{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.028901734104046242, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003468208092485549, 'mean_word_length': 5.818897637795276, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Comparisons among the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR)

Issues of reliability, item latent structure, and faking on the Holden Psychological Screening Inventory (HPSI), the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI), and the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding (BIDR) were examined with a sample of 300 university undergraduates. Reliability analyses indicated that scales from all inventories had acceptable internal consistency. Confirmatory item principal component analyses supported the structures and scoring keys of the HPSI and the BIDR, but not the BSI. Although all inventories were susceptible to faking, validity indices of the HPSI and the BIDR could correctly classify over two-thirds of test respondents as either responding honestly or as faking.