I started working with Sarah as an undergrad in Bob Morgan’s lab at Tech, collecting assessment data from local CJ sites that included the MMPI-2-RF, PICTS, and a few other measures. The PICTS is a measure of criminogenic risk, so it offered a really cool opportunity to look at the MMPI and its relationship to criminogenic risk scores on another validated measure. We started with the validity scales. So, in this study, we examined the PICTS validity scales relative to the MMPI-2-RF as a criterion. There hasn’t been much done with the PICTS in terms of evaluating the effectiveness of its validity scales, aside from the technical manual and a handful of other papers (some of which are conceptual pieces).
The results are pretty clear. We generally see acceptable classification rates and standard effect sizes expected for over-reporting scales (~.70 to 1.30). At the T80 cut-score, the best set of classification estimates (.92spec, .31sens, and the best PPV and NPV across different feigning base rates), which supports use of that score – consistent with the PICTS manual. A simple, straight forward study. Great work, Sarah.
Dr. Paul Ingram, Ph.D 