Search

The scoring pattern of the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised (MAACL-R) under both "simulate good" and "simulate bad" conditions and under two instructional sets, either "simulate" (Sample 1) or "simulate with caution" (Sample 2), was studied in an experiment in which the MAACL-R state form was administered to two groups of college students, each consisting of 160 participants. Each participant was tested twice with both a baseline "actual" trial and either a "simulate bad" or "simulate good" trial with the "actual" and experimental "simulate" trials counterbalanced. Participants in Sample 2, but not Sample 1, received instructions to be "cautious so as not to be detected." As expected, the scoring pattern of the MAACL-R was susceptible to response manipulation in the predicted directions. However, instructions to "simulate with caution" did not produce significantly different scores than did instructions to "simulate" alone. In the second study, Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) was used to determine the utility of each MAACL-R scale to detect response simulation. For both "simulate bad" and "simulate good," the PA and PASS scales showed the highest correct classification rates. However, detection of simulating bad was more accurate than determination of simulating good.

Data from samples of College Students (n = 433), Adolescents (n = 746), and a community mental health center sample (Outpatients) (n = 202) were rescored using a scoring key that consisted of adjectives from the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised at or below the Grade 4 reading level (MAACL-R4). Factor analyses showed that, unlike the MAACL-R, a three-factor structure (Positive Affect 4, Anxious Depression 4, and Hostility 4) best described the 38 Grade 4 adjectives on the MAACL-R4. Estimates of reliability (internal consistency and test-retest) for each scale were acceptable. Correlations between scores on MAACL-R4 and four Self-rating Mood Scales showed expected convergent and discriminant validities. Also, patterns of means among the three groups could differentiate the nonreferred from referred samples.