classification rate using the NIM -scores for the three groups was 58.7%. The

NIM transformed response latencies were also able to significantly distinguish groups [a2

(2, N = 3 1) = 13 -8 1, p = .O0 11. The correct classification rate using the NIM -scores for the

three groups was 63.0% (see Table 11 for specific classincation rates).

A direct discriminant fûnction analysis was pelformed to examine the correct

classification rates for use of the NIM scale scores and NIM raw response times; the groups

were si@cantly disfinguishable [yZ (4, N = 46) = 33.29, E < .O0 11. After rernoval of the

first hction, a second function was also sigmficant k2 (2, N = 46) = 4.57, Q = .033]. The

two functions accounted for 89.5% and 1 OS%, respectively, of the between group

variability. The correct classification rate using the NIM scale scores and the NIM raw

response times was 65.2% (see Table 12 for specific classification rates). Using the

Page 41: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 3 5

combination of NIM scale scores and NIM p o r e s , the groups were significantly

distinguishable [r2 (4,s = 46) = 30.04, E c .001]. The correct classification rate usïx~g the

NIM scale scores and the NIM g-scores was 65.2% (see Table 13 for specinc classincation

rates). Although the MM raw response times and NIM z-scores appeared to perform

equally when paired with the scale scores, inspection of differences in Tables 12 and 13

indicate that the NIM z-scores were more important for classimg rnalingerers properly. It

would seem, therefore, that the NIM -scores could be used to add incremental validity to

the NIM scale score for detecting the malingering of depression.

Finally, we wished to i d e n e those items that could maximally classify individuals

as belonging to either the malingering or depressed groups. AU -scores recorded fkom the

items in the NIM, PIM, and DEP scales were entered into an independent mst. The 1-test

identified 9 items as being sig&ficantly different. These items, their respective scales, the

mean differences between groups, and -st values are presented in Table 14. Using the 9

significant -scores 5om die -test, a discriminant function analysis was pefiormed to

detennine how well these -scores could classify individuals as being in either the

malingering condition or the depressed group. The correct classification rate by chance is

52.55%; the correct classifkation rate using the 9 -scores was 96.8% (specific classification

rates are presented in Table 15). One depressed person was misclassifïed as being a

malingerer .

Discussion

This shidy intended to M e r previous research on response times and idente

clifferences between individuals not cunently experiencing psychological difficulties,

individuals experiencing depression, and individuals malingering depression. Generally,

Page 42: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Deprestion 36

results indicated that malingerers have a dif3erent response style than honest individuals and

malingerers also have different rates of infonnation processing. That is, individuals

malingering depression have a distinct set of response latencies. Using this pattern of

response latencies, without the use of s d e scores, it is possible to distinguish behiveen

individuals experiencing depression, individuals malingering depression, and individuals

who are not experiencing any DSM-IV Axis 1 disorders.

The current study was the e s t of its kind to use the PA1 and ïnvestigate whether

response times could aid in the detection of individuals who were malingering depression.

It is also the first study to examine the response times of malingerers against a sample

clinical population of the disorder being malingered. W e previous research has hdicated

&£ferences between malingerers and honest responders, without cornparisons to a group of

indwiduals genuinely expenencing the malingered disorder, practical conclusions cannot be

drawn. Finally, this study is the fïrst to ensure that controls and malingerers were £kee of

any psychological disorder.

Holden et al. (1991) proposed that respondents who adopt a schema (Le.,

malingerers) will respond more quickly to items congruent with their adopted schema. In

this study, the DEP scale items are congruent with the adopted schema of malingerers.

Overall, malingerers did perform more quickly but this difference was only significant for

the Depression - Cognitive subscale and only in cornparison to depressed uidividuals. As

reported, raw response latencies were iderior at providing signincant between-group

ciifferences. An example of the effectiwness of transformed response latencies was the

clifference between depressed individuals and malingerers for the Depression - Cognitive

scale. For raw response latencies, the groups had statistically equivalent mean respondùlg

Page 43: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 37

t h e for each (depressed group = 4.39 s / item; malingering group = 3.75 s 1 item). But for

the same scale, for transfonned response iatencies, the two groups were significantly

different with depressed individu& having a -score mean of -S8, while malingerers had a

z-score mean of -2.8 1. This example also illustrates the ciifference in meaning between -

response times and response latencies. While malingering and depressed individuals

answered the Depression - Cognitive questions with approximately equivalent response

times, malingering individuals answered these questions much faster than their mean

responding times and depressed individuals answered these questions only slightiy fasta

than their mean responding time.

Kuiper and MacDonald (2982) foiind that depressed individuals pay more attention

to negative self-relevant information. It was thexfore-hypothesised that depressed

individuals would have longer response latencies to self-relevant information (Le., questions

probing levels of depression). This hypothesis was supported with the Depression -

Cognitive subscale between depressed individuals and rnalingerers. Interestingly, relative to

their respective mean response latencies, malingerers were significantly slower than both the

depressed and the control groups at answering questions to the NIM items. Evidently

malingerers had to take extra time to respond to NIM questions, relative to their mean

response latencies, and ask themselves if these questions were applicable to their adopted

response style. Malingerers are actively attempting to present themselves in a negative light,

therefore NIM questions are negatively seE-relevant to malingerers. Malingering

individuals also took significantly less tirne than controls to respond to P M items.

Individuals in the control group had to think about the positive impression questions,

whereas the malingerers presented themselves in an abnormally low light and so they were

Page 44: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 3 8

not concemed with presenting themselves in a positive light. These fhdings support the

work of Kuiper and MacDonald (1982) that hdividuals pay more attention to self-relevant

information, thereby generating longer response latencies. From examining the trends in

Table 3, m e r research with a Zarger sample may further support this hypothesis.

SpecifïcaIly, a larger sample size may produce significant clifferences between ail groups for

the NTM, PIM scdes and differentiate depressed individuals fiom the other two groups for

the Affective and Cognitive subscales of the Depression scale.

Holden et al. (1 991) indicated that schema organization and item extremity affect the

self-referent decision process. Because of this theory, we had hypothesized that larger

group differences would be evident with the Depression - Cognitive subscale due to its

obvious content (i.e., item extremity). Our hypothesis was supported in that simiificant

differences in response latencies were contingent upon the scale and questions being

anaiysed An example between the malingering and depressed groups where response

latencies were significantly different was Depression - Affective item 286, which states

"I'm almost dways a happy and positive person" While this question was endorsed

similarly by both malingering and depressed individuals, mdingerers answered significantly

more quickly to the question with a mean Z-score of -96 less than the ù lan the depressed

hdividuals. That is, in cornparison to nomal responding rates for each group, malingerers

answered the question a b s t 1 SD faster than did depressed ùidividuals. A specific

instance where differences did not occur in response Iatencies between malingering and

depressed individuals was NIM item 89, which states "Since the day 1 was bom, 1 was

destined to be unhappy." Both malingerers and depressed individuals answered with the

same relative response latencies, whereas the malingering group had an average

Page 45: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 39

endorsement of MAINLY TRUE and all depressed individuals answered FALSE, NOT AT

ALL TRUE. This would indicate that this question was a m d e d to by both groups equally,

perhaps because the answer to the question is not obvious to both groups. Support for the

subtle item conclusion is that the question contains negative self-relevant information for

both groups as well as the question being only pdally endorsed (MAINLY TRUE) instead

of M y endorsed (VERY TRUE). These results concur with the findings that depressives

pay more attention to negative self-relevant information (Kuiper & MacDonald, 1982) and

may fürther this theory in adding that al2 individuals produce longer response times to self-

relevant ùiformation. Item extremity may refine when merences in response latencies

occur due to negative self-relevant information. We wilI retum to this issue of obvious

versus subtie items in the discussion on the classification rates using a measure constnicted

fiom the moa discriminating items.

To maximally differentiate group response styles, correct ~Iassification rates were

investigated between groups for scde scores, raw response latencies, and standardized

response latencies. The results of this study demonstrated that different groups of

respondents to the PA1 (i.e., depressed, malingerers, controls) could be adequately

discriminated via an analysis of response times. AIso, the evguaiion of PA1 scale scores

indicated Iarge differences between all groups, thereby producing elevated correct

classification rates. We compared the ability of the response latencies to the scale scores in

correct classification rates. It was found that while scale scores were superior at classimg

hdividuals, transformed response latencies could provide additional non-overlapping

information useful in the identification of malingerers. That is, the addition of transformed

response latencies increased the detection of malingerers by 5% (a total of 78.5%).

Page 46: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 40

Although, this merence was not of s ac i en t magnitude to achieve statistical signincance,

M e r research may strengthen current trends within the data that indicate the ability of

response latencies to distinguish real and malingered psychopathology.

