Sign Up
Login
Try for Free
Login
The PAI (Personality Assessment Inventory, 1991) is a 344-item self-report inventory of adult personality and psychopathology for ages 18 to 89, authored by Leslie C. Morey and published by PAR. Psychologists use it in clinical, forensic, correctional, and post-offer public safety evaluations, valued for its treatment planning scales and fourth-grade reading level. This page covers how to write up PAI results, with a fictional sample and a results-section template.
Clinical, forensic, and police and public safety psychologists; publisher qualification level C
Courts and attorneys, referring physicians and psychiatrists, employers after conditional offers, disability and injury reviewers, treating clinicians
400 to 800 words for the results section · administration 25 to 55 minutes
Broadband self-report personality inventory
Psychological and forensic evaluations, treatment planning, post-offer public safety screening, personal-injury and disability evaluations, correctional assessment
Published by PAR (1991; Professional Manual 2nd ed. 2007); described here for write-up purposes; no test content reproduced
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) is a 344-item self-report inventory of adult personality and psychopathology for ages 18 to 89, authored by Leslie C. Morey and published by PAR in 1991, with a second edition of the Professional Manual in 2007. Its 22 scales are nonoverlapping, no item scores on two scales, and they sit in four clusters: 4 validity scales, 11 clinical scales spanning the neurotic spectrum, the psychotic spectrum, and behavior and impulse-control problems, 5 treatment consideration scales, and 2 interpersonal scales measuring warmth and dominance; 10 scales carry conceptually derived subscales, and a separate Critical Items form flags 27 items across nine content areas that may need immediate attention. Scores are linear T scores (mean 50, SD 10) referenced to a census-matched community sample of 1,000 adults, with companion clinical (1,265 patients across 69 sites) and college (1,051 students) samples that let one profile be read against both community and clinical reference points. Items sit at a fourth-grade reading level on a four-point response format, administration runs 25 to 55 minutes on PARiConnect, on paper, or through the PAI-SP desktop software, with an audio administration option, and hand scoring takes 15 to 20 minutes with no scoring keys. An adolescent version, the PAI-A, covers ages 12 to 18 with the same 22-scale structure across 264 items, and two separate Spanish products exist: a revised translation scored on the English-language norms and a European Spanish edition normed primarily in Spain.
The load-bearing fact for write-ups, as of July 2026, is that the PAI's items and norms date to its original standardization while its interpretive layer has kept moving. The 2007 second edition revised the Professional Manual, not the test: the item booklet still carries its original 1989, 1990, and 1991 copyrights, and PAI Plus, the current interpretive expansion, overlays new distortion and random-responding indices, an optional DSM-5 Alternative Model for Personality Disorders profile, and context-specific comparison groups (child custody, chronic pain, bariatric surgery, college students, deployed military) on the same 344 items. PAR's own public-safety report documentation describes the community sample as 1,000 adults matched to the 1995 census, and a peer-reviewed study published in November 2025 reported that roughly 95% of a 204-student Canadian sample elevated at least one of the 22 scales, concluding that "the PAI US norms are no longer appropriate for high-stakes assessments" (Uttl, Sikma & Tat, PeerJ). No re-norming has been announced as of July 2026. None of that removes the PAI from practice: it means the write-up must name the norms and form it used and corroborate what they suggest. A PAI profile is evidence, not a verdict: it answers no referral question by itself, and its results section feeds the psychological evaluation report or forensic report that does, often alongside the MMPI-3 it competes with.
