{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02621359223300971, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010679611650485437, 'mean_word_length': 5.210843373493976, '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}}
Validity Rates of the MMPI-2 and PAI in a Rural Inpatient Psychiatric Facility

This study examines the validity rates of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) profiles in a rural inpatient population. The validity scales of 90 MMPI-2 and 90 PAI profiles were analyzed using published criteria for determining validity. Random responding, positive impression management, and negative impression management were also evaluated. The PAI had a higher number of valid profiles compared with the MMPI-2. Evidence suggests the primary source of the invalid profiles within the MMPI-2 is a higher level of endorsement of relatively rare statements. The substitution of the Infrequency-Psychopathology scale (Fp) for the Infrequency scale (F) on the MMPI-2 substantially reduced the number of invalid profiles. Contrary to expectations, the PAI did not demonstrate lower levels of invalid profiles due to random responding. Rates of invalid profiles for each scale are provided.