Equivalence of Laptop and Tablet Administrations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form.

The present study investigated the comparability of laptop computer- and tablet-based administration modes for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Employing a counterbalanced within-subjects design, the MMPI-2-RF was administered via both modes to a sample of college undergraduates ( N = 133). Administration modes were compared in terms of mean scale scores, internal consistency, test-retest consistency, external validity, and administration time. Mean scores were generally similar, and scores produced via both methods appeared approximately equal in terms of internal consistency and test-retest consistency. Scores from the two modalities also evidenced highly similar patterns of associations with external criteria. Notably, tablet administration of the MMPI-2-RF was substantially longer than laptop administration in the present study (mean difference 7.2 minutes, Cohen's d = .95). Overall, results suggest that varying administration mode between laptop and tablet has a negligible influence on MMPI-2-RF scores, providing evidence that these modes of administration can be considered psychometrically equivalent.

Utility of the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in Detection of Simulated Underreporting: Implications of Incorporating a Manipulation Check.

We examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) underreporting Validity Scales in a simulation design with a sample of 257 undergraduate college students. Extending past research by Sellbom and Bagby, we added a manipulation check to determine whether individuals complied with instructions to underreport and examined the impact of underreporting on all of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales. Results indicated that individuals who complied with instructions to underreport produced statistically significantly and meaningfully higher scores on the MMPI-2-RF underreporting Validity Scales (Uncommon Virtues [L-r] and Adjustment Validity [K-r]) when compared with those who received standard instructions and with individuals who did not comply with instructions to underreport. Moreover, in comparisons with both groups, participants who complied with instructions to underreport had lower scores on the majority of the substantive scales. L-r and K-r added incremental predictive utility (in reference to one another) in differentiating individuals who underreported from individuals who were given standard instructions.

The Generalizability of Overreporting Across Self-Report Measures: An Investigation With the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form and the Personality Assessment Inventory in a Civil Disability Sample.

Elevated overreporting Validity Scale scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) are associated with higher scores on collateral measures; however, measures used in prior research lacked validity scales. We sought to extend these findings by examining associations between elevated MMPI-2-RF overreporting scale scores and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scale scores among 654 non-head injury civil disability claimants. Individuals were classified as overreporting psychopathology (OR-P), overreporting somatic/cognitive complaints (OR-SC), inconclusive reporting psychopathology (IR-P), inconclusive reporting somatic/cognitive complaints (IR-SC), or valid reporting (VR). Both overreporting groups had significantly and meaningfully higher scores than the VR group on the MMPI-2-RF and PAI scales. Both IR groups had significantly and meaningfully higher scores than the VR group, as well as lower scores than their overreporting counterparts. Our findings demonstrate the utility of inventories with validity scales in assessment batteries that include instruments without measures of protocol validity.

Embedded effort scales in the repeatable battery for the assessment of neuropsychological status: do they detect neurocognitive malingering?

The current study examined two embedded response bias measures in the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS), the Effort Index (EI) and Effort Scale (ES), in relation to Malingered Neurocognitive Dysfunction criteria. We examined 105 individuals undergoing compensation-seeking disability evaluations. The results suggest the EI adequately differentiates the Probable/Definite Malingering group from the Incentive Only and Possible Malingering groups, while the ES does not, which is most likely representative of the current sample of disability litigants rather than its intended population of patients with amnesia. Classification accuracy statistics suggest that while the EI may not be an appropriate stand-alone measure in detecting neurocognitive malingering, it shows utility as a complementary or screening measure in forensic settings.

Can brief measures effectively screen for pain and somatic malingering? Examination of the Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire and Pain Disability Index.

BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Recent rise in fraudulent disability claims in the United States has resulted in psychologists being increasingly called upon to use psychological tests to determine whether disability claims based on psychological or somatic/pain complaints are legitimate. PURPOSE: To examine two brief measures, Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire (MSPQ) and the Pain Disability Index (PDI), and their ability to screen for malingering in relation to the Bianchini et al. criteria for malingered pain-related disability published in The Spine Journal (2005). STUDY DESIGN: Examined brief self-report measures between litigating and nonlitigating pain samples. PATIENT SAMPLE: We compared 144 disability litigants, predominantly presenting a history of musculoskeletal injuries with psychiatric overlay, with 167 nonlitigating pain patients who were predominantly in treatment for chronic back pain issues and other musculoskeletal conditions. OUTCOME MEASURES: Modified Somatic Perception Questionnaire, Pain Disability Index, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form, Test of Memory Malingering, Letter Memory Test, Victoria Symptom Validity Test, Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-second edition, Structured Clinical Interview for Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders somatoform disorders module. METHODS: We examined a sample of 144 individuals undergoing compensation-seeking evaluations in relation to 167 nonlitigating pain patients. RESULTS: Group differences on both the MSPQ and PDI were calculated, as well as sensitivities, specificities, and positive and negative predictive powers for both measures at selected cutoffs. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that both the MSPQ and PDI are useful to screen for pain malingering in forensic evaluations, especially the MSPQ, which performed the best in differentiating between the groups.

It's not all in your head (or at least your brain): association of traumatic brain lesion presence and location with performance on measures of response bias in forensic evaluation.

This study examined the relationship between lesion presence and localization and performance on measures of cognitive response bias, specifically in individuals purporting to have a traumatic brain injury. Ninety-two participants, all of whom were involved in workers' compensation or personal injury litigation, were administered an extensive neuropsychological battery, including neuroimaging (magnetic resonance imaging and computed tomography), at a neuropsychiatric clinic in Lexington, KY. Those with evidence of intracranial injury on neuroimaging findings were placed in the head injury lesion litigation group and were coded based on the anatomical location and type of intracranial injury. Results demonstrated no significant relationships between lesion location and performance on performance validity tests (PVTs), as well as the Response Bias Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form. Given the lack of research concerning lesions and performance validity tests, this study addresses important questions about the validity of PVTs as specific measures of response bias in patients who have structural changes secondary to traumatic brain injury.