Analyses were then conducted at the item Ievel to discover the transfomed response

latencies that were maximally able to discriminate between malingerers and depressed

îndividuals. A specific set of ûansformed response latencies was able to correctly classe

96.8% of malingering and depressed individuals. The items presented in Table 14 that

produced negative -scores (items that were answered relatively more quickly by

malingerers) were as follows: 46. 'Tve forgotten what it's like to be happy."; 286. "I'm

almost aiways a happy and positive person."; 187. 'Wo matter what 1 do, nothing works.";

275 "I often wake up in the middle of the night."; 144. "Sometimes I'm too impatient.";

264. '1 sometimes make promises I can't keep." These items were responded relatively

more slowly by depressed individuds, but were responded relatively more quickly by

individuals malingering depression. Conversely, items to which malingerers had to ponder

before responding (relative to their other latencies) but to which depressed individuals

answered relatively more quickfy were: 3 15. '1 have Little interest in sex."; 9. ccSometimes 1

cannot remember who I am."; 49. "Sometimes 1 have visions in which I see myself forced to

commit crimes." Although item extremity and the self-relevant information hypothesis

(Kuiper & MacDonald, 1982) are used to explain these fbdings, two of these significant

ciifferences were expected by chance alone, and so more research is necessary to elucidate

these iesuits.

Limitations

Page 47: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 4 1

It should be noted k t Holden and Kroner (1992) response latencies could be

differentiated on the basis of acceptance or rejection. These authors employed measures

with True or Faise responses, and had an equal number of false-keyed questions. The

application of their approach is problematic due to an unequal number of negative keyed

items (15 of 42 items examined were false keyed) and to a different response format (four-

point Likert-type scale). In addition, false-keyed items are not evenly distributed throughout

the questionnaire. This potentially confounds the previously reported effect of response

latency differences due to the acceptance or rejection of items (Holden & Kroner, 1992)

because there may be variances in response latencies attributable to item presentation at the

beginning versus presentation at the end of the questionnaire. For these reasons, we elected

to not examine tmnsformed response latencies for these effects.

A limitation of this study is inherent In the number of subjects in the depressed

condition. Prior to analyses for outlier data there were 23 individuals in the depressed

condition, with that number reducing to 12. Table 3 exhibits many trends that may be

sigdcantly Werent with more data. To M e r this PO& although Tukey post-hoc

analyses were reported, LSD poçt-hoc analyses were also performed on the transformed

response latencies. Using LSD post-hoc analyses, additional significant clifferences were

detected between depressed individuals and mdingerers in NIM scaie scores, control and

depressed individuals in the Depression - Affective subscale, and between control and

depressed individuals in the Depression - Cognitive subscale. The additional differcnces

obtained using LSD post-hoc analyses confonn to the hypothesis of self-relevant

information processing and response t h e latencies. With a larger depressed sample it is

Page 48: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 42

Likely that the noted LSD findings would also be significant using the Tukey post-hoc

analyses.

Another Iimiting fxtor was the rigid nature of the cornparisons used for the direct

disMiminant h c t i o n andyses. This study examined the role of the Depression subscales

for c l a s s ~ g individuals. Individuals who endorse items to produce a high Depression

scale score are not uSually classified as malingerers, instead these individuils are considered

to be depressed. In those instances where the Depression scale is used to detect malingerers

it is used as a component in a larger subset. For example, one of the eight configurd

features of the Malingering Index (Morey, 1 993) is calculated in part by using a high

Depression scale score (Malingering Index item 7. DEP 2 85T and Treatment Rejection 2

459. Also, Rogers et al. (1996) use the Depression - Cognitive subscaie T-score as 1 of 20

scores that are inputted into the Rogers Discriminant Function to dent@ malingerers. In

this study, by comparing response latencies to s a l e scores, we chose to examine groups for

differences using the most ngid of criteria Even with these strict criteria, high classification

rates were witnessed by examining transformed response latencies. The possible fbture role

for response latencies may be the creation of a scale at the item IeveI that maximally

dinerentiates groups.

Future Directions

Much of the success of this study can perhaps be attributed to the use of the PA1

(Morey, 1991). It has at least rhree qualities that make it very useful in examining the

effectiveness of malingering. First, the PAI has a Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level of 4, making

it robust to individual ciifferences in vocabulary; there was no correlation between the

Shipley - vocabulary subtest raw scores and the raw response latency totals. Second, it is a

Page 49: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 43

broad and lengthy instrument with 344 items, so that even ifrnalingerers were aware of the

measurement of response latencies, the breadth and length of the PA1 would likeIy Wear

down the vigilance of malingerers. FinaUy, a PAI scale is assessed with an item every 40

questions (e-g., the DEP - cognitive items are 27,67, 107, 147, 187,227,267,307),

ensuring that if the responding style is altered due to factors such as fatigue or boredom, the

change in responding style will affect all scale response latencies equally. For these rasons,

the PM is an ided measure for examining the effects of malingering and psychopathology

response latencies,

The implications of these hdings also lend themselves to the assessrnent of other

scales on the PAI. Although data were collected for al1 PAI items, this snidy only analyzed

response latencies for 3 of the 22 scales (42 of the 344 items). It rnay be possible to M e r

identify genuine psychopathology or malingering using some of the other scales. For

example, through the analyses of response latencies on the Suicidal Ideation scaie it may be

possible to accurately idente those individuals who are contemplating death, whereas the

obvious item content may make it ideal for identifjing malingerers. Also, response

latencies may be more valuable when attempting to iden* coached mahgerers. Coached

individuals are acutely aware of the constmct being malingered. Consequently, for the scale

being malingered, item content is more obvious and their transformed response latencies

may be that much quicker.

The use of response latencies is a promising technique in the detection of genuine

psychopathology and malingering. As previously reported by Rogers et al. (1 9%), there is a

need for a more efficient and reliable method of identiwg individuals as honest or

malingering respondents. The importance of which is undeniable in the light of the cunent

Page 50: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecthg Depression 44

re-stnichlring in our health care system, necessitating an even stronger focus on efficacy and

efficiency .

Page 51: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 45

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1 994). Diagnostic and sbtistical manual of

mental disorders (4h ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, K. G. (1996). Beck Demession Inventorv ed.).

San htonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

Bemreuter, R. G. (1 933). Validity of the personality inventory. Persondity Journal,

11.383-386.

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R, Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989).

Manual for administration and scorine;. Minnesota Multi~hasic Persondity Inventory - 2:

MMPI-2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Brunetti, D. G., Schlotrmann, R S ., Scott, A. B., & Hollrah J. L. (1 998). Instnicted

faking and MMPI-2 response latencies: the potential for assessing response validity. Journal

of Clinicai Psycholo-w, 54,143-1 53.

Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability hdependent

of psychopathology. Journal of ConsulMg and Clinical Psvcholow. 24,349-3 54.

Fekken, G. C. & Holden, R R (1994). The constnict validity of differential response

latencies in m~ctured personality tests. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences, 26, 104-

120.

Fekken, G. C. & Holden, R R (1 992). Response latency evidence for viewing

personality traits as schema indicators. Journal of Research in Personaiitv, 26,l O3 - 120.

First, M. B., Spitzer, R. L., Gibbon, M., Williams, J. B. W. (1997). Stmctured clinicai

i n t e ~ e w for DSM-N axis 1 disorders - Clinician version (SCID-Cm. Washington, DC:

American Psychiatric Press.

Page 52: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 46

Gaies, L. A. (1 993). Malin~lering of depression on the Personalitv Assessment

Inventorv (l'AI). Unpublshed doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida

Graham, J- R. (1 990). MMPI-2: as ses sin^ mrsonalitv and ~svchopatholo W. New

York: M o r d University Press.

Hathaway, S. R, & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventon manual. New York: Psychological Corporation.

Helmes, E., & Reddon, J.R. (1993). A perspective on developments in assessing

psychopathology: a critical review of the MMPI and the MMPI-2. Ps~choloeical Bulletin,

113.453-471. - Holden, R R. (1 995). Response latency detection of fakers on personnel tests.

Canadian Journal of Behaviourai Science. 27,343-355.

Holden, R. R, Fekken, G. C., & Cotton, D. H. G. (1991). Assessing psychopathology

using structured test-items response Iatencies. Psvcho1og;icaI Assessment: a Journal of

Consultinn and Clinical Psvcholow, 3,111 - 1 1 8.

Holden, R. R., & Kroner, D. G. (1992). Relative efficacy of differential response

latencies for detecting faking on a self-report measure of psychopathology. Psvchological

Assessment, 4,170-1 73.

Jackson, D. N. ('1986). The Basic Personalitv Inventorv manual. Port Huron, MI:

Sigma Assessment Systems.

Jackson , D. N. (1994). Jackson Personalitv Inventow (Rev. ed.) menual. London,

Ontario: Research Psychologists Press Division.

Page 53: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 47

Katz, R, Shaw, B. F., Vallis, A S., & Kaiser, A. S. (1995). The assessment of severity

and symptom patterns in depression. In E. E. Beckham & W. R Leber (Eds.), Handbook of

demession (2"d Ed.1 @p. 61-85). New York NY: The Guilford Press.

Kaplan, R M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1993). Pwcholo~cal testinp;: Princi~les,

ap~lications, and issues. Pacifïc Grove, CA: BrookdCole Publishing Company.

Kuiper, N. A. & MacDonald, M. R. (1982). Self and other perception in d d

depressives. Social Corrnition 1,223-23 9.

Lewicki, P. (1 984). Self-schema and social information processing. Journal of

Personality and Social Psvchologv. 47,1177-1 190.

Meehl, P. E., & Hathaway, S. R (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the

minnesota multiphasic personality inventory. J o d of Applied Psychology, 525-564.

