Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) in individuals with traumatic brain injury
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the extent to which the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is confounded by symptoms that are transdiagnostic between psychopathology and neurological sequelae. METHODS: Sixty-one adults with moderate-to-severe traumatic brain injury (TBI) completed the PAI over the first year post-injury. Items that discriminated brain-injured individuals from a normative sample were identified using effect size analyses and were then subjected to principal components analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation. To explore whether the items identified in the PCA may be considered transdiagnostic in nature, an expert rating task and correlations with objective outcome measures were employed. RESULTS: Effect sizes analyses identified 21 items that discriminated adults with TBI from the normative sample. Eight items associated with component 1 of the PCA were considered to be transdiagnostic. These items reflected health concerns and thinking problems from the Somatic Complaints, Depression and Schizophrenia scales. Items belonging to the other components reflected behaviours that are commonly associated with TBI, but not considered transdiagnostic. CONCLUSION: Using a comprehensive and multi-modal approach, results demonstrated good convergent validity for a small sub-set of items as being transdiagnostic. Overall, the findings support the PAI as a useful measure of psychiatric and emotional disturbances among persons with TBI.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".