A comparison of MMPI--2 measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting.

We examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2 (MMPI--2) measures of psychopathy, including the Clinical Scale 4, Restructured Clinical Scale 4 (RC4), Content Scale Antisocial Practices (ASP), and Personality Psychopathology Five Scale Disconstraint (DISC). Comparisons of the empirical correlates of these scales were conducted with 2 samples of participants evaluated at a criminal court clinic. The 2 samples included 59 men and 19 women and 913 men and 327 women, respectively. Two types of criteria (clinician ratings and archival record review) were utilized in the analyses. Relative to Clinical Scale 4, RC4 had significantly greater convergent validity in predicting psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist--Screening Version (S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995) and behavioral criteria associated with this construct. RC4 also showed substantially improved discriminant validity when compared with its Clinical Scale counterpart. Among all the MMPI-2 scales studied, RC4 was the best measure of the social deviance traits of psychopathy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Personality domains and traits that predict self-reported aberrant driving behaviours in a southeastern US university sample

Personality traits are meaningful predictors of many significant life outcomes, including mortality. Several studies have investigated the relationship between specific personality traits and driving behaviours, e.g., aggression and speeding, in an attempt to identify traits associated with elevated crash risk. These studies, while valuable, are limited in that they examine only a narrow range of personality constructs and thus do not necessarily reveal which traits in constellation best predict aberrant driving behaviours. The primary aim of this study was to use a comprehensive measure of personality to investigate which personality traits are most predictive of four types of aberrant driving behaviour (Aggressive Violations, Ordinary Violations, Errors, Lapses) as indicated by the Manchester Driver Behaviour Questionnaire (DBQ). We recruited 285 young adults (67% female) from a university in the southeastern US. They completed self-report questionnaires including the DBQ and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5, which indexes 5 broad personality domains (Antagonism, Detachment, Disinhibition, Negative Affectivity, Psychoticism) and 25 specific trait facets. Confirmatory factor analysis showed adequate evidence for the DBQ internal structure. Structural regression analyses revealed that the personality domains of Antagonism and Negative Affectivity best predicted both Aggressive Violations and Ordinary Violations, whereas the best predictors of both Errors and Lapses were Negative Affectivity, Disinhibition and to a lesser extent Antagonism. A more nuanced analysis of trait facets revealed that Hostility was the best predictor of Aggressive Violations; Risk-taking and Hostility of Ordinary Violations; Irresponsibility, Separation Insecurity and Attention Seeking of Errors; and Perseveration and Irresponsibility of Lapses.     

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)     

"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)     

Further validation of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Response Bias Scale: Findings from disability and criminal forensic settings.

The present study extends the validation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Response Bias Scale (RBS; R. O. Gervais, Y. S. Ben-Porath, D. B. Wygant, & P. Green, 2007) in separate forensic samples composed of disability claimants and criminal defendants. Using cognitive symptom validity tests as response bias indicators, the RBS exhibited large effect sizes (Cohen's ds = 1.24 and 1.48) in detecting cognitive response bias in the disability and criminal forensic samples, respectively. The scale also added incremental prediction to the traditional MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF overreporting validity scales in the disability sample and exhibited excellent specificity with acceptable sensitivity at cutoffs ranging from 90T to 120T. The results of this study indicate that the RBS can add uniquely to the existing MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detecting symptom exaggeration associated with cognitive response bias. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 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)     

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)     

Utility of the MMPI–2-RF (Restructured Form) validity scales in detecting malingering in a criminal forensic setting: A known-groups design.

The current study examined the utility of the recently released Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 Restructured Form (MMPI–2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) validity scales to detect feigned psychopathology in a criminal forensic setting. We used a known-groups design with the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, Bagby, & Dickens, 1992) as the external criterion to determine groups of probable malingering versus nonmalingering. A final sample of 125 criminal defendants, who were administered both the SIRS and the MMPI–2-RF during their evaluations, was examined. The results indicated that the two MMPI–2-RF validity scales specifically designed to detect overreported psychopathology, F-r and FP-r, best differentiated between the malingering and nonmalingering groups. These scales added incremental predictive utility to one another in this differentiation. Classification accuracy statistics substantiated the recommended cut scores in the MMPI–2-RF manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) in this forensic setting. Implications for these results in terms of forensic assessment and detection of malingering are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Additional evidence for a quantitative hierarchical model of mood and anxiety disorders for DSM-V: The context of personality structure.

Recent progress toward the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders includes a proposed quantitative hierarchical structure of internalizing pathology with substantial, supportive evidence (D. Watson, 2005). Questions about such a taxonomic shift remain, however, particularly regarding how best to account for and use existing diagnostic categories and models of personality structure. In this study, the authors use a large sample of psychiatric patients with internalizing diagnoses (N = 1,319) as well as a community sample (N = 856) to answer some of these questions. Specifically, the authors investigate how the diagnoses of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and bipolar disorder compare with the other internalizing categories at successive levels of the personality hierarchy. Results suggest unique profiles for bipolar disorder and OCD and highlight the important contribution of a 5-factor model of personality in conceptualizing internalizing pathology. Implications for personality-psychopathology models and research on personality structure are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the hierarchical structure of mood and anxiety disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of temperament markers.

The authors examined D. Watson's (2005) proposed reconceptualization of the diagnostic categories for mood and anxiety disorders for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders--Fifth Edition (DSM-V) and tested an elaboration of the 2-factor (positive and negative activation) model of underlying temperament markers that incorporates A. Tellegen, D. Watson, & L. A. Clark's (1999a, 1999b) higher-order dimension of happiness-unhappiness (or demoralization; see A. Tellegen et al., 2003). In Study 1, 502 undergraduate students completed several symptom measures of mood and anxiety disorders and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (J. N. Butcher et al., 2001). Using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors replicated Watson's distress and fear disorder model. Path analyses showed that demoralization was a primary marker of distress disorders, whereas dysfunctional negative emotions was a primary marker of fear disorders. Low positive emotions was a specific marker of depression and social phobia. This 3-factor path model was associated with better fit than was a 2-factor model excluding demoralization. In Study 2, the authors replicated the findings of Study 1 using data from an archival clinical sample of 636 Veterans Affairs hospital outpatients. The authors' findings provide evidence on the important role of demoralization in mood and anxiety disorders. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)