Morey, L. C. (1 99 1). The Personality Assessment Inventom professional manual.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Morey, L. C. (1 996) An interpretive guide to the Personali~ Assessment Inventorv.

Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Morey, L. C., & Lanier, V. W. (1 998). Operating characteristics of six response

distortion indicators for the Persodty Assessment Inventory. Psvcholo.gïcal Assessment, 5,

203-214.

Neubauer, A. C., & Malle, B. F. (1 997). Questionnaire response latencies: implications

for personality assessment and self-schema theory. Euro~ean Journal of Psycholoeical

Assessment. 13,109- 1 17.

Pauhus, D. L. (1984). Two-components of socially desirable responding. Journal of

Personalitv and Social Psycholow. 46,598-609.

Page 54: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 48

Padhus, D. L. (1988). Assessîng self-deception and impression management in test

responses. In A. Angleitner & J. S. Wiggins (Eds.), Personah assessrnent via ouestionnaire

(pp. 143- 165). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1992). Psychological testing in applied setthgs: A

literature review fiom 1982- 1992. J o d of Training and Practice in Professional

Pwchologv, 6,7482.

Robie, C., Cuain, P. J*, Foster, C., Phillips, H. L., Zbylut, M., & Tetrick, L. E. (2000).

The effect of coaching on the utility of response latencies in detecting fakers on a personality

measure. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34,226-233.

Rogers, R (1997). Clinical assessrnent of malingerine gmd dece~tion ~ 2 " ~ ed). New

York: Guilford.

Rogers, R., Omduff, S. R., & Sewell, K. (1 993). Feigning specinc disorders: A study

of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Journal of Personalitv Assessment. 67,629-

640.

Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Morey, L. C., & Ustad, K. L. (1996). Detection of feigned

mental disorders on the Personality Assessment hventory: a discriminant analysis. Journal

of PersonaW Assessment. 67,629-640.

Siem, F. M. (1996). The use of response latencies to enhance self-report measures.

Militaw Psvchology, 8,15-27.

Thomas, P., Goudemand, M., & Rousseaux, M. (1999). Attentional resources in major

depression. Euro~ean Archive Psvchiaûv and Clinical Neuroscience. 249,79-85.

Zachary, R. A. (1 99 1). Shidev Institute of Living Scale IRev. ed.). Los Angeles:

Western Psychological Services.

Page 55: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 49

Appendix A

Procedure for the recruitment of subjects at the LPH for the study Wetecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the PersonaIity Assessrnent Inventory."

1. They have no Axis I diagnosis other than depression. 2. If no Axis I diagnosis exists then any referral for counselling or possible depression or

recurrent depression.

Following the identification of potentiai participants, the nurse will contact these individuals and state the following:

"Hello, my narne is <name> and I'm cdling fiorn the Lakehead Psychiatrie Hospital. A research projeci is being conducted and we were wondering if it would be okay to give your narne and telephone nurnber to the researcher so that he could cal1 you and give you more information about the study. You are in no way obligated to participate. This cal1 is only to ask you if you want to hear more information about the study."

Infornation that can be aven 1. Completely ~ o ~ d e n t i a l - no one at the hospital or outside the hospital will be informed of

your responses or that you participated, you will be assigned a number. 2. Duration - 30 minutes up to 2 hours depending on the responses given 3. Free wffees and a 15 minute break is available. 4. If necessary bus passes will be provided fiee of charge. 5 . There is a random draw for a $25 cash pnze.

The only information tu be given about the purpose of the study - it is examining the effect of mood States, specifically sadness, upon computerized personality assessment.

Name 1 Telephone Number i

Researchers - Derick Cyr, M.A. Cadidate, CIinical Psychology Dwight Mamanian, PhD., C-Psych, Associate Professor of Psychology, L.U.

Page 56: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting- Depression 50

Appendix B

Emotion and Information Processing Debriefing Form: Session 1

The purpose of the present study was to detemine whether students who expenence different emotional states will demonstrate biased information processing that u e congruent with their emotions .

The session in wiiich you have just participated was designed to identiSr shidents who are expenencing emotional states of interest to the present research.

Thank you for participating in Session 1. You will be contacted should you be selected for Session 2 of this study. If you have any questions about the study, please contact Derick Cyr (623-4506) or Dr. Mannanian (343-8257), Department of Psychology, Lakehead Universix Thunder Bay, ON, P7B SEI. If you would like a brief summary of the results you may obtain them by printing your name and permanent mailing address of the self-adhesive address label. Results will no likely be availabIe before August, 2000.

Ifparticipating in this study or completing the questionnaires has distressed you or has raised personal issues that you would like to discuss, or if you just need someone to t& to, the following organizations are available: L.U. Health Center (343-8361), Peer Suppoa Line (343-8255), Chaplain (3 43 -80 1 8), and Counseling and Career Centre (343-80 1 8).

Fekken, G. C. & Holden, R. R. (1 992). Response latency evidence for viewing personality traits as schema uidicators. Journa1 of Research in Personalitv, 26,103-120.

Kaplan, R. M. & Saccuzzo, D. P. (1993). Psvcholoeical testine: Principles, a~olications. and issues. Pacific Grove, CA: BrooksKole Publishing Company.

Lewicki, P. (1 984). Self-schema and social uiforrnation processing. Joumal of Personah and Social Psvchologv. 47,1177- 1 190.

Page 57: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

. - - . 120 a s 120 PRmr:PxINT " - - Thank' yau ' f o r .p&ticipating in this 'e tudy . . : PRi NT:PRmT:PRINT . - - - . - L30 PRINPU If - ~ O U bave. rny vcati&s or cohcernc p l e a ~ a feel free to sontact ei. theru : PFUNT q . .. -Dr . Maznianiian.or Derick W.." . ~ 4 0 P ~ : P R I N T ' : ' P R I N T - ! . : ; *. - - A i l . information is strictly conf ident ia ï

8 - 150 -'WA-TIMER- . ' _ - -- . . -

- 190 REM 200 REM 210 REM 220 REM 230 REM

. 240 REM 250 REM 260 ,DfM 270. DIM

-. . 280 DIM 290 DIM 300 DIM 310 DIM 320 D l M 330 D ï M 340 Dpi

- 350 D m 360 DIM 370 REM 380 RE19

- 39q P m 400 410. REM 420

- - 430 ' . 4 4 Q .

450 4 66. 470 480 REM 490 REM 500 Rm

Page 58: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

- . - Detecring Depression -52

REM

REM R E M -

CIS:PRINT:PRINT:PRINT mmtn $oui namen :PR=:-INPUT NAM$-- CLS:PRZNT:PRINT:INPVT-wEPter y o u ~ age .'", AGE CLS:PRXNT:PRINT:INPUT "Enttryo- S W C ~ R I SEX$- CLS : P R p T :PRINT: PRINT' " W h a t is 'yous marital status? PRïNT -' (Single, m i e d , Dïvorced, Widowed, ûther) : F R m : IRPUT---Y$ CLç:PRINT:PRfNT:PRINT =-ter the number of y e u s of formal education that yo . - . . u ha~cotnp&tedm . - ..

.63 0 PRINT ' - ( f o r c x a ~ l t , a high school gkadÜ+e. w o G d 'enter 12 1 - - 640 -:INPUT ED 6 5 0 : ~ ~ s . : PR=: . -. PRINT: INPUT "Enter YOIX occupation : I, J O ~ $ - . . - 660 REM . ' . - .

670 REM = . .

6 8 0 ZER - O' OB$ 710 REM -

. ?l

. . exo. PR~?~:PRINT " ~ f t h e statement. ie S L I ~ Y T R ~ , aqtcr the ~Jmber 2 . . - 820 PRINT:PRïNT "If the. statement is MAINL,Y TRUE, enter .the number 3 .-"

' 830. PRINT:PRINT "1 f the statement 'is VERY TRUE, enter the number - 4 . . . . . . 840 PRINT . 850 PRINT:PRLKT Wive y& OWN OP.n<IûN- of yqursclf. 'Be cure to a n s w e r every sta t e m w . ".

. 860. INPm "Press !enter1 to- continuen, CONTI $' - -

* LOOP ..for PAI . item preeentation and recardGg. of times - * . . ******.***+*********+*+********.*~***********+*****+******~****** I

* - . - . -

L

FOR 1 = 1 Tb 354 .

. . CLS:PRmT. PRINT, l~l=False - - 2-Slightly True : .

Page 59: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

- - . - - - -. - . . . - -

. - - *

. . Detecting Depréssion 53

GOTO 1-120 . RT2 ( 1 I -'(T=-TS -. IF .CODE3 = 2 TBEN ûQTO 1220

1230 - . - .

1240 **ct*********+**&*.*r*e**e**********.**e****e***************** 2-score calculation and prb t i r rg . - . *. 1250REM* - - *

1260 ~~~***~*~******+i*t+rr+++*+++r+rrt*++rr+t*++t*+t++t+rr** . - . . -

1270 RkM* - - - . . 3.280 ' A-P . .

,3290. SaMRTl 1.0 ' 1300 "SVMRTS = O 1310' - . FOR-A- = 1 ~ 0 . 3 4 4 .

- 1460 PRZNT'XI, "' ' - . .