Clinical psychologists administer the PAI inside psychological evaluations to clarify diagnosis and plan treatment, where its five treatment consideration scales, two harm indicators, two measures of the client's environment, and one measure of treatment motivation, give it a planning vocabulary the MMPI family does not carry. It typically enters the chart alongside a psychiatric diagnostic evaluation, and neuropsychologists include it in neuropsychological batteries to characterize the emotional context around cognitive findings; Medicare's billing articles draw that boundary themselves, describing neuropsychological testing as the assessment that does not rely on self-report inventories. Forensic evaluators use it across criminal, civil, and family matters: in the largest international snapshot of forensic practice, the PAI appeared in 9.6% of the evaluations examiners described, second only to the MMPI among personality instruments, and a 2022 case-law review found its admissibility rarely challenged. Police and public safety psychologists administer it after a conditional offer through the PAI Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Public Safety Selection Report, built on an applicant normative sample of 17,757 public safety candidates and covered in the California POST screening manual. Personal-injury and disability evaluators lean on its negative-distortion indicators, and correctional systems have a dedicated interpretive report. The PAI competes for the broadband slot with the MMPI-3, which brings 2020 norms and the larger validity-scale literature, and with the MCMI-IV when the referral question is DSM personality-disorder characterization. Choose the PAI when treatment planning, a fourth-grade reading level, or nonoverlapping content-driven scales matter most; whichever inventory you choose, pair it with interview, records, and targeted measures rather than asking one instrument to carry the evaluation.
No statute, payer, or publisher mandates a results-section format. The sequence below is the convention the PAI interpretive literature teaches: protocol validity before any substantive statement, clinical findings organized by domain, the treatment consideration scales given their own section because they are the reason many evaluators chose this instrument, and the computer narrative treated as an input to paraphrase, never a report to paste. Each section carries the pitfall that most often undermines it.
Measures, form, norms, and administration. Name the instrument (PAI), the form (full 344-item form, or the 160-item short form with the reason for using it), the language product (English; the Spanish revised translation scored on English-language norms; or the separately normed European Spanish edition), the platform (PARiConnect, paper, or PAI-SP), the modality, and any overlay applied (a PAI Plus context-specific comparison group, or public-safety applicant norms). Pitfall: an unnamed form or Spanish product. The two Spanish PAIs have different normative bases and the short form is literally the first half of the test; a score list that does not say which was given is ambiguous at re-evaluation and easy to attack on review.
Protocol validity, before anything else. Address response consistency first (the inconsistency and infrequency scales, ICN and INF), then negative distortion (NIM and the supplemental over-reporting indicators), then positive distortion (PIM and the defensiveness indicators, including the discriminant function from Cashel and colleagues), and end with a plain conclusion about whether the substantive profile is interpretable, fully or with stated limits. Pitfall: listing validity T scores without a conclusion, or leaning on the Rogers Discriminant Function in a real-world forensic matter: the current meta-analysis states that RDF "does not effectively measure over-reporting in criterion groups" (Herring et al., 2025), and elevated baseline ICN or INF also predicts unstable retest results.
Clinical scale findings by domain, not by scale number. Work through the three classes the instrument's own structure defines, the neurotic spectrum, the psychotic spectrum, and behavior and impulse-control problems, weaving subscales into the domain they inform rather than reciting all 22 scales in test order. State once, in prose, which reference point each statement uses: the community sample, the clinical sample the profile form also displays, or both. Pitfall: the 22-scale inventory dump, and unlabeled reference frames. A statement that is true against community norms may be unremarkable against the clinical sample; a write-up that never says which comparison it is making invites cross-examination.
Treatment consideration scales, as their own section. This is the PAI's distinctive contribution: two harm indicators (suicidal ideation and aggression), two environment measures (stress and nonsupport), and one treatment-motivation measure (treatment rejection). Route the harm indicators to the evaluation's interview-based risk assessment, tie the environment findings to concrete stressors and supports, and weigh treatment rejection against the overall distress level when you write the engagement plan. Pitfall: omitting these scales from a treatment-planning report, or reporting the suicide and violence indicators as predictions. They are hypothesis flags that require interview corroboration, not actuarial verdicts.
Interpersonal functioning. Describe the warmth and dominance dimensions as style context, affiliative versus cold and controlling versus submissive, and connect them to alliance and treatment-format implications where relevant. Pitfall: pathologizing normal-range interpersonal scores; these two scales describe style, not disorder.
