The new paper is titled Internal Consistency and Convergent Validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory English and European-Spanish Versions with English/Spanish Bilinguals. ​

Abstract: Practitioners have few personality inventory options when assessing Spanish-speakers, despite professional guidelines that encourage them to administer measures that are validated with their populations of interest. To build on research in this area, we examined the internal consistency and convergent validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and the Personality Assessment Inventory European-Spanish (PAIE-S) version among bilingual Latin American Spanish-speakers (final n = 53). For the PAI, 72.72% of scales and 35.48% of subscales had alpha above .70. For the PAIE-S, 50.00% of scales and 25.81% of subscales met this alpha. Participants tended to score lowest on the PAI Alcohol Problems scale (T = 47.19) and the PAIE-S Warmth scale (T = 45.49). On average, participants scored highest on the PAI’s Paranoia-Hypervigilance scale (T = 61.15) and the PAIE-S’s Paranoia scale (T = 57.64). We identified 10 scales and subscales on which participants were significantly more likely (p < .001) to score higher on one measure than the other. Participants more often scored higher on the PAI than the PAIE-S. All parallel scales and subscales converged at p < .001 with the exception of the Antisocial Features-Egocentricity scales. Taken together, findings suggest taking caution when administering these measures to Latin American bilingual Spanish-speakers.

Abstract: According to the United States Supreme Court ruling in Dusky v. United States
(1960), to be competent to proceed, criminal defendants must factually and rationally
understand the charges against them and be able to assist and consult in their own
defense. Our focus is on possible impaired ability to assist and consult. Although a
substantial portion of psycholegal research has been dedicated to validly and reliably
assessing a criminal defendant’s competency, one area that has been largely unexplored
is observation of attorney-defendant interactions. External validity of this observation is
arguably more valuable than clinical interviewing and standardized testing, alone or in
conjunction. We propose that direct observation is a meaningful approach to assessing
ability to assist and consult counsel. In addition, we offer suggestions for clinical
practice, discuss potential limitations, and present recommendations for future research.