- . 2470 - PRINT X I , aQue8tion .#; R R (kitting deceion), RT2 (Total ac~eptanee)~

7 . . . ilreo P m #Ir . 1490 - . - FOR ZZ ='l.TO 344 - . 150.0 - F m r ZZ+10 . - 1510 -. 21 ( Z Z ) = (RT (FFV) /SgRTI - .

- 22- (22) = (RT2 ! F W ) -=T2 /SDRT2 - .-1520 1530 .-

. P R ~ #I, Z Z ; .", '; usING-n## .######t#-; "; z1 (zz) 1 '7 ('') - -

1540 h m iz . - - -

1550 REM . - - . . - - . . 1560 - * * ~ ~ ~ * * ~ * * * * * ~ ~ * * ~ * e & * * . * * * * ~ * + * * ~ t ~ - * * * '

1570 REM . DATA lines ( f i r a t 10 of data are the practiee questions) >

1580 REM ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ * ~ * * * ~ * + ~ * * * ~ t i * * * * * ~ * * * ~ * i * ~ * . c t + . . - - 1590 REM 1600 REM , .

. i610 DATA 1 - am: a spiritual persoa. ", 2 1620 DATA 1 am always on time +or -appointments . a ,2

- 1630 DATA "1 l i k e Bumpeaxi made cars. ", 2 - - - . 1640. DATA '1 drink at l eas t 3 cupa of coff ee -every. &y. ",.2 ' . - -

. 1650 DATA " 5 like country. music.-', 2

Page 60: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 54

1660 D A T ~ ~somktimes E go to sleep past midnight.",2 1670 PATA "1-enjoy the fresh air.',2-- -. - - 1660 DATA "1 would rather wash diahes than.wzkch tele~ision.~.2 ' -

1690 DATA "1 would like to own a dog.",2 . - 1700 DATA nAstr~logy works when enough -0rmitipn is kown about a personla bir -

- -

th date.",l - - ,

- l7lO DATA 'My friends arc akilahle if 1 need $hem. a, 1 1.72 0 DATA 1 have some inner strugglee that cause problems for me. n-, 1 1730 DATA " M y health cond&tion has res~ricted lay acti~itics.~,O 1740. DATA "1 .am so tense. in certain situations chat 1 have great difficuity iag by." ,o. - -

. :. 1750 DATA .I haveto do s&e things a ccztain way or 1 gtt n&rvoii~.~,O .. 1760 DATA "Much of the- time -1 1 m ead for .no real reason. n , 0 .- 1770 DATA * O f t k ~ ~ 1 thiak-and talk 80 quickly that other people cannot follow train of * thought . ", 0 - *

1780 'DATA . " M o s t of the people f Imow c e 3 e trruted. ', 1 - 1790 DATA nSometimes I caqnot rernember .who 1 ag. 0 - .

1800 DATA "1 have some ideas trhat &thers thirik are strange.n-IO .- 1810 DATA "1 wae usually well-behaved- at school . "-, 1 182 0 DATA "1 Ive .seen. a lot .of -doetors over the yeara . ", 0 183 0. DATA "1 'rn a very sociable pereon. II, 0 . .

1840. DATA " M y mood can shift quite- suddurly. ', 0 1850-DATA 'Sometimes 1 feel quilty about how much T &inka ", 0 1860, DATA "I1m a. -!takt charge1 type of .pcrs~n.~,O 1870' DATA "My attitude 'about myself changes a 10t.~,O 1880 DATP; "People woüld be eurprieed if .f yelled at - somtone . ", 1

. . 1890 DATA 'My relationship have been storiny. 0 1900 DATA "At times 1 wish 1 were deèd. ,O - 1910 DATA nPeople are'afraid'of m y temper.'n,O . - 1320 DATA nSometimes 1 use drugs to'feel better.wI.O.- 1930 DATA "1 Ive tried just about every type of drug.P, 0 1940 DATA nSometirnes 1 let little things bother me too much.",l '

- 1950 DATA "1 often have trouble concentrating because I 1 m nerr0us.~~,0 1960 DATA II 1 o f t r n f ear that 1 *might slip up and say something wrong. ", 0 1970' DATA !t 1 ,f ce1 - that 1 ve let everyone dom. II, O l9B O D&TA 1 - have . many - brilliant ideas. ,O . .

1990 DATA 'Certain people go out- of their way to buther me. O - i 0 0 0 .DATA :I just .don1 t -secm to relate to people very well. ., 0 2.010 DATA 1 Ive borrowed money knowing 1 w o u l d n ! t pay it back. ", 0 20?0 DATA nMuch of the. time:I-donrt feel ~ell.~,O - -

2030 DATA. "1 often feel jitte*. " , 0- - . . 2040 DATA."I kcap reliving aomemng horrible that happcned to me.n,O

DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA

- DATA. DATA

. DATA DATA DATA

- DATA DATx

1 DATA

1 hardly have -any cnergy. O 1 can be very - dcmanding when I, w a n t things dOxk q u k k l y . O aPeople usually treak me pretty fairly. ", 1 "My thinking has become confused. 0 1 get a kick out of doing dangeroi~s t h m . , O- - nMy --favorite poet is Raymond Kertezc. II, O "1 Iike being around m y famil~.~,l - . 1 neta to .makt some important changes in m y life. @ , 1

'

l ye Md. illneaaes that my doctors Eoula not explain. O " 1 canl t do ecme things well ' because of nervou~ess . r O- .I ha- impulses-that 1 fight to keep under c~ntrol.~,O 1 've forgotten 'what it B like to feel happy. ", 0- -, 1 .tee on io many c+tmants- that 1 cana t keep up. O

nI have to be alert to the poesibllity . - thrt people will be upfaSthfu1. "IO 2190. DATA I have visions- in which I oee myself forced to commit crimes. 0. - - 2200 DA.!l?A ' Other people sometixnea put- thougkte in to my head. II , O 2210 DATA 1 l ve deliberarely damaged eomeone ' s -property. ' , O , -

- .

- *

. - . . _. . -. V

. . . e

. . . - . . . . . .

. - - _ . . - . . t . , - .

- . . . . . . . -

Page 61: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

- ~ekct ing Depression

- 2220 DATA "My health problems are very complicated. ",? - - . 2230 DATA "1t1s easyforme tomakenewfriend~.~,O - -2240 DATA 'moods- get quf te intense. ", 0 - . ,

2250 DATA 1 have trouble con troll in^. my uae of deohol . "., 0 . . 2260 DATA "I1m a natura1 leader.",o 2270 DATA mSometimee f f e e l terribly empty 'inside. O 2280 DATA "1 tell people -off when they deserve it . ", O 2290 DATA "1 want to Let certain people . h o w how much theylve hurt me.n,O- 2300 DATA RIfve thought about -waya to kill my~elf.~,O 2310 DATA nSomctimes my tenrpek explodes and. 1 cokpletely lose control. ", 0 2320 DATA - nPeopT-i have- told me that I have a drug problern. ", O . - 2330' DATA "1 ncv+r use drugs to help me cope with the ~orld.~,l 234.0 DATA nSometimee Ill1 avoid sorneone 1 really don't like.",l -

2350 DATA "It s often hard for ma to enjoy mysclf becausa I 1 m ofttn worryingA-ab0 ut things.a,O . - , - 23 60 DATA 1 have exaggerated fears r ', O 2370 DATA "Sometimes I thbk I ' m worthless. 0 - 2380 DATA 1 have ~ o m e vcly special talents that f ew 'ot?iero have. 0

- 239.0 DATA nÇome people do thïngs to make. me look bad. a , 0- 2400 DATA "1-donlt have much to Bay to anyone.n,O - - -

2410 DATA "Ltll. take advaatage of othare i f they leave thernselves open- t o it. ". O 2420 DATA I suff er .'from a l o t of pain; Il, 0 2430 -DATA .I worry BO much that at t i m c s I f eel likc 1 am goi& to faint ..N ,O 2-440 DATA "i'houghts about rny past often botber me while Ism thinking about somet . - h b g elee.",û' . - 245.0- DATA - "1 hava no trouble faliing asieep. y.1 2460 DATA nZ get q u i t e -irritated . . i f people tq? to keep me from accomplishing my .

. . . - goals.", O 2470 DATA "1 seem to .have as mucn luck i n life as others- do. ,l 2480; DATA " M y thoughts get scrctmiiled sornetimes. 0 249.0 DATA."I do -a lot of wild things jus+ for the tbrill of it.',O 2500 DATA "Sometimes 1 get ads in the mail that 1 don8t really want.".,l 2510 DATA If 1 m' having psobl-s , X have people- 1 can talk to-. , 1 2520 DATA 1 need to change some things' about myself , ev'en- if it hurts . "., 1 - 2530 DATA- ItI1ve had numbness in parts of my body- that 1 canlt explain.",O 2540 DATA n~onietimes 1 am afraid for no reason. ,O- . - 2550 DATA " It b o t ~ e r ~ me when things are out -of place. 0

' ' 2560 DATA "Everything seemi like a big effort in, 0 .

