PAI
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI)
The PAI is a clinical inventory of personality and psychopathology for adults. This self-report tool provides a structured exploration of emotional, cognitive, and behavioral symptoms, interpersonal functioning, certain clinical risk factors, and variables relevant to treatment. It is widely used in clinical psychology, forensic evaluation, and research for screening, diagnostic support, formulating clinical hypotheses, and guiding treatment. Its validity scales also make it possible to evaluate response consistency and to identify an overly favorable, overly unfavorable, or unreliable profile presentation.
- Number of questions
- 344 questions
- Estimated duration
- 50 minutes
- Language
- English
- Original name
- Personality Assessment Inventory
- Target audience
- Adults
- Authors
- Leslie C. Morey (1991)
- Category
- General
Scoring & interpretation
Each item is rated on 4 response levels, usually scored from 0 to 3. Raw scores are summed by scale and then converted into T-scores based on adult norms. Interpretation begins with the validity scales in order to assess consistency, infrequent responding, and any tendency to minimize or exaggerate difficulties. If the protocol is interpretable, the analysis then covers the 11 clinical scales, the 5 treatment consideration scales, the 2 interpersonal scales, the subscales, and the critical items. High T-scores indicate a greater likelihood of clinically significant difficulties, with particular attention paid to marked elevations, often around 70 and above depending on the scale and context.
Usage
This tool isn't available on Mentaal. To use this questionnaire in your practice, you need a valid license. We invite you to send it directly from the publisher's website.
Available alternatives
What psychologists think
No ratings yet. Be the first to rate this questionnaire.
Clarity and comprehension
—Are the test's instructions and questions easy for patients to understand?
Clinical relevance
—Does the test measure what it's meant to measure, and is it useful in a clinical setting?
Perceived reliability of the results
—Do the results seem reliable and consistent in their interpretation?