Sensitivity of MMPI-2 validity scales to random responding and malingering.

Explored the effects of both random responding and malingering on the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) in an analog design using 4 groups of college students. One group completed the entire answer sheet randomly, a 2nd group was instructed to malinger a moderate psychological disturbance, a 3rd group was asked to simulate a severe disturbance, and a 4th group was given standard test instructions. Results showed that MMPI-2 validity scales were sensitive to these response sets: Both random and malingered responses produced significant elevations on F and Fb, whereas only random responding led to significant elevations on VRIN. These results indicated that the source of an elevated F scale may be clarified by referring to VRIN, as VRIN was significantly elevated only in the random response group. Thus, a high F scale score combined with a high VRIN scale score strongly suggests the possibility of random responding. In addition, scores on both F–K and Ds2 (the items remaining from the MMPI Dissimulation scale) increased significantly as degree of simulated disturbance increased. Thus, Ds2 appeared to have sufficient promise as a validity scale to merit further research. (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.     

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)     

Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 content scales in an outpatient mental health setting.

The incremental validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 Content Scales (MMPI—2; J. N. Butcher, J. R. Graham, C. L. Williams, & Y. S. Ben-Porath, 1990) was examined using clinical and content scale scores to predict conceptually relevant symptoms and personality characteristics of 274 male and 425 female mental health center outpatients. Regression analyses were performed to determine if the content scales contributed significantly beyond the conceptually relevant clinical scales in predicting therapists' ratings. Of the 10 content scales analyzed, incremental validity was demonstrated for 7 scales for men and 3 scales for women. A 2nd set of analyses indicated that incremental validity was demonstrated for 4 clinical scales for men and 6 clinical scales for women. The findings provide further evidence that the content scales aid interpretation of MMPI—2 scores by contributing additional information beyond the clinical scales. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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)     

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)     

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)     

The comparability of MMPI and MMPI-2 scales and profiles.

The revised form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) incorporates a number of changes that necessitate an investigation into the comparability of its scale scores and clinical profile to those of the original MMPI. In the current study, differences between scores obtained by 189 college students who completed both the original and revised forms of the MMPI were compared with differences between scores obtained by 188 other students who were administered the original form twice. Results indicated substantial congruence between the cross-administration stability of scores and profiles obtained by the two groups. (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)     

Psychometric evaluation of the restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2.

Conceptual overlap and heterogeneity have long been noted as weaknesses of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory's clinical scales. Restructured clinical (RC) scales recently were developed to address these concerns (A. Tellegen et al., 2003). The authors evaluated the psychometric properties of the RC scales in psychology clinic clients (N=285) and military veterans (N=567). The RC scales were as internally consistent as the clinical scales and correlated strongly with their original counterparts (except for RC3/Hysteria). They also were less intercorrelated, produced conceptually clearer relations with measures of personality and psychopathology, and yielded somewhat greater incremental utility than the clinical scales. Thus, the RC scales demonstrated several psychometric strengths while utilizing 60% fewer items, but the 2 sets of scales cannot be used interchangeably. Interpretive considerations are discussed. (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)     

A comparison of MMPI-2 validity in African American and Caucasian psychiatric inpatients.

This study investigated ethnic differences on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPT-2) in 229 African American and 1,558 Caucasian psychiatric inpatients. Mean differences were found on several MMPI-2 validity and clinical scales. These were generally consistent with differences between the groups, indicated by the available extratest criterion data. To identify potential bias, the authors conducted 65 step-down hierarchical multiple regression analyses, predicting conceptually relevant clinical criteria from either MMPI-2 clinical or content scales for each gender. A number of MMPI-2 scales evidenced bias reflecting minor underprediction of psychopathology in African Americans. It is important to note that, in almost all cases, the magnitude of these differences was small and not clinically significant. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

MMPI-2 clinical scales and 2-point code types: Impact of varying levels of omitted items.