- 2S?Q DATA nRecently 1 I ve -had much more eaergy than usual . ,O . 2580 DATA "Most people have good intentions.",l

- - 2590- DATA "Since the day 1 vas born. -1 was . destined .to be unhappy. 0 -

2600 DATA- llSopetimes it seeme-that my.thcughts are broadcast su that others can hear them: ., 0 -. 2610 DATA S Ive- d&e eome things.-that .wereal t exactly legal*. ",O 2620 DATA n'Itvs a struggle ?or me to gat things dqne w=th -the-medical &oblems 1 have. n t 0 2630 DATA "I like. to -meek new people. 0- ' . - . - 2640.DATA "My mood as very steady.n,l. . ,

- - 2650 DATA "Thare h m been. times *fien I ve had to cut do- on my %inking. O 2660 - DATA - "-1 would- be good at a job where I tell others what to do. O 2670 DATAInI worry a lot about other people legving rne.",O. .

2680 DATA "Whea 1 get mad at o-ther driver6 on the road, 1 let tbem .know. ", 0 2690 DATA. "People once .close to m e have let me *dpwrr. ", 0 2700--TA llI1ve made plane about how-to k i l l ~ e l f . n f O . C

2710 DATA Sometimes ' 1 m very vio16nt. la, 0 .2720 DATA " M y e g . use hqs caused me f inancial 8trai.a. n t O 273 0 DATA ." 1 ve never had problems at w6rk because of drugs . " , 1 - .

- 2 7 4 0 . D A T k n I eometimea-complairi to~much.~~,l~ . 2750 DATA n I y m o e e n 60 woqied..and ne*ou~ that I can barely st-knd it. ".O

2760 DATA "1 get very ne3ous when 1 have to do eoniething in front of 0thers.~-.0 - . -

. . . . . . - - . .- .. -

. . . - . . . . . - - a . . . . - . -

. .

Page 62: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression - - 56

. - - 2770 DATX "-1 &nt t f ce1 like trying aPymore. U r O 2780 DATA " M y plana will make me famous s~meday.~,O 2790. DATA nPtople around me are faithful to me. 1 2800 DATA "IVm a loner. ' ,O 2810 DATA nI'll do most thiags if the price is right.",O 2820 DAT+ "1 am in good health.n,l 283 0 DATA nSomctimee I feal dirzy when 1 -bcen under à lot .of pressure. ", 0 . 2 840 DATA 1 Ive been troubIed by mernories of a bad expcrience for a long time. " ,

3020 DATA 3030 DATA 3040 DATA 305 O- DATA I O

3060 DATA 30.70 WTA 3080 DATA 3090 DATA 3100 DATA 3 110 DATA 3-12 O RATA 3130 DXCA 3-14 0 - DATA

- . O 2850 DATq "1. rarely have trouble elcepizig. ", 1 2860 DATA nsaaetime~ 1 get- upeet becnise otheire dont t understand e m plans. " ,.O 2870 DATA "1 Ive given a lot, but f havea t gottcn much. i n returri. n t 0 2880 DATA aS.m.etimes 1 have trouble keeping different- thoughts ~ep~ate."iO 2 890- DATA ."My behavior if pretty wild at times . II ,O 2900 DATA "My favorite sports event on. television i s the high jump. O . 2910 DATA -1 spend most of my tirne a10ne.~,O 292O:DATji "1 need *orne help to deal with important prob-~ems.tlIl 2930 DATA m14ve ha& epiiodes of double vision or blurrcd vision.",O 2940 DATA "I.'.m not the kiqd of person who panics -easily. 1 2950 DATA "I-, can relax even if my home is a mess.",l 2960 DATA "Nothing seems . to give me. much pleasure . O 2970 DATA "At times my thoughts move very q~ickly.~;~ 2980 DATA .I usually assume people are telling the trath.",l 2990 DATA .I think ï hav= three-or four.completcly âïfferent personalities insid t'of me.",O- - 3000 DATA -wOthere can read &y thoughts. "., 0 3010 DATA "1 used to. lie a lot -to get out of tight situations. ",O

' " M y medical problems always seem to be hard- +O treat . 0 . NI am a warm person.",O . , - 1 have litrlë. control mer m y . anger . Ir,

" M y F n g seems to. cause problems in my relationships with others. " . .

n'5 have troui>le. standing Gp for myself . 1 . - "11- ofteniwonder what .1 should 60 with my life; 0 " 1 lm not -'af raid to yel' at someone to get m y point across . " ,O 1 rarely. Eeel ve-zy -1onely. " ,1

- 1 Ive re-ceatly been thinking about suicide. ", 0 . . "Sometimes .I smash .thirigs when- 1 ln upset . 0 I neveryuse 'illegal dnigs . ;l . "1- -sometimes do things so impulsively t u t I get into tr~uSle.~,O - '

Sornetimee 1-lm too . impatient. n , 1 - 3150 DATA " M y fr ienh say 1 worry too rn~ch.~,O 3 160 DATA Z.'rn not easily fdghtened: R , 1 3170 DATA "1 cantt eeem to coqcentrate very well. s, O 3180 DATA "I have accomplished some remarkablc th+gs.",O

- 3390 DATA "Some people try to-keeg me frcm getting ahead. ",G - - 3200 DATA "1 dontt feel close to anyone.nfO

- 3 210 DATA 1 can talk my .way o s of juse about anyihing. ', 0 3220 OATA ?I .seldom have complaints about how 1 feel physi~ally.~,l 3230 DATA "1 càn. oftcn fegl Ü y heart pounCiing. ", 0 ' 3240 DATA "1 cantt eeem to get F e r somethin* from m y past.n,O

:3250 DATA "Itve been-moving more slowly than usual.",O 3260 DATA "1 hake great plans and it irritates .nie thaf people try t o interfere." ,O - - 3270 DATA "People dontt appreciate w h a t Tlve donel~or them.",~ 3280 DA^ DSometimesit feele as if eomebody is blocking my'th~bghte.~,~ 3290 DATA P I f 1 get tired- of- a placefz :I just pick up- and Leave. ,O

. 3 300. DATA "Most people - would zath=r win + than -loee. ", 1 -3320-DATA nMost people I1m close to are very supportive. .Z .

. . 3320 . DATA nItm-curious why-1 behave thc way 1 d ~ . ~ , l . . .

. . . . . . - . . .

- . .- . . .

, - _ . . . C

. . . . - - . . . . . - : . . - . - . . . . . - - . * . .

. . -

Page 63: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

3330 DATA n..,Q -'

3340 DPTA 3350 RATA 3360 DATA 3370 DATA 3380 DATA 3390 DATA 3400 =A 3410 OATA 3420 DATA 3430 DATA

- 3440 DATA 3450 DATA 3460 DATA 3470 DATA 3480 'DATA 3490 DATA -3500 DATA 3510 DATA 3520 DATA 3530 DATA

- 3540 DATA' '3550 DATA '3560 DATA 3570 DATA 3580 DATA 3590 DATA -3 6 O 0- DATA

. - 3610 F A 3620- DATA 3630 DATA 3646 DATA 3 6 5 0 DATA .-n,o 3660 DATA I O

- 3670 -DATA . 3680 DATA 3690 DATA 3700. DATA 3730 DATA

. Detecting Depressiop 5 7

. - Therc have baui times w h e n my eyc~ight gct uorse and then ba+te=- aga;

. . "1 am a very ' &lm and relaxcd pereon; . l ' "People say that- Irm a perftctioni~t.~,O ' "I1ve lost interest in thLngs 1 used to tnj0y.~,0 - " M y f riends can ' t -keep up with m y social activities . ,'O "People generally hide their reaL motives-*,O People don1 t underetand how mu& 1 euff er . " , O nI1ve heard voices that no one e lee could hear-",O "1 l i k e to see how much 1 can get away with.",O "1 ! ue had only the ueual -heal.th probleme that most people havt - ", 1 "It- takes-me a while ta warm up to people.";l 1 Ive - always beut a pretty happy pereon . 1

" D r i n k i n g helps me set 'dong in social* situations. ", 0 - "1 feel best in. situations where I am the leader.ll.O "1 can1t.tandle separation from those close to me very well-*,O I always- avoid arguments if I c m . * , 1 "I1ve made some real mistakes-in the people I1ve picked aa friends.",O "1 haye thought about suicide for a long time.",0 RI1ve threatened to hurt pe~ple.~,O :I ' ve- ueed prescription drugs to get high. , Q .men I 1.m upset . I typicaiiy do a o m e t w -to h u S rnydif. ..O 1 don' t take criticism very well. If, 1 "1 doalt w o v about things any-more than most pe~ple.~,I 1 ' donl't mind drivisg on f zeeways . , 1 . - - "No matter what 1 do, nothing works . 0 . - ."I think I have the answexs to'eome very important questions.",O "There are people who w a n t to hurt me-",O 1

" 1 enj oy the Company of other people. ", 1 - "1 don1 t like being tied to' one person. " , 0 *I have a bad back.",O n I t l ~ e a s y f o r m e t o r e l a x . n , I - "1 have had some horrible experiences that make me feel guilty-",O 1 often wake up very early in the morning and can t get back td sleap.