Comparison-group context, where one applies. In post-offer public safety screening, say which applicant or incumbent comparison the report used and keep the frames separate: public safety applicants respond so uniformly that unremarkable community-referenced profiles are the norm, which is exactly why the selection report exists. In clinical contexts using PAI Plus overlays, name the context group. Pitfall: reading a guarded screening profile as affirmative evidence of health, or quoting applicant-norm findings without saying they are applicant-referenced.
Interpretive summary against the referral question. State what the PAI findings suggest as hypotheses, corroborate or bound them with interview, history, records, and other measures, and answer the referral question in the evaluation's integration section rather than from the inventory alone. Pitfall: a verdict from a T score. No PAI score is a diagnosis, a risk prediction, or a legal threshold, and in high-stakes matters the write-up should also state the norms' vintage and how the findings were corroborated.
Recommendations linkage. Tie each recommendation to a stated finding: engagement strategy to the treatment-motivation finding, environmental interventions to the stress and support findings, further assessment to what the profile raised but cannot settle, safety planning to the interview-based risk assessment. Pitfall: recommendations that could follow any profile. If the list would read the same with different scores, the linkage is missing.
MEASURES AND ADMINISTRATION Instrument/form: PAI [full 344-item / 160-item short form + reason] Language/norms: [English / Spanish revised translation, English norms / European Spanish edition, its own norms] Platform: [PARiConnect / paper / PAI-SP] Modality: [in office / remote, documented] Overlay: [none / PAI Plus context group / public-safety applicant norms] PROTOCOL VALIDITY (before any substantive statement) Consistency: [ICN / INF findings in prose] Negative distortion: [NIM + supplemental indicators in prose] Positive distortion: [PIM + defensiveness indicators in prose] Conclusion: [interpretable / interpretable with stated limits / not interpretable, and what that means here] CLINICAL SCALE FINDINGS (reference population named: community, clinical, or both; convention stated once) Neurotic spectrum: [elevations and meaning, or "unremarkable"] Psychotic spectrum: [same] Behavior / impulse control: [same; subscales woven into prose] TREATMENT CONSIDERATION SCALES Harm indicators: [suicidal ideation / aggression findings, routed to the interview-based risk assessment] Environment: [stress / nonsupport findings, tied to specifics] Treatment motivation: [treatment rejection, weighed against distress level, tied to the engagement plan] INTERPERSONAL FUNCTIONING [Warmth and dominance pattern in one or two sentences] COMPARISON-GROUP CONTEXT (if applied) [Applicant, incumbent, or PAI Plus group; frames kept separate] INTERPRETIVE SUMMARY (answer the referral question) [Hypotheses supported; what the inventory cannot establish; convergence with interview, history, records; norms vintage stated in high-stakes matters] RECOMMENDATIONS LINKAGE [Each recommendation tied to a stated finding] Evaluator signature / credentials: Date:
Free to use and share, no signup. The PDF includes a one-page cheat sheet with section-by-section pitfalls and a pre-sign checklist; the DOCX is the blank results-section skeleton, ready to adapt.
Scenario: a 41-year-old maintenance planner, referred through his employee assistance program for diagnostic clarification and treatment planning after several months of low mood, worry, and declining work performance; he agreed to the evaluation at his wife's urging. The protocol is valid with focal depressive and anxious elevations and a treatment-motivation finding that shapes the engagement plan, the treatment-planning shape where the PAI's consideration scales earn their keep. This is the PAI results section only, condensed but structurally complete. All details are fictional.