The study investigated the impact of varying levels of item omissions (Cannot Say) on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) 2-point code types. Valid MMPI-2 answer sheets were obtained from psychological outpatients (N?=?100). Seven levels of item omission were investigated: 0 (baseline), 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, and 30. Omitted items were those most frequently skipped by psychiatric outpatients. Statistically reliable but very slight declines were seen on MMPI-2 clinical scales (M?=? –1.8 T-score points at 30 Cannot Says). Defined 2-point code types were relatively stable in the face of up to 30 omitted items. However, undefined code types were changed in 25% of the cases by 10 omitted items and in 39% of the cases by 30 omitted items. These results suggest that defined code types are relatively robust in the face of up to 30 omitted items, although undefined code types appeared much more likely to be changed by omitted items even at low levels. It is recommended that item content always be reviewed in the presence of omitted items to determine if specific clinical or content scales might be affected. (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)     

Utility of selected MMPI-2 scales in the outcome prediction for patients with chronic back pain.

The predictive utility of selected scales from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; J. N. Butcher et al, 1989) was examined in relation to a number of physical and psychosocial measures of treatment outcome in patients reporting chronic back pain. MMPI-2 scales assessing manifestations of emotional distress were considered: anxiety (Scale 7 [Pt]: Anxiety [ANX] and Obsessiveness [OBS]), depression (Scale 2 [D]: Depression [DEP]), and somatic discomfort (Scale 1 [Hs]: Lassitude-Malaise [Hy3], Somatic Complaints [Hy4], and Health Concerns [HEA]). The outcome results at 6-month follow-up for 120 patients who participated in a 4-week outpatient multimodal treatment program were examined. Results showed several of the selected scales to be predictive of less improvement, depending on the outcome measures used. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Detection of back random responding: Effectiveness of MMPI-2 and Personality Assessment Inventory validity indices.

Two experiments examined the detection and effects of back random responding (BRR) on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Experiment 1 revealed that MMPI-2 Clinical and Content scales were relatively resistant to the effects of BRR. Fb--F ≥ 20T was the most effective index for identifying invalid protocols. Experiment 2 revealed greater susceptibility of the PAI interpretive scales to the effects of BRR and less successful detection of BRR. The most effective PAI validity index was the combined indicator, ICN ≥ at 73T or INF ≥ 75T. Clinical and empirical implications of these findings are discussed, and tentative modifications to the MMPI-2 interpretative guidelines are provided. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Assessment of substance abuse in psychotherapy clients: The effectiveness of the MMPI-2 substance abuse scales.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI—2) contains 3 scales, the MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale—Revised (MAC—R), the Addiction Potential Scale (APS), and the Addiction Acknowledgement Scale (AAS), that were developed to identify alcohol and drug abusing individuals. The current study was designed to measure the effectiveness of these scales at detecting substance abuse problems in a community-based mental health sample. MAC—R, APS, and AAS scores were obtained from 64 therapists who identified 68 substance abusing and 392 nonabusing psychotherapy clients. The results indicated that mean scores on all 3 scales were higher for the substance abusers than for nonabusers. Furthermore, discriminant analysis found all 3 scales to be effective screening tools. The AAS was the best single predictor, and a combination of the AAS and MAC—R provided the best overall discrimination. The implications of early substance abuse detection on treatment effectiveness are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Use of the MMPI-2 in American Indians: I. Comparability of the MMPI-2 Between Two Tribes and With the MMPI-2 Normative Group.

The comparability of the MMPI-2 in American Indians with the MMPI-2 normative group was investigated in a sample of 535 Southwestern and 297 Plains American Indian tribal members with contrasting sociocultural and historical origins. Both American Indian tribal groups had clinically significant higher T scores (>5 T points) on 5 validity and clinical scales, 6 content scales, and 2 supplementary scales than did the MMPI-2 normative group. There were no significant differences between the 2 tribal groups on any of the MMPI-2 clinical, content, or supplementary scales. Matching members of both tribes with persons in the MMPI-2 normative group on the basis of age, gender, and education reduced the magnitude of the differences between the 2 groups on all of these scales, although the differences in T scores still exceeded 5 T points. It appears likely that the MMPI-2 differences of these 2 American Indian groups from the normative group may reflect their adverse historical, social, and economic conditions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)