ABSTRACT
Data from several clinical samples and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2 standardization group are presented to familiarize the reader with response patterns of different groups on a new validity scale designed to assist in the identification of exaggeration or fabrication of psychological disturbance. Sensitivity-specificity analyses are included along with suggestions for use of the F(p) Scale with other validity scales. Cautions about setting single cutoff scores are also discussed.
Subject(s)
Forensic Psychiatry , MMPI , Malingering/diagnosis , Female , Humans , Male , Reproducibility of Results , Sensitivity and SpecificityABSTRACT
We examined random responding on the MMPI-A in 106 adolescents from the general population. Participants were asked to report on the frequency, location, and reasons for any random responses occurring during a standard administration of the MMPI-A. Relationships between self-reported random responding and validity indices (F1, F2, F, and Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN] scale) were examined. In addition, each participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups, with each group completing an assigned portion (0, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%) of an MMPI-A answer sheet without access to the test booklet, and the utility of the validity scales in discriminating standard protocols from all or partially random protocols was investigated. Most adolescents acknowledged one or more random responses correlated significantly with F but not VRIN. Validity scales were sensitive to all or partially random protocols, and produced high classification rates when discriminating among groups.
ABSTRACT
We investigated the effects of information about validity scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) on underreporting of symptoms in a college student population. A group of participants completing the PAI under the standard instructions was compared to two groups of participants who had been instructed and given incentives to underreport symptoms. One of the underreporting groups was given a brief warning about the presence of scales designed to detect respondents attempting to present an unrealistically favorable impression. Results suggested that underreporting scales on the PAI are effective in discriminating standard profiles from those completed by uncoached underreporting participants but are less effective in discriminating standard profiles from those produced by participants who have been warned about the underreporting scales. The findings suggest that coaching may enable some respondents to underreport symptoms without detection.
ABSTRACT
We compared Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) results from 2 groups of mildly to moderately disturbed psychiatric outpatients (N=60) answering under either Standard or Cry for Help instructions. Results from previously completed intake MMPI-2 protocols were obtained for each participant. The two groups were comparable on intake MMPI-2 variables and demographic characteristics. Analysis of feedback data from the second, experimental observation indicated that the two groups had equivalent self-estimates of understanding of their role and success in simulating their role. Significant differences were found between the two groups on their experimental MMPI-2 protocols. The Cry for Help group had significantly higher scores on F, F-K, Fb, Ds2, and Fp scales as well as significantly lower scorns on the K scale. The Cry for Help group also had significantly higher scores on all clinical scales with the exception of 5, which was not tested. Cutting scores derived by Rogers, Sewell, and Ustad (1995) for the detection of a Cry for Help in outpatients were cross-validated with fairly positive results. Although these results are promising, particularly in light of the shrinkage expected on cross-validation, further research is needed in this area.