Client: D.M., 41 · Referral: diagnostic clarification and treatment planning, employee assistance program referral · Evaluator: R. Calloway, PhD, Licensed Psychologist · Testing date: 07/08/2026 · Report date: 07/16/2026
Measures and administration: The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI, full 344-item form, English) was administered in the office on PARiConnect as part of an evaluation that also included a diagnostic interview, collateral input from his wife with consent, brief symptom ratings, and record review, reported in their own sections. Scores below are linear T scores (mean 50, SD 10) referenced to the PAI community normative sample; where a statement draws on the clinical-sample comparison the profile form also displays, it says so. Elevations are characterized per the conventions of the PAI interpretive literature, and the interpretive report was reviewed, paraphrased, and reconciled with interview and history rather than quoted.
Protocol validity: D.M. completed every item. Response consistency was acceptable (ICN and INF within normal limits), and neither negative nor positive distortion was indicated: NIM was not elevated, PIM was low, consistent with a person describing problems candidly rather than minimizing them, and the supplemental distortion indicators raised no concern. The substantive profile is interpretable without qualification, and its focal pattern is itself consistent with an open self-description rather than a cry for help.
| Scale (cluster) | Fictional T score |
|---|---|
| Inconsistency, ICN (validity) | 52 |
| Infrequency, INF (validity) | 48 |
| Negative Impression, NIM (validity) | 55 |
| Positive Impression, PIM (validity) | 44 |
| Depression, DEP (clinical) | 76 |
| Anxiety, ANX (clinical) | 71 |
| Anxiety-Related Disorders, ARD (clinical) | 63 |
| Stress, STR (treatment consideration) | 68 |
| Nonsupport, NON (treatment consideration) | 64 |
| Treatment Rejection, RXR (treatment consideration) | 64 |
| Warmth, WRM (interpersonal) | 41 |
Clinical scale findings: The profile is a focal neurotic-spectrum picture. Depression is markedly elevated (DEP 76), with the subscale pattern weighted toward cognitive and affective features, self-criticism, hopelessness about improvement, and loss of interest, more than physiological ones. Anxiety is also prominent (ANX 71), expressed mainly as tension and worry, and the anxiety-related disorders scale approaches but does not reach a meaningful elevation (ARD 63), with no indication of trauma-specific distress on its subscales. The psychotic-spectrum and behavior-domain scales, including the substance scales, were unremarkable against both community and clinical reference points, which argues against thought-disorder and externalizing explanations for his decline at work.
Treatment considerations: The harm indicators were not elevated: the suicidal ideation scale was within normal limits, and risk was separately assessed by interview and is addressed in the risk section of this evaluation. The environment measures localize the pressure: perceived stress is elevated (STR 68) around a restructuring at his plant, and perceived support is thin (NON 64), with his wife described as supportive but his wider network as sparse. Treatment rejection (RXR 64) is the finding that most shapes the plan: an elevation of this size is notable in a person reporting this much distress, and it converges with his statement that he came "because my wife asked me to." He acknowledges the problems but doubts that talking about them will help.
Interpersonal functioning: The interpersonal scales describe a reserved, deferential style (WRM 41, DOM 44): D.M. is slow to disclose and unlikely to challenge a provider openly, which matters for alliance-building and for how disagreement with the treatment plan will surface.
Integration and interpretive summary: The PAI findings converge with the diagnostic interview, his wife's collateral description, and the elevated depression and worry ratings on the brief measures reported elsewhere in this evaluation. Taken together they support the working impression of a moderate depressive episode with prominent generalized worry, documented in the diagnostic section, in a man under real occupational strain with limited support and low confidence in treatment. The profile generates hypotheses rather than verdicts: the treatment-rejection and support findings suggest the main early risk is disengagement, not diagnostic ambiguity, and the interview corroborated that reading.
Recommendations linkage: The depression and anxiety findings support a course of psychotherapy with behavioral activation and worry-management components, coordinated with his primary care physician regarding a medication consult. The treatment-rejection finding drives the engagement plan: a motivational-interviewing opening phase, explicit early wins tied to his stated goal of keeping his job performance, and a check-in on treatment fit by session four rather than waiting for dropout. The stress and nonsupport findings support one concrete environmental target, negotiating his role in the restructuring, and a supported invitation to include his wife in one early session. These recommendations follow from the scale findings above and from the corroborating interview and history, not from the inventory alone.