. . 1 . : . . - "r+ bother~ m y w h e n other peokls arc too slow to understand my ideas:

n~sually I1ve gotten credit :or what-Irvc d ~ n c - ~ ; l . -

"My thoughts tend te quickly ehift .aroundto differeat things.",O "The idea of 'settling ewn' ha8 never ,appealed to me.",.O "My favorite hobbies.are-archery and stanip-collecting.",O : nl?eople I know. care about me. n.,l . -

372 0 DATA .I. ' m -cornfortable wath myself - the way 1 am. ; O. 3730 DATA nI1ue had episodes when 1.lue lost the feeling in my- hand~.~,O 3740 DATA "1 .often:feel like eomethipg terrible is about to happen.",O . 3750 DATA *I1m usually. aware of -objecta that have a Lot of -gemme O 3760 DATA "1 have no interest j.5 life.n,-O. -- 3770 &'"I feel l i k e 1 neea :to keep active and 'not rest..", 0

- 3780. DATA "People- think I lm tao suspicioii~ . ". 0 3190 DATA "Every once in a while I: .rotaLly losc- m y memory.",O

- 3800 DATA Vhere are people who try to control my th~ughts.~,O . -3810. DATA "1 wae never expelled or suspended from school when.1 was youpg=";l

3 8 2 0 DATA nT1ve had some +meual diseases and illnes~eo.~,O . - - _ 3830.DATA."I.t takee a while for people to get fo know me.",l 3840 DATA "I1ve had timee when 1 waa 80 mad that 1 couldaft .do enqugh.t6 w r e i B

-

. al1 my ' anger . ,O -' . .

. 3850 DATA wSqrae people arouhd me. think that 1 .dz& too - 3860 DATA 'II prkf er ta. let others -make de-cisions . # , 1

- 307D DATA "1 dont t.-get bord very eaeily. n ,l . ' . . - - - - - -

- 3800 DATA *I dont t iike raising. ky voice. .', 1

Page 64: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

DA% - DATA DATA DATA DATA DATA' DATA DATA DATA DATA M T A DATA DATA DATA DATA. nATA

- 3890 DATA 3900 DATA 3910 DATA 3920 DATA- 3930 DATA 3940 DATA .3950 DATA 3960 DATA 3970 DATA 3 980 DATA- 3990 .DATA 4000 DATA 4010 DATA 4020 DATA 4030 DATA n r O 4040 D+TA 4050 DATA 4060 DATA 4070 DATA -4080 DATA 4090 DKTA 4100 DATA 4110 DATA 412 O DATA

C . .

- Detecting bepression 58

"Once Borneone is my friend, we stay friends.n,l "Death w W d be a blief . ", O - -

.

1 lve never ~ t i r t c d a physf cal - f ight. as &duit. ., 1 - -. - . "My drug use im out of .cantrol. ", O "Ifm too.impulsive for my own goo&.",O "Sometime~ 1 put thinge qff unt+l the laet minute.',l . - .

"1-donlt w o r r y about thing~that 1 canft c~ntrol.~,l '1 donlt &d heights.",l 1. - think . good. things w i l l hap* to m e in the future. .. 1

* 1 thhk 1 would be a good cornediaa. @ ,.O *People seldohl,'weat m e bad on. ptxxpo~e:~ ; l "1 like to be around other people if I can. Y., l; " 1 don 1 t like to stay in a- relatione@ip very long. 0 - - -

I have a w e a k atomach. ." , O When T lm under a lot of pressure, 1 -sometimes have trodle breathing - .

a 1- have a gaod appet i te . 1. .I have no patient-e ~ 5 t h people who t r y ta hold me back.", 0 = P e o p l e who are suecesefui generally earned their auccess . ", 1' uSometimes 1 wonder if m y thoughts. are being t=akcn-a~ay.~,O - .

like to drive fas t ." , 0 - donlt lika to have. tobuy thinge- that. . - . arc ~. - ove~ri~ed.~.l ' , -

In rny. f amily, w e argue more than w e t a l k , P , O ~~àray-.of my problems are O-. doing: ;-l 1 've had times w h d usy legs. became so w e a k tiiat. 1- couldn t w a l k - - - -

n i - seldom feei anxious- or tense. ", 1 "Peo~lc see me a& a person who pays a i o t of attention to detaal ~ a t e l ~ 1 l ve been happy much of the time - ", i ,

" Reaently 1' have needed les e sleep . th= -usual. r O "Thülgs are rarely as they seem on the surface.",O nSometlmes my vision i s onlylin black and white.",O " 1 have -a sixth sense. that tells me what is going to happen. ", O nI1ve never been in trcuble with the ,la~.~,l "For. my age, .y health i s pretty good. ", 1'

." 1 try to include people who secm &eft out. ", 0 . . "Sometimes 1 have an alcoholic drink . f iret thing in -the tuornino. 'IMy d r i w g has caused m e problems a+ h o m e . ", 0 ."I say whatls on m y mind." ,0 1 ueually do what other people t e l l me . to do-. ? , 1 "1' have a bad temper.n,O

4290 DATA "It .talces a lot to make me a n m . n ,a - 4300 DATA * 1 ve thought- about what 1 -would saf in a suicide note. O

. 4310 DATA. canf t- think of' reaeons to go .on living. ",O - 4320 DATA =I1ve had ,health pro~lems because of m y d=g use. '. 0

4330 DATA "1-spend m o n e y too easily. ", 0 4340 DATA "1 sometirnes make promises 1 canl t keep. y , 1 435 0 DATA "1 usually w o r r y about thinga more than. 1 ehould. ,O+ 4360 DATA ?I I l l -not ride in airplanes. O , 0 4370 DATA. " 1 have sopthing worthwhile to contribute. I r , 1 4380 DATA- " L a t e l y 1 f ce1 so confident that 1 th- 1 can accomplish anything- It. 0 4390 DATA nPeople have had it in for me. ,-O 4400 DATA- "1 make fricnds easily.",l . . 4410 DATA "1 look -er m y s e l f first; let othcrs take tee of thamselGeo. " , O 4420 DATA a get more haadaches .than most people. , O 4430 DATA *I get sweaty hands 0ften.~,0 4440 DATA ';Since 1 had a v e e bad- experience, 1 am no longer interesred in some -thiags that 1 used to enjoy. " ,.O

. . 4450 DATA "1 often. wake up in the middlt of the night'. , O 4460 DATA *At times I a m very touchy and eaaily aan~yed..~,Q -

Page 65: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

' 4470 DATA - -4480 DATA

- 4490 DATA 4500 DATA

' , 4510 DATA 4520 DATA.

. - 4530 DATA

. \

- . n I . r m not the type of person to hold a- grudge. 1 "ThougMs in m y head suddenly disappear. ,.O . . . "I1m not-a person who turn~ down a dare.",O "Most people look f orward to a - tr ip. t o the dentist . ,O ?I spend little -tirne w i t b m y family- ", 0 -

=I can eolve problems by myself. ", O . "At tirnee parts of my body have beui paralyzed. ", O

4540 DATA "1 am easily Btartled.w,O 4550 DATA "1 keepmyself under tight c~ntzrol.~,O 4560 DATA I r I <rn almost always a happy and positive person. ,l 4570 DATA "I hardly everr buy tbings on impul~e.~,l 4580 DATA "People bave- ta earn my'trust. a, 0 - - 4590 DATA "1 donlt have any good memories from rny~childh~od.~,O 4600 DATA O 1 donlt believe that there are p-eople who can read rninds.",l 4610 DATA Ive never taken money or. property that wasn ' t mule. ", 1 4620 DATA. " 1 like I o talk w i t h people- about their medical problems . ", 0 4630 DATA "I1m an affcctionate pereon.n,O 4640 DATA "1 never- drive when I1ve beea drinking. 1 4650 DATA "1 hardly ever d-ink alcohol.",l 4660 DATA .nPeople Jistca t o my opinions. ,*O . . - 4670 DATA "If 1 get poor oervice from a *business, 1 let the manager b o w about i t.",O 4680 D A T ~ .My temper navar gcte me i p t o trouble. ",l 4690 DATA "My e g u never gets out of c o ~ t r o ~ . ~ , l 4700 DATA "1 Ive thought about how others wovld rcaet if 1 killed Gelf.. '; 0 4710 DATA "1 have a lot to live for.=,l 4720 DATA IlMy best fxien* are thoee 1 use drugs with. ", 0 4730 EATA nI'm a reckless pcrson.",O- 4740 DATA "There have beeo times w f i e n . 1 c o d d have been more thoughtful than f w as.',l 4-750 DATA Sometirnes 1 get ao nervous that 1 m af raid' I ' m going to . die. n , 0 4760 DATA III donlt mind travcling in a bus 'or train.",l 4770-DATA "I1m'pretty successful at what 1 do.",l - C .4 78 0 DATA I could' never imagine mystlf beixq f amou's. , 1 479.0 DATA 'liI,.rn-the.ta.rget. of a ~onspiracy.~,O - - - . 4800 DATA "1 keep in.touch with my friends.",l . - 4810 DATA "When I m a k e a promise, 5 really don!t need to keep i . + . " , O 4820 DATA I frequently have diarrhea, II, 0 - . . - .

