Abstract

Individuals who are motivated to feign psychological problems to achieve a desired outcome (e.g., insanity defense) may overreport symptoms of psychopathology, with type of pathology being dependent on the setting. In the current investigation, we examined the utility of the overreporting validity scales (infrequent responses [F-r], infrequent psychopathology responses [FP-r], infrequent somatic responses [Fs], and symptom validity [FBS-r]) on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (Ben-Porath and Tellegen 2008) to detect research participants instructed to simulate one of three mental disorders: major depressive disorder (MDD), schizophrenia (SCH), or post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The restructured clinical (RC) and overreporting validity scale scores of bona fide psychiatric patients with a primary diagnosis of either MDD, SCH, or PTSD were compared to two groups of simulators—naive (i.e., undergraduate students with no training in mental disorders) and sophisticated (i.e., individuals with advanced training in psychopathology or personal experience with the disorder asked to overreport symptoms). Examination of the RC Scale profiles revealed that the sophisticated simulators produced symptom profiles more similar to the profiles of the psychiatric patients than did the naive simulators. For the overreporting validity scales, the sophisticated simulators were less likely to be detected as feigning compared to the naive simulators; overall, the validity scales were able to distinguish patients from simulators and accurately classify most of the simulators regardless of their level of “symptom” sophistication. Examination and comparison of the validity scales revealed that across disorders and level of research participant symptom sophistication, the FP-r scale best differentiated simulators from patients.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call