Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Validity Scales Research Articles

Comparing the Ability of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales to Detect Feigning: A Meta-Analysis.

Several meta-analyses of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) have examined these instruments' ability to detect symptom exaggeration or feigning. However, limited research has directly compared whether the scales across these two instruments are equally effective. This study used a moderated meta-analysis to compare 109 MMPI-2 and 41 MMPI-2-RF feigning studies, 83 (56.46%) of which were not included in previous meta-analyses. Although there were differences between the two test versions, with most MMPI-2 validity scales generating larger effect sizes than the corresponding MMPI-2-RF scales, these differences were not significant after controlling for study design and type of symptoms being feigned. Additional analyses showed that the F and Fp-r scales generated the largest effect sizes in identifying feigned psychiatric symptoms, while the FBS and RBS were better at detecting exaggerated medical symptoms. The findings indicate that the MMPI-2 validity scales and their MMPI-2-RF counterparts were similarly effective in differentiating genuine responders from those exaggerating or feigning psychiatric and medical symptoms. These results provide reassurance for the use of both the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF in settings where symptom exaggeration or feigning is likely. Findings are discussed in the context of the recently released MMPI-3.

Detection of feigned posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2).

This study synthesized the results of 22 studies (N = 3,912) of feigned posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms that used the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Robust variance estimation was used to analyze variables that affected the accuracy of scales used to detect feigned symptoms. The FB scale (g = 1.60), the Obvious-Subtle scale (g = 1.57), and the Gough Dissimulation Index (F-K; g = 1.56) produced very large effect sizes after controlling for study design. Large and significant effect sizes were also observed for the F scale (g = 1.46), the FP scale (g = 1.43), and the Ds scale (g = 1.39). The findings of this study suggest that the MMPI-2 validity scales are useful for identifying individuals who are exaggerating or fabricating psychological symptoms. However, there were differences across validity scales and study designs, with some scales demonstrating stronger performances than others. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

S138. A PRELIMINARY STUDY ON ILLNESS INSIGHT MEASURED BY THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ERN PATTERNS AND MMPI RESULTS IN PATIENTS WITH SCHIZOPHRENIA

BackgroundThe error-related negativity (ERN) is an event-related brain potential waveform peaking about 50 ms after error commission in choice-response tasks and may indicate a conflict between neural representations of correct and incorrect responses as stimulus processing continues after an error. Most previous studies consistently reported a reduced event-related potential (ERP) amplitude in patients with schizophrenia compared with normal controls. Some self-report measures derived from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) are known to be associated with clinical observations in carefully diagnosed schizophrenia patients. In the MMPI, an elevation of the validity scales in the MMPI best distinguishes patients with schizophrenia from patients feigning schizophrenia, and the MMPI validity scales are known to provide a good reflection of illness insight in schizophrenia.Both the amplitudes of the Pe of the ERN and the scores of the MMPI validity scales are supposed to reflect, directly or indirectly, the illness insight of patients with schizophrenia.When the abovementioned results obtained in studies on the ERN or MMPI in patients with schizophrenia are taken together, we may presume that a certain relationship exists between the results of the ERN and the MMPI validity scales in terms of illness insight.Interestingly, as far as we know, there are no published studies that looked at the results of the ERN and the MMPI at the same time.We tried to perform an integrative examination of the relationship between the results of the ERN and MMPI tests in patients with schizophrenia as a method of measuring illness insight in patients with schizophrenia.MethodsWe reviewed the medical records of who were diagnosed as having schizophrenia based on the DSM-5.The protocol for the general ERP and ERN are as follows.64 channels with M1 and M2 as reference electrodesImpedance: < 1 kΩERN: 1000 msERPs were recorded while the patients were performing the Stroop test. Independently of the ERP recording, the patients received an MMPI test.The relationship between the latency and amplitude of the ERN and the demographic and clinical variables was analyzed by a t-test, and correlation analyses were used for categorical and continuous variables. The statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.ResultsOf the total 18 patients (8 men and 10 women; age = 41.6 ± 15.8) whose data were reviewed, 5 were excluded due to poor understanding of the ERN instructions.Table 1. Demographic and clinical information of participated patientswith schizophreniaTable 2. Partial correlation coefficients on variables after controlling for age and gender.DiscussionThe results for the association of ERN amplitude and latency with the MMPI validity scales showed that latency measures were positively associated with the MMPI validity scales that were related to