4830 DATA "1 have very steady: hand~.~,l . *

4840 DATA "1 avoid certain things tbat br'ing back bad memorieq. r,0 4850 DATA "1 have little interest in 0- -

. 4860 DATR "1 have little p s i e n c e with those who -di.agrce with my plan~.~,O 4870 DATA "Being helpful to other .people .pays off in the end. ,1 4880. DATA '1 can concentrate now.as weTL as 1 ever could. "1 - . 4890 DATA- "1 never take r iske if 1 c e avoid i.t. ",l 4 900 -=TA - IP my tree- time .I might read, watch TV, o r just relax. " , l - 4910 DATA "1 have a' lot of money pr'oblem~:~~, 0

- 4920 DATA- " M y . l i f e is very unpredictable. ;O . - 4930- DATA "There have; bwrr many changes in my l i f i recently . !l-. 0 - - 4940 DATA "There ienlt much stability at h~me:~,O 4950 DATA " T h i n g s ars not going well my family.n,O - 4960 DATA "1 Lm happy with my job -situation.-", 1 + _ . -

4970 DATA 1 . worxy about having enough money to get by . ; O . . 4980 DATA "My relationship Yith my sp~wc . or partner is not going w e l l . O 4990 DATA "1 have eevere poychological prublems that begm vew suddePly.",O

.

SOOO DATA a 1 lm- a sympathetic pereon. 0 5010 - DATA- "Close relationkhips are important to me. "-, 0- 5020 DATA " I 1 i n very impatient-withpe&le.9,1 - ' . . 3030 DATA "1 have more friends than most people 1 kn~w,~. O ,

5 O40 DATA aMy drinking. has never gotten me into trouQle : . i * . . . . .

- - -

- .. - . . . -

Page 66: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

,505 O DATA " MydZlplUng has- caused problems with my work. ,-O * - .

. 5060 DATA N I d ~ n l t 1i.h l e t t i i z g people kaow when 1 disagree'with t h e m . n , l . 5070 DATA .@I lm a very independent .parcron. a , O

5080 DATA When 1 get d d , i t t e h a ~ d for me ta calm d 0 v n . ~ , 0 . - 5090 DATA nPeople th- S'm. aggre~sive.~,O 5100 DATA 1 k considering suiciee . ,,O '

5 l l O DATA .Things have never ,been so bad that 1 thought about s&ide.",l . - Sz20- DATA "My --g uoe ha6 never caused problem o i t h my f amily or £rien&. 1.

5130 DATA RI lm carefe - about how 1 -end my money . 1 5140 -DATA ragely get : in a bad mood.. ", O - S I S 0 QS : PRINT "PZNEFS~ FARI L I 0000, . DWLGBT AND DERTCK' -

5260 REM . . 5 2 7 0 . - - P& - =S(SQ) + ANS ( 7 4 ) + ANS ( 1 1 4 ) + ANS (154) + ANS (194)- + ( 234) . + ANS ( 2 7 4 ) + ANS ( 3 1 4 ) - '+ ANâ ( 3 5 4 ) - - 5280 REM . 5 2 9 0 -

532.0 -REM- . .

5330 - - DEPCS - ANSI37); ANS(77.). + ANS.(IL'I) + ' ~ ~ ~ ( 1 5 7 j ' + ~ N ~ ( 1 9 7 ) +-ANS ( 2 3 7 ) +. ANSf277) + ANS (317) - . . .

-- + 22 ( 2 6 7 ) +- 22 ( 3 0 7 ) . - 5380 REM . .

-5390 . . . DE~A+ - ANS (101 + m ( 5 6 ) + ANS(96) + . m . ( 1 ? 6 ) + + ANE>( . 2 1 6 ) + ANS (25.6) + ANS ( 2 9 6 ) - - .

54OQ REM + RT(216.l + 5410 ~ ~ p m =. ~ ~ ( 1 6 ) + ~ ~ ( 5 6 ) * R T ( 9 6 ) + R T . ( 1 3 6 ) - + RT(i76)

, RT(256) +.RT ( 2 9 6 ) 5420 DEPAZI' Z l ( 6 ) + - z I 1 4 6 ) + =i i e s j + z l ( i 2 6 ) + z l ( 1 6 6 ) + - z l t 2 0 6 ) + . .

5440 RXM . . C

5450 - . . - iEPPS - ~ ~ s . 1 4 5 ) + NS ( 8 5 ) + ANS (125) + ANS (165) + A?S ( 2 0 5 ) * ANS (245) '+ ANS (285) + ANS4325).

Page 67: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

5-500 REM 5 510 5510

.PPZ2 - 5530 REM 5540 REM 5550 REM 5560 REM 5570 _REM 5580 REM 5590 5600 - 5610 5620 5630- 5640 - . 5650 5660- 5670 5680 5690 5700 5710 : 5720 5730 5740 5750 5760 5770 - 5780 5790' 5800 . 5810 - . 5820 5830 5840.

5 - i - ***e*~**++*i*+t+t*+*i**+***rtf********t*.*.e********** . -

FILE PRINT-OUT OF TOTAI;is ' - **********************it****.********ff*************** .

P R m #1, PR=: #1, PRiNT #1, P m #1, PRINT #1, PRINT #1; P m #1,- PRrn #1, PRINT #1, P R a T #1, PRINT #1, PRXNT #1, P R V . #1, PRINT #1, PR= #I l PRINT #1, PRZNT #1,.

, PRINT #1, PRINT #1,- PRINT #1, PRINT #Ir PRrm!.#I, PRINT #1, FRINT #I., P R r m #1, P m #1,-

. - " " - WiM Score - ", NIMS "NIM RT - NIMR ."NIM 2-score #1 . . ", NIMZl " N f M z-sCOtC #2 ", m Z 2 "PIM Score - P m -

-, P m "PIMRT- - l C -

"PIM Z-AO~C 11- ., ~ m z i "PIM Z-Score #2 Ir, OIMZ2 "Depression(C) Score - ", DEPCS nDepreeeion(C) RT - -- "., DEPCR nDepression (C) 2-score #l- . Il, DEPCZI nDepreesïon (c)' z-score #2 ", DEPCZ2 nDepression(A) Score - DEPAS nDepression (A) RT . - ", DEPAR "Depression (A) z -score #1 I l , DEPAZl mDepression.(A) z-score #2 DEIAZS nDcprassion (Pl Score - DEPPS .

nDeprcssion(P) RT - ",. DEPPR nDepression (P) -2-score #I. -DEPPZl !Qcpreesion(P) z-score #2 . DEPPZ2 lrDepression (Total.). Score - :DEPTS - - -

nDepres~ian(Total) RT - - ". DEPTR "Dtpreesion (Total) z-score #1 P I - DEPTZI nDcpres6ioa (Total) z-score #2 DEPTZ2. ."End of session - ";TIMES - - - -

CLOSE 5850 5860 REM 5870 CLS : PRINT : PRINT :PRLHT : P F ~hank you for your partic ipationn - 5880- W A d ' I M E R 5890 - Wl=ïNT (WA) :V?2-m+10.

': 5909 W3=INT(TIMER)' - S9lO IF' W3-WZ THEN GOTO 5920 EÏSE aOTO 5900 5920 REM-

- . -

5930 -END

Page 68: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 62

Instructions for Malingering Respondents.

For this computerized personality test you are asked to respond as if you were feeling depressed. To state it more clearly we would like you fake or pretend being depressed. To help you we are providuig you with key descriptors of what some people who experience depression have reported in the past These people may be experiencing some or ail of the following :

- feeling sad or blue - not getting as much pleasure in things as before or being less interested in thuigs than before - weight loss or eating a lot less than mual/ weight gain or eating a lot more than usual - sleeping more than usual or sleeping less than usual or having restless or disturbed sleep - feeling wound up or slowed down - feeling tired or low on energy - feeling worthless, feeling guilty, low self-esteem - problems concentrating, remembering things, or making decisions - thoughts about death and dying - feeling hopeless about the future

The person who is best at faking sadness will win $25, this instrument was designed to detect people who are not answering sincerely. Therefore, the beçt performance will be judged as one that avoids detection as a person who is answering insincerely the person who has the highest level of depression. To help you here again are some descriptors of people who reported being depressed:

- feeling sad or blue - not getting as much pleanne in things as before or being less interested in things than befxe - weight loss or eating a lot less than usual / weight gain or eating a lot more than wual - sleeping more than usual or sleeping less than usual or having restless or disturbed sleep - feeling wound up or slowed down - feeling tired or low on energy - feeling worthless, feeling guilty, low self-esteem - problems concentrating, rernembering h g s , or makuig decisions : thoughts about death and dying - feeling hopeless about the fuhue

Thank you.

Page 69: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 63

Emotion and Information Processing Debrieflng Fom: Session 2

The purpose of the present study was to determine whether students who experience different emotions (e.g., feeling sad or not feeling sad) demonstrate biases for idonnation processuig that are congruent with their emotions.

The cornputer questionnaire you completed is a rnodified version of an existing questionnaire. It has been modined to record response î h e s for each question. A number of studies have suggested that participants expenencing an emotion will endorse items with different response times than those individuals who are not experiencing the emotion.

In this study it is hypothesized that students who expenence elevated levels of sadness will take longer to respond to some items in the computerized questionnaire. Please do not inform fnends or associates of the exact nature of this study because it may negatively bias results.

Thank you for your participation in this study. If you have any questiom about the study, please contact Derick Cyr (623-4506), M.A. Clinical Psychology candidate, or Dr. Dwight Maananian (343 -8257), Department of Psychology, Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, ON, P7B SEI. If you would like a bnef summary of the results you may obtain them by printing your full name and permanent mailing address on the self-adhesive address label. Results will not IikeIy be available before August, 2000.

