Recently, PAR added several new features to the PAI Plus reports on PARiConnect. As a result, we have received a few questions about how to use the Negative Impression Management (NIM) and Positive Impression Management (PIM) predicted profile overlays as well as the NIM- and PIM-specific profiles. We went directly to author Leslie C. Morey, PhD, to get his answers on how you can use these features to enhance your understanding.
LM: NIM and PIM predicted profile overlays are regression-based predictions of the profile based on information from the validity scales. These profiles represent one strategy for understanding the influence of the response styles represented by the validity scales, NIM and PIM. In this approach, PAI scale scores are predicted solely by either NIM or PIM, using a regression model based on the correlations observed in the standardization samples. Thus, these profiles are not based on data from the profile of the individual being assessed, with the exception of their NIM or PIM scores. The resulting profile constitutes what would be expected given the observed score on NIM or PIM. The contrast between observed (i.e., the respondent’s actual PAI profile) and predicted profiles indicates the extent to which scale scores are expected to have been influenced by response set distortion. If the observed and expected scores are comparable (e.g., within one standard error of measurement), then the scores can be largely attributed to the effects of whatever led to the observed response set, such as potential exaggeration or cognitive distortions.
LM: The NIM- and PIM-specific profiles represent another strategy for understanding the influence of any observed response styles on the PAI profile. However, instead of predicting every score on the rest of the profiles, it compares the observed profile to a group of profiles from the standardization samples that displayed a similarly elevated score on PIM or NIM. This strategy then calculates standard scores for the individual’s observed scores based on the means and standard deviations of similarly distorted profiles. Thus, elevations indicate psychopathology above and beyond response sets. Unlike the predicted scores, which tend to yield greater variability in predictions for negative impression management than for positive impression management, the specific score strategy is equally useful in understanding the influences of both types of response sets.
Two groups are used for comparison purposes on the NIM- and PIM-specific scores, as defined by two ranges on these scales. The first group, the lower range, is based on cutoff scores determined to have maximal efficiency in distinguishing impression management from genuine groups. For NIM, this range is 84T to 91T; for PIM, it is 57T to 67T. The second group, the higher range, is equivalent to scores that equal or exceed two standard deviations above the mean in a clinical population: 92T for NIM and 68T for PIM. No specific scores are generated if NIM is less than 84T and PIM is less than 57T.
Read more about how the NIM scale can be used to assess malingering.
It’s time for the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Annual Convention. This year’s event will take place February 18 to 21 in Baltimore and PAR will be there. If you’re going to NASP, please stop by the PAR booth (#413) to visit us. You can see samples of our products, pick up some giveaways, and enter a raffle to win a BRIEF2 or FAR kit!
While you’re at NASP, make sure to attend some of the many presentations being hosted by PAR authors. For a complete listing of sessions, dates, and times, see our author presentation schedule.
Yet another reason to visit the PAR booth—we will be offering special discounts on all purchases made at our booth during NASP. You’ll save 15% on your order plus we’ll include free ground shipping!
This week’s blog was written by Carrie Champ Morera, PsyD. Dr. Champ Morera is a project director at PAR. She is also a nationally certified school psychologist and licensed psychologist with more than 20 years of experience in the field. She enjoys traveling and exploring beaches.
Traumatic experiences are widespread. More than 38% of children have experienced a traumatic event. Though many children are able to demonstrate resiliency and continue to thrive in school after experiencing an adverse event, others are not as fortunate without intervention. The impact of trauma too often interferes with children’s behavior and learning in school. On average, children spend about 1,000 out of 6,000 waking hours in school each year; therefore, it is critical for school professionals to become knowledgeable about trauma and learn how to help children improve their emotional, behavioral, and academic functioning so that they can be successful.
PAR author Steven G. Feifer, DEd, has written a new book, The Neuropsychology of Stress & Trauma: How to Develop a Trauma Informed School, meant to educate and help professionals, parents, and other caregivers. The book includes a foreword by Robert B. Brooks, PhD, faculty at Harvard Medical School, provides information on the physiological, psychological, environmental, and educational impacts of childhood trauma. The book also provides an abundance of additional resources for trauma information including evidence-based interventions for addressing trauma in the schools and at home. Key learning points, figures, and tables are provided in each chapter, making the information easy to digest and providing the reader with major takeaways.
Furthermore, the book examines how trauma and stress impact the brain. Dr. Feifer explores how the impact of trauma can disrupt behavior and learning, particularly in the school setting, an area that only has been explored recently. Strategies and interventions on how to develop a trauma-informed classroom are provided. Finally, Dr. Feifer provides guidance in the area of assessment by providing a framework for trauma-informed assessment, with a review of important areas to assess and suggested tools.
Dr. Feifer will present on trauma at the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) annual convention in February. In his workshop, The Neuropsychology of Trauma: Trauma-Sensitive Assessment, Dr. Feifer will discuss steps in developing trauma-informed schools, cover trauma assessment techniques, and explore classroom and school-wide interventions to foster emotional growth. If you attend the convention, feel free to stop by the PAR booth to learn more about how PAR can meet your assessment needs.
Dr. Feifer is also the author of the Feifer Assessment of Math (FAM), the Feifer Assessment of Reading (FAR), and the Feifer Assessment of Writing (FAW).
The next generation of John Holland’s Self-Directed Search is here! Based on data collected for the SDS Form R, 5th Edition (2013), the gold standard in career personality assessment has been rebranded, repackaged, and refreshed!
A bold new look and a cleaner, more user-friendly interface means clients can easily learn more about their personality and find a career that fits.
Self-administered, self-scored, and self-interpreted, the SDS is based on the theory that both people and working environments can be classified according to six basic types: Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional. Known as RIASEC theory, it is based on the idea that if your personality type matches your work environment type, you are more likely to find job fulfillment and career satisfaction.
So if you are looking for a job, want a career change, or are searching for a program of study, knowing more about what types of potential careers fit your personality will greatly improve your search.