This sample is fictional and for educational purposes. It does not describe a real client or record, and the scores are invented for illustration and correspond to no real person or record.
Writing these after every session? BastionGPT drafts complete notes from bullets, dictation, or a transcript.
Generate a note from bulletsThe decision contexts around the PAI mix law, agency policy, and convention, and the write-up should signal which is which. LAW (US employment): the ADA restricts medical examinations to the post-offer stage, and PAR's public-safety documentation states it plainly: because the PAI measures psychopathology, it is administered to job applicants only after a conditional offer of employment, consistent with EEOC guidance applied uniformly to entering employees in the category. AGENCY POLICY: the IACP pre-employment guidelines recommend the evaluation itself be conducted post-offer, and the California POST screening manual (revised February 2024) covers the PAI and its Police and Public Safety Selection Report among reviewed instruments; POST's own documents note that in 2009 the screening dimension shifted from detecting job-relevant psychopathology to determining suitability, that a psychopathology test is still required and paired with a normal-range personality measure, and that roughly a quarter of candidates have consulted a mental health professional at some point while pass rates for those with and without prior contact are "not appreciably different." PAYER POLICY (US): the professional work is billed under 96130/96131 with administration and scoring under 96136/96137, or 96138/96139 when a technician administers; Medicare contractor billing articles A57481 and A57780 govern documentation, all six testing codes appear on the CMS List of Medicare Telehealth Services for CY 2026, and employment screening and most medico-legal work is retained or agency-funded rather than billed to health plans (see the telehealth documentation page for the wider remote-care rules). Outside the US the funding frame changes: Australia's Better Access items rebate psychological therapy services and an MBS search returns no item for personality-inventory administration, so PAI assessment there is typically privately, insurer, or medico-legally funded through distributors PAA and ACER; Canadian practice runs through provincial, insurer, employer, and medico-legal channels, with SIGMA Assessment Systems distributing alongside PAR, and the instrument has never been normed on a Canadian population.
Edition and norms questions decide defensibility more often than any scoring detail, and the PAI's version of the question is vintage, not competing editions. The item booklet carries its original 1989, 1990, and 1991 copyrights, the 2007 second edition revised the Professional Manual rather than the test, PAI Plus overlays new indices and context comparisons on the same items, and PAR's public-safety documentation describes the community sample as matched to the 1995 census. A November 2025 peer-reviewed study (Uttl, Sikma & Tat, PeerJ) reported that roughly 95% of a 204-student Canadian sample elevated at least one of the 22 scales and concluded "the PAI US norms are no longer appropriate for high-stakes assessments"; no re-norming has been announced as of July 2026. The practical rule for reports: name the form, language product, and norms used, state the vintage in high-stakes matters before opposing counsel does, and corroborate every scale-based hypothesis with interview, records, and other measures. Purchase and use sit at PAR qualification level C, which is why the write-up names a qualified interpreter. Automated narratives get the same treatment as any consultant: PARiConnect and PAI-SP interpretive reports run 10 to 15 pages, and under APA Ethics 9.09 psychologists "retain responsibility for the appropriate application, interpretation, and use of assessment instruments," so paraphrase the narrative into case-anchored language rather than pasting it. One PAI-specific trap: PAR's Item and Response report prints item text with the client's answers, which is test material under APA Ethics 9.11 and belongs in the secure test file, never appended to the released report; retention of the protocol and report follows the record-set rules on the psychological evaluation report page.
PAI and Personality Assessment Inventory are trademarks of PAR, Inc. (Psychological Assessment Resources). BastionGPT is not affiliated with, or endorsed by, the publisher. This page reproduces no test items, stimuli, norms, or scoring materials.
There is no payer audit series for personality-test write-ups; the accountability pressure comes from courts, opposing experts, licensing boards, and the publisher's license terms, and it is well documented. A 2022 review of published US case law found "the admissibility of the instrument was rarely challenged" (Meaux and colleagues, Journal of Personality Assessment), which means the practical scrutiny lands on the written report itself. The validity scales carry strong published detection evidence, the current meta-analysis of 43 articles and 6,451 participants reports standard over-reporting scales at g = .99 to 1.50 (Herring et al., 2025), and the base rates are not hypothetical: in an Australian workers-compensation sample, "233 claimants (32.1% of the total sample) elevated one validity index" (Yoxall, Bahr & O'Neill, 2017), with smaller groups elevating two or all three. The original PAI is independently reviewed in the Buros Center's Twelfth Mental Measurements Yearbook. The BastionGPT Clinical Advisory Board sees the same errors most often in PAI write-up reviews:
BastionGPT is specifically trained, tuned, and clinically tested on psychological and neuropsychological evaluation reports.
See how clinicians use it day to day on the AI therapy notes page.
Many BastionGPT users report saving more than 90 minutes per day on documentation.
HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan. Your data is never used to train models. BastionGPT drafts, you review and sign.
PAI scales are reported as linear T scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10, referenced to a census-matched community sample of 1,000 US adults; companion clinical (1,265 patients) and college samples let the same profile be read against community and clinical reference points, and the profile form displays both. No score means anything until the validity scales say the protocol is interpretable: consistency first (ICN, INF), then negative distortion (NIM and the supplemental over-reporting indicators), then positive distortion (PIM and the defensiveness indicators). Elevations are then characterized per the conventions of the PAI interpretive literature and read as hypotheses about how the person described themselves during that administration, to be corroborated with interview, history, and records; no PAI score is a diagnosis, a risk prediction, or a legal threshold. Because the scales are content-driven and nonoverlapping, the subscale pattern often matters more than the full-scale number, and the results section feeds the psychological evaluation report that answers the referral question.
The norms date to the instrument's original standardization: the item booklet carries 1989, 1990, and 1991 copyrights, the 2007 second edition revised the Professional Manual rather than the test, and PAI Plus adds interpretive overlays on the same items. A November 2025 peer-reviewed study reported that roughly 95% of a 204-student Canadian sample elevated at least one of the 22 scales and concluded "the PAI US norms are no longer appropriate for high-stakes assessments" (Uttl, Sikma & Tat, PeerJ); no re-norming has been announced as of July 2026. That is an argument to manage, not an automatic disqualifier: the case-law record finds PAI admissibility rarely challenged, but the study hands cross-examiners fresh material. In high-stakes reports, state the norms' vintage yourself, corroborate every scale-based hypothesis, and consider whether the referral question is better served by an instrument with current norms, such as the MMPI-3.
They compete for the same broadband slot, and the honest answer is fit by referral question. The MMPI-3 brings norms from 2020, US Spanish-language norms, and the largest validity-scale research base, which now includes the norm-currency argument in its favor. The PAI answers with five treatment consideration scales the MMPI family does not carry, nonoverlapping content-driven scales, a fourth-grade reading level with an audio option, and an established public-safety selection report. For treatment planning and lower-reading-level clients, the PAI earns its slot; for high-stakes forensic matters where norm vintage will be litigated, the MMPI-3 removes an argument; when the referral question is DSM personality-disorder characterization, the MCMI-IV is the usual third candidate. Whichever you choose, name the instrument, its norms, and your reason in the report.
No jurisdiction mandates the PAI itself; the requirements stack differently. LAW: under the ADA, tests that assess psychopathology are medical examinations, so the PAI is administered only after a conditional offer of employment, per EEOC guidance. POLICY: the IACP guidelines recommend conducting the evaluation post-offer, and California POST requires a test of psychopathology paired with a normal-range personality measure, naming the PAI and MMPI instruments as qualifying examples; the PAI Law Enforcement, Corrections, and Public Safety Selection Report exists for exactly this use, built on an applicant normative sample of 17,757 public safety candidates. CONVENTION: outside such frameworks, instrument choice is agency and evaluator convention. Worth telling candidates: POST materials report roughly a quarter of applicants have consulted a mental health professional at some point, and pass rates with and without prior contact are "not appreciably different," so prior counseling is not the disqualifier applicants fear.
As routed hypotheses, never as standalone predictions. The suicidal ideation and aggression scales, and the supplemental suicide and violence potential indexes, flag content and configurations that warrant follow-up; the write-up states the finding, then hands it to the evaluation's interview-based risk assessment, where history, protective factors, and collateral information live. The separate Critical Items form flags 27 items across nine content areas chosen for crisis relevance and very low endorsement by normal individuals, and the convention is the same: reviewed and dispositioned by interview, documented in the risk section, not reported as an actuarial verdict. A self-report inventory can tell you what a client was willing to endorse that day; it cannot carry a risk opinion alone, and a write-up that lets it will read as indefensible precisely when the stakes are highest.
It exists and is validated for what it is: the short form is the first 160 items of the full test, "developed for situations in which respondents complete only the 1st half of the test" (Frazier et al., 2006). Published comparisons report short-to-full clinical-scale correlations from 0.85 to 0.95 (Ward et al., 2018), but the same literature cautions that shortening brings "diminished content coverage, and altered validity detection" (Frazier et al.). The working rule: the full form is the default, and the short form is a documented fallback for interrupted or capacity-limited administrations, not a time-saver; several subscales and supplemental indexes lose coverage on it. If you report short-form results, say so by name, say why, and note the limits. An unnamed short form is one of the quiet errors reviewers catch by counting scales.
No. The items are copyrighted test material sold at PAR qualification level C, and protecting them is an ethics obligation (APA Ethics 9.11, maintaining test security) as well as a license term; item exposure and coaching are exactly the scenarios the over-reporting detection literature tests. For test takers, the legitimate preview is what this page describes: format, length, reading level, and response style, not item content. For report writers, the same rule covers PAR's Item and Response report, which prints item text with the client's answers: it belongs in the secure test file, and the released report describes findings at the scale and subscale level. Third-party demands for test materials are typically resolved by producing them to another qualified professional under protective conditions rather than into the open record; involve counsel and your board's guidance before releasing anything item-level.
In the US, psychological testing bills under 96130/96131 for the evaluation work and 96136/96137 (professional) or 96138/96139 (technician) for administration and scoring; Medicare contractor articles A57481 and A57780 carry the documentation rules, and all six codes appear on the CMS telehealth list for CY 2026. Employment screening and most medico-legal PAI work is retained or agency-funded rather than billed to health plans. In Australia there is no MBS item for personality-inventory administration (an MBS search returns no results), so assessment is privately, insurer, or medico-legally funded; in Canada, coverage runs through provincial, insurer, employer, and medico-legal channels rather than a national fee schedule. State the jurisdiction when you make a coverage claim; the billing frame changes at every border.
Yes. Paste your scale summary (validity findings, elevated scales with T scores, any comparison group) and it drafts the results-section narrative for your review: validity first, findings organized by domain, the treatment consideration scales given their own section, and interpretive-report material paraphrased rather than pasted. It can also cross-check a finished draft for score-versus-narrative mismatches, unlabeled reference frames, and an unnamed form or edition, and produce a plain-language summary for the referral source or client. BastionGPT is HIPAA-compliant with a signed BAA on every plan, and data is never used to train models.
The instrument facts and compliance claims on this page trace to these sources, last verified July 2026:
Educational content, not legal or billing advice. Sample notes are fictional. Follow your organization's policies and your board, payer, and jurisdiction requirements.