Ifparticipating in this study or completkg the questionnaires has distressed you or has raised personal issues that you would like to discuss, or if you just need someone to t a k to, the following organizations are availabie: L.U. Health Center (343-8361), Peer Support Line (343-8255), Chaplain (343-801 8), and Career Counseling Senices (343-801 8).

Fekken, G. C. & Holden, R. R (1992). Response latency evidence for viewing personality traits as schema indicators. Journal of Research in Personality, 26,103-120.

Fekken, G. C. & Holden, R. R (1994). The constnict validity of dif5erential response latencies in structured personality tests. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Sciences. 26,104- 120.

Page 70: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 64

Table 1

Means and Standard Deviations for the PM Scales of Interest

Group NIM score PIM score DEP score DEP-A DEP-C DEP-P (SD) (SD) (SD) score (SD) score (SD) score (SD)

Depressed 2.25* 9-75* 34.07 12.83 13.00 1 1.08 (1 2) (1 -86) (3 -55) (6.23) (2.69) (4.18) (3.90)

Note. A = affective, C = cognitive, P = physiological. AU groups were significantly different fiom each other across each scale @ < -01) except for those scores indicated wiîb an asterisk.

Page 71: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 65

Raw Remonding Time Means and Standard Deviations of Items Within a Scale for RT1 and RT2 - Group NIM MM P M P M DEP DEP (N) RTl RT2 RT1 RT2 RT1 RT2

Control 3.88ab 3.88 4.13 4.82 3.51 4.06 (15) (0-96) (1 .O 1) (0.78) (O -92) (O. 95) (0.98)

Malingering 4.24a 4.59 3 -83 4.54 3.75 4.47 (1 9) (0-56) (0.74) (1 -27) (1 -44) (1.11) (1.34)

Depressed 4.24b 4.99 4 -42 4.99 4.3 9 4.97 (1 2) (1 .23) (1.86) (1 -14) (1.25) (1 .04) (1 -2 1) Note. Values represent seconds of fime per item in the category. Signincant differences are represented by letters a and b @ < .OS).

Page 72: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 66

Table 3

Means and Standard Deviations for the PA1 2-scores of Interest G~OUP NIM PIM DEP DEP-A DEP-C DEP-P (N> - z-score - z-score - z-score - z-score - z-score z-score -

(SD) (SD) (Sm (SD) (SD) (SD)

Control -2.1 7a 1 -20" -4.50 -1.58 -2.59 -0.32 (1 5 ) (1.70) (3.30) (3.87) (2.16) (2.1 1) (2.60)

Malingering 1 .1 5a -1 .6Sa -4.82 -1 .O3 -2.8 1 b -0.98 (19) (2.95) (1.94) (4.08) (2- 17) (1.73) (3 -29)

Depressed -0.92 -0.42 -1 -70 0.42 -0.58~ -1.53 (12) (2.25) (2.53) (4.72) (2.14) (2.98) (1.83)

Note. A = affective, C = cognitive, P = physiological. Significant Werences between groups are indicated with ietters (for a, p < -0 1; for b, p < -05).

Page 73: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 67

Table 4

Tukw Post-hoc Dserences Between G~OUDS for the PA1 Scale Scores Scale G~OUP 0 @OUF (J) Mean Sig.

DBerence

Conîrol Malingering - 1 O. 85 ,000 Malingering Depressed 9.80 .O00

control M d i n g e ~ g 6.70 -000 Control Depressed 5.32 .O14

DEP Totsil Control Maluigering -43.53 .O00 Control Depressed -28.18 .O00 MaIingering Depressed 15.35 .O02

DEP - Affective Conîrol Malingering - 1 6.34 .O00 Control Depressed -10.97 .O00 Malingering Depressed 5.38 .O0 1

DEP - Cognitive Contrd Malingering - 1 5 -3 3 ,000 Control Depressed -10.33 .O00 Malingering Depressed 5-00 .O08

DEP - Physiological Control Malingering - 1 1.8 5 .O00 Control Depressed -6.88 ,002 Malingering Depressed 4.97 .O2 1

Page 74: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 68

Table 5

Tukev Post-hoc Differences Beiween Groum for the 2-scores

( 1 4 ) NIM Control Malingering -3.33 .O01

PIM Control Malingering 2.85 .O08

DEP - Cognitive Malingering Depressed -2.22 .O26

Page 75: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 69

Table 6

Classification Results Using Scale Scores

Group Predicted Group Membership Total Control Malingering Depressed

Original Comt Control 15 O O 15 Malingering 1 14 4 19 Depressed O 1 1 I 12

YO Control 100.0 .O .O 100.0 Malingering 5.3 73.7 21.1 100.0 Depressed .O 8.3 91.7 l00.0

Note. 87.0% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 76: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 70

Table 7

Classification Results TJsing: Raw Resvonse Latencies

Group Predicted Group Membership Total Control Malingering Depressed

Original Count Control 11 3 1 15 Malingering 2 15 2 19 Depressed 4 2 6 12

YO Control 73 -3 20.0 6-7 100.0 Malingering 1 0.5 78.9 10.5 100.0 Depressed 33 -3 16.7 50.0 100.0

Note. 69.6% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 77: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 7 1

Table 8

Classification Resiilts Using Z-scores

Group Predicted Group Mernbership Total Control Malingering Depressed

Original Count Control 11 1 3 15 Malingering Depressed

% Control 73.3 6.7 20 .O 100.0 Malingering 15.8 84.2 .O 100.0 Depressed 25 .O 16.7 58.3 100.0

Note. 73.9% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 78: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 72

Table 9

Classification Results Usinn Scores and Transformed Response Latencies

Group Predicted Group Membership Total Control Malingering Depressed

OSgkd Comt Control 15 O O 15 Malingering 1 15 3 19 Depressed O 1 1 I 12

YO Control 100.0 .O .O 100.0 Malingering 5 -3 78 -9 15.8 100.0 Depressed .O 8.3 91.7 100.0

Note. 89.1% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 79: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecthg Depression 73

Table 10

Classification Results Using NIM Scale Scores

Group Predicted Group Mzmbership Total Control ~ a l & e r i ~ Depressed

Original Count Control 13 2 O 15 Malingering 6 13 O 19 Depressed 11 1 O 12

YO Conîrol 86.7 13.3 .O 100.0 Malingering 31.6 68.4 .O 100.0 -

Depressed 9 1.7 8.3 .O 100.0 Note. 56.5% of original cases correctly classined.

Page 80: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 74

Table 11

Classification Results Ushg h W Z-scores

Group Predicted Group Membership Total -

Control ~ a l & ~ e r i n ~ ~eiressed Original Count Control 13 2 O 15

Malingering Depressed

Control Malingering Depressed 50.0 50.0 .O 100.0

Note. 63 .O% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 81: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 75

Table 22

Classification Results Usine NIM Scde Score and MM Raw Response Times

Group Predicted Group Membership Total Control Malingering Depressed

Original Count Controf 11 I 3 15 Malingering Depressed

Control Malingering De~ressed

Note. 65.2% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 82: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 76

Table 13

Classification Results Usine NIM Scale Score and NIM Z-scores

Group Predicted Group Membership Total Control Malingering ~ e s e s s e d

OrigLial Count Control 13 1 1 15 Malingering Depressed

% Control 86.7 6.7 6.7 100.0 Malingering 15.8 73.7 1 0.5 100.0 Depressed 66.7 8.3 25.0 100.0

Note. 65.2% of original cases correctly classified.

Page 83: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 77

Table 14

Siaiincant T-test merences For 2-Scores Between the Depressed and Malingering Groups

Item Category 1-test df Sig. Mean Difference

46 DEP - A -2.59 14.35 - .O2 1 -.93 286 DEP - A -3 -00 12.73 .O10 -.96 187 DEP - C -2.24 29 .O3 3 -.3 5 275 DEP - P -3.63 29 .O0 1 9-63 315 DEP - P 2.47 27.00 .O20 -80 9 - NIM 2.73 29 .O1 1 .96 49 NIM 3.22 26.8 1 .O03 -77 144 PIM -2.57 13.71 .O22 -.63 264 PIM -2.2 1 29 .O3 5 -,3 5

Note. Mean ciifferences are calculated by subtracting the mean -score for depressed individuals fiom the mean -score for malingering individuals. T-tests were calculated following Levene's Test for Quality of Variances.

Page 84: Running DEPRESSION, RESPONSE · PDF fileDetecting Depression Running Head: DEPRESSION, RESPONSE TIMES, THE PA1 Detecting Depression and Malingering Using Response Times on the Personality

Detecting Depression 78

Table 15

Classincation Rates Usine the 2-scores From 10 Empincallv Derived Items

Group fredicted Group Membership To ta1 Malingering Depressed

Onginai Count Malingering 19 O 19 Depressed 1 1 I 12 Ungrouped 9 6 15 Cases

YO Control 100.0 .O 1 00.0 Malingering 8.3 91 -7 100.0 Ungrouped 60.0 40.0 100.0 Cases

Note. 96.8% of original cases correctly classified.