The utility and comparative incremental validity of the MMPI-2 and Trauma symptom Inventory validity scales in the detection of feigned PTSD.

The authors examined the comparative predictive capacity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) Atypical Response Scale (ATR) and the standard set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) fake-bad validity scales (i.e., F, FB, Fp, FBS) to detect feigned posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Remitted trauma victims (n = 60) completed the TSI and MMPI-2 under standard (honest) instructions and then were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental conditions (noncoached/validity scale coached) in which they were administered these instruments again with instruction to fake PTSD. These test protocols were compared with TSI and MMPI-2 results from workplace injury claimants with PTSD (n = 84). The ATR and FBS were able to distinguish only the noncoached participants instructed to fake from the PTSD claimants; in contrast, the F, FB, and Fp scales were able to distinguish both the noncoached and the validity-scale-coached participants from the PTSD claimants. F, FB, and Fp always outperformed the ATR and FBS; neither the ATR nor the FBS was able to add incremental predictive variance to that of F, FB, or Fp. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Examining MMPI-2 F-family scales in PTSD-diagnosed veterans of Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Our study examined Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) F-family validity scales (F, Fb, F-K, Fp) in treatment-seeking veterans diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) related to Operation Enduring or Iraqi Freedom (OEF/OIF). Seventy-nine percent of veterans had F T scores over 65, 54% elevated F over 80 T; and 71% elevated Fb above 65 or 80. Fewer veterans elevated F-K (>13; 22%) and Fp (>100 T; 5%). Differences emerged between veterans with and without elevated (>65 T) F scores on F-family validity scales, clinical scales, and self-report measures of psychopathology. Elevations for F-family validity scales at various cut points are reported. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Detection of overreported psychopathology with the MMPI-2 RF validity scales": Correction to Sellbom and Bagby (2010).

Reports an error in "Detection of overreported psychopathology with the MMPI-2 RF form validity scales" by Martin Sellbom and R. Michael Bagby (Psychological Assessment, 2010[Dec], Vol 22[4], 757-767). There was an error in the title. The title should have read “Detection of Overreported Psychopathology With the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales.” (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2010-24850-001.) We examined the utility of the validity scales on the recently released Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2 RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) to detect overreported psychopathology. This set of validity scales includes a newly developed scale and revised versions of the original MMPI-2 validity scales. We used an analogue, experimental simulation in which MMPI-2 RF responses (derived from archived MMPI-2 protocols) of undergraduate students instructed to overreport psychopathology (in either a coached or noncoached condition) were compared with those of psychiatric inpatients who completed the MMPI-2 under standardized instructions. The MMPI-2 RF validity scale Infrequent Psychopathology Responses best differentiated the simulation groups from the sample of patients, regardless of experimental condition. No other validity scale added consistent incremental predictive utility to Infrequent Psychopathology Responses in distinguishing the simulation groups from the sample of patients. Classification accuracy statistics confirmed the recommended cut scores in the MMPI-2 RF manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detection of overreported psychopathology with the MMPI-2 RF form validity scales.

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 23(1) of Psychological Assessment (see record 2011-01446-001). There was an error in the title. The title should have read “Detection of Overreported Psychopathology With the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales.”] [Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Psychological Assessment (see record 2011-01446-001). There was an error in the title. The title should have read “Detection of Overreported Psychopathology With the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales.”] We examined the utility of the validity scales on the recently released Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2 RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) to detect overreported psychopathology. This set of validity scales includes a newly developed scale and revised versions of the original MMPI-2 validity scales. We used an analogue, experimental simulation in which MMPI-2 RF responses (derived from archived MMPI-2 protocols) of undergraduate students instructed to overreport psychopathology (in either a coached or noncoached condition) were compared with those of psychiatric inpatients who completed the MMPI-2 under standardized instructions. The MMPI-2 RF validity scale Infrequent Psychopathology Responses best differentiated the simulation groups from the sample of patients, regardless of experimental condition. No other validity scale added consistent incremental predictive utility to Infrequent Psychopathology Responses in distinguishing the simulation groups from the sample of patients. Classification accuracy statistics confirmed the recommended cut scores in the MMPI-2 RF manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Relative effectiveness of the standard validity scales in detecting fake-bad and fake-good responding: Replication and extension.

The effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; J. N. Butcher et al, 1989) Lie (L) and Infrequency (F) scales, relative to the Obvious-Subtle Index (O-S), the Positive Malingering (Mp) scale, and the revised Dissimulation scale in the detection of fake-good and fake-bad MMPI-2 protocols, was evaluated by asking college students to respond honestly, fake bad, or fake good on the MMPI-2. MMPI-2 protocols of participants asked to fake bad were compared with protocols from general psychiatric and forensic inpatient samples, and MMPI-2 protocols of participants asked to fake good were compared with MMPI-2 protocols of students asked to respond honestly. The F scale was superior in detecting faking bad, and the O-S index and the Mp and L scales were equally effective at detecting faking good. However, we caution against the use of the O-S index in the detection of fake-bad and fake-good responding. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detection of underreporting on the MMPI-2 in a clinical population: effects of information about validity scales

We investigated the effects of information about the MMPI-2's validity scales on underreporting of symptoms in a clinical outpatient population. Adults participating in outpatient psychotherapy were randomly assigned to a standard control group or to one of two groups given instructions and incentives to underreport symptomatology. One of the underreporting groups was given brief information about the presence of validity scales designed to detect respondents attempting to create an unrealistically positive impression. The other underreporting group was given no information about the validity scales. A demographically matched group of adults from the general population who had completed the MMPI-2 under the standard instructions comprised a second control group. Results suggested that traditional and supplementary underreporting scales were reasonably effective in discriminating uncoached underreporters from standard profiles completed by both the clinical and the general population groups. These scales were somewhat less accurate in discriminating coached underreporters from either clinical or nonclinical standard respondents. These findings are consistent with previous results from a college student population suggesting that coaching about validity scales may interfere with the test's ability to detect underreporting respondents, although a few supplementary underreporting scales show promising resistance to the effects of coaching.     

Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review.

Meta-analytic techniques were applied to studies of the MMPI-2 in which participants given standard instructions were compared with participants instructed or believed to have been underreporting. Traditional and supplementary indices of underreporting yielded a mean effect size of 1.25, suggesting that underreporting respondents differ from those responding honestly by a little more than 1 standard deviation, on the average, on these scales. Analyses of classification accuracy suggested that several scales are moderately effective in detecting underreporting, although accuracy decreases if participants have been coached about validity scales. Base rates of defensive responding in relevant populations are reviewed, and methodological issues, including research designs, coaching, and incremental validity of supplementary underreporting scales, are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The ability of the MMPI-2 to detect feigned PTSD within the context of compensation seeking.

The ability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity scales to detect feigned reports of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was examined in a group of veterans undergoing a compensation and pension evaluation. Veterans who were seeking compensation for service connected PTSD were randomly assigned to one of two groups: exaggerate PTSD and respond honestly. The MMPI-2 Infrequency (F) family of scales was able to accurately identify the veterans instructed to exaggerate PTSD. The Fake Bad Scale (FBS) did not add incrementally to the prediction of exaggerated PTSD and the Infrequency-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale (Fptsd) added significantly, albeit minimally, to the prediction of exaggerated PTSD. The Infrequency Psychopathology (FP) scale obtained the best overall hit rate in comparison to the other over-reporting indicators on the MMPI-2, both at optimal and at previously recommended cut scores. In sum, the MMPI-2 effectively differentiated compensation seeking veterans instructed to exaggerate PTSD from compensation seeking veterans instructed to respond honestly. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detection of coached general malingering on the MMPI—2.

The current study examined the effects of validity-scale coaching on one's ability to feign general psychopathology. College students were coached on malingering strategies and completed the MMPI-2. Their responses were compared with students asked to malinger psychopathology without validity-scale coaching and with psychiatric inpatients completing the MMPI-2 under standard instructions. In accordance with previous research (e.g., J. R. Graham, D. Watts, and R. E. Timbrook, 1991), uncoached malingerers were adequately discriminated from patients by using the Infrequency (F) scale. However, as suggested by previous research (R. Rogers, R. A. Bagby, and D. Chakraborty, 1993), the F scale was not as effective at classifying coached malingerers. It was found that other validity indicators, such as the Infrequency Psychopathology Scale were more accurate at discriminating between coached malingerers and hospitalized patients. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Overreporting of closed-head injury symptoms on the MMPI-2.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) validity scales were compared in 4 groups: nonclinical participants answering under standard instructions (n?=?20), nonclinical participants instructed to fake closed-head injury (CHI) symptoms (n?=?18), non-compensation-seeking CHI patients (n?=?31), and compensation-seeking CHI patients (n?=?30). The highest scores on MMPI-2 overreporting scales were obtained by nonclinical participants faking CHI, and significantly higher scores on these scales were obtained by compensation-seeking relative to non-compensation-seeking CHI patients. These results suggest that MMPI-2 overreporting scales are sensitive to fabrication of CHI complaints, and possibly to exaggeration of CHI complaints, although further research is necessary to evaluate the latter hypothesis fully. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Effects of two types of information on malingering of closed head injury on the MMPI-2: An analog investigation.

The impact of detailed information on closed-head injury (CHI) and/or the MMPI-2 validity scales on malingering of psychological symptoms of CHI on the MMPI-2 was investigated. In an analog investigation using college students, experimental malingerers produced reliably different MMPI-2 protocols relative to controls answering honestly. Experimental malingerers were divided into 4 groups on the basis of the complete crossing of 2 factors: CHI information (present/absent) and MMPI-2 validity scale information (present/absent). No 2-way interactions were noted, but main effects for both factors were found on several MMPI-2 clinical and validity scales. In general, CHI information raised both clinical- and validity-scale scores, whereas information on MMPI-2 validity scales lowered both clinical- and validity-scale scores. These results suggest that coaching may have an impact on simulation of CHI on the MMPI-2. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Validity of the MMPI-2-RF (restructured form) L-r and K-r scales in detecting underreporting in clinical and nonclinical samples.

In the current investigation, the authors examined the validity of the L-r and K-r scales on the recently developed Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Y. S. Ben-Porath & A. Tellegen, in press) in measuring underreported response bias. Three archival samples previously collected for examining MMPI-2 validity scales were reanalyzed in 2 studies. In Study 1 L-r and K-r significantly differentiated 2 groups of participants (patients with schizophrenia and university students) who had been instructed to underreport on the MMPI-2 from participants who took the test under standard instructions. L-r and K-r also added incremental predictive variance to one another in differentiating these groups. In Study 2 a similar set of outcomes emerged through the use of a differential prevalence design in which L-r and K-r significantly differentiated a group of child custody litigants who were administered the MMPI-2 from university students taking the test under standard instructions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detecting random, partially random, and nonrandom Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 protocols.

The ability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; J. N. Butcher et al., 2001) validity scales to detect random, partially random, and nonrandom MMPI-2 protocols was investigated. Investigations included the Variable Response Inconsistency scale (VRIN), F, several potentially useful new F and VRIN subscales, and Fb - F ≥ 30 and Fb ≥ 90. Protocols completed by 150 adults participating in custody evaluations at a juvenile court setting, screened for randomness with a matched-pair Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (T. Millon, R. Davis, & C. Millon, 1997), were compared with 500 computer-generated all-random protocols and with three levels of partially random protocols. VRIN was the most effective scale in detecting uninterpretable random protocols; however, VRIN ≥ 80 failed to identify 37% of them. Fb - F ≥ 30 and Fb ≥ 90 misidentified 41% of the 50%-65% random protocols as partially interpretable. Using the new scales, a decision algorithm was described that correctly classified 97%-100% of the protocols as interpretable, partially interpretable, or uninterpretable. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Malingering as a categorical or dimensional construct: The latent structure of feigned psychopathology as measured by the SIRS and MMPI-2.

The 6 nonoverlapping primary scales of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) were subjected to taxometric analysis in a group of 1,211 criminal and civil examinees in order to investigate the latent structure of feigned psychopathology. Both taxometric procedures used in this study, mean above minus below a cut (MAMBAC) and maximum covariance (MAXCOV), produced dimensional results. A subgroup of participants (n = 711) with valid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) protocols were included in a second round of analyses in which the 6 nonoverlapping primary scales of the SIRS and the Infrequency (F), Infrequency-Psychopathology (Fp), and Dissimulation (Ds) scales of the MMPI-2 served as indicators. Again, the results were more consistent with dimensional latent structure than with taxonic latent structure. On the basis of these findings, it is concluded that feigned psychopathology forms a dimension (levels of fabrication or exaggeration) rather than a taxon (malingering-honest dichotomy) and that malingering is a quantitative distinction rather than a qualitative one. The theoretical and clinical practice implications of these findings are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detecting fake-good MMPI-A profiles in a correctional facility.

This study examined the extent to which the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A; J. N. Butcher et al., 1992) could differentiate between correctional adolescents instructed to fake good and both correctional and noncorrectional adolescents who received standard instructions. The noncorrectional participants (n?=?137) were from settings not connected with treatment or correctional facilities. Correctional participants (n?=?140) were from a facility in Northeastern Ohio. Mean profiles resembled those previously reported for adults on the MMPI and MMPI-2 and for adolescents on the MMPI and MMPI-A. It was possible to differentiate between (a) correctional youth instructed to fake good and noncorrectional youth with standard instructions and (b) correctional youth who were faking and correctional youth with standard instructions. Slightly different cutoff scores were needed for these two discriminations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detecting feigned depression and schizophrenia on the MMPI-2

Increasingly, investigations evaluating the effectiveness of the MMPI-2 in the assessment of malingering employ methodologies whereby research participants are asked to feigned specific disorders rather than just to "fake bad." Yet there is little research addressing the issue of whether different validity scales and indicators work differently in the detection of different feigned disorders. In this study the comparative effectiveness of a number of validity scales and indicators on the MMPI-2 to assess feigned depression and feigned schizophrenia were evaluated. Overall, the validity scales and indicators were better at detecting feigned schizophrenia than they were in detecting feigned depression, attributable, most likely, to closer familiarity with depressive experiences. The validity scales F, Fb, and F(p) best distinguish patients with schizophrenia from participants feigning schizophrenia, and F and Fb best distinguish patients with depression from participants feigning depression.     

Examining comorbidity and posttraumatic stress disorder in a Vietnam veteran population using the MMPI-2

Examined the discriminant validity of the MMPI-2 in assessing comorbidity in a posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Vietnam veteran population. The Structured Clinical Interview for the DSM-III-R (SCID) was used to diagnose veterans and to classify them into four groups: PTSD Only, PTSD with mood disorders, PTSD with other anxiety disorders, and PTSD with mood and anxiety disorders. All groups had clinical elevations on scales F, 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 0, PK, and PS, with peak elevations on scales 8, 7, and 2. The PTSD Only group's MMPI-2 scores were not significantly lower than other groups' scores. The PTSD+Mood/Anxiety group was significantly more elevated on scales 2 and 7 than the PTSD Only and PTSD+Anxiety group but did not otherwise show significantly higher scale elevations than others groups. No significant differences existed between groups on scales F, L, K, PK, and PS. Implications of these results for PTSD and the current diagnostic system are explored.     

Comparison of the Wiener-Harmon Subtle-Obvious scales and the standard validity scales in detecting valid and invalid MMPI-2 profiles.

The validity of the Wiener-Harmon Subtle–Obvious (S-O) scales has been widely debated despite increasing evidence suggesting that the scales have limited clinical utility. This study used valid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) profiles of 49 psychiatric patients and profiles generated by 105 college students under fake-bad, fake-good, and standard instructions to examine whether the S-O scales can correctly classify faked and honest profiles. The S-O scales correctly classified high percentages of profiles, but further analyses showed that they added no information to that provided by L and F in classifying fake-bad, fake-good, and honest profiles. But other analyses showed that L and F provided substantial information not given by the S-O scales. The study also observed the paradoxical effect under the fake-good instructions and reported evidence suggesting that a naysaying response bias is a cogent explanation of the effect. The authors concluded that the standard validity scales appear to be more useful than the S-O scales in identifying faked profiles. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form in National Guard soldiers screening positive for posttraumatic stress disorder and mild traumatic brain injury.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2 RF) was administered to 251 National Guard soldiers who had recently returned from deployment to Iraq. Soldiers were also administered questionnaires to identify posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). On the basis of responses to the screening instruments, the National Guard soldiers who produced a valid MMPI-2 RF were classified into four groups: 21 soldiers who screened positive for PTSD only, 33 soldiers who screened positive for mTBI only, 9 soldiers who screened positive for both conditions, and 166 soldiers who did not screen positive for either condition. Results showed that the MMPI-2 RF was able to differentiate across the groups with the MMPI-2 RF specific problem scale Anxiety adding incrementally to MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales in predicting PTSD. Both MMPI-2 RC1 (Somatic Complaints) and MMPI-2 RF head pain complaints predicted mTBI screen but did not add incrementally to each other. Of note, all of the MMPI-2 RF validity scales associated with overreporting, including Symptom Validity—Revised (FBS-r), were not significantly elevated in the mTBI group. These findings support the use of the MMPI-2 RF in assessing PTSD in non–treatment-seeking veterans. This further suggests that a positive screen for mTBI alone is not associated with significant emotional disturbance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Faking specific disorders and temporal response consistency on the MMPI-2.

The ability of persons faking posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or closed-head injury (CHI) to respond consistently across serial testings on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI-2; J. Butcher, W. Dahlstrom, J. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989) was investigated. Results showed that individuals faking PTSD obtained 2-week test–retest reliability scores comparable to individuals completing the MMPI-2 with standard instructions; individuals faking CHI obtained reliability coefficients significantly lower than individuals faking PTSD. A 3?×?2 (Response Style?×?Time) analysis of variance indicated that individuals faking a disorder obtained significantly elevated scores on validity scales sensitive to overreporting; no main effect for time was found. Results suggest that test-takers faking specific disorders can describe symptoms consistently on repeated testing and that type of disorder may affect temporal response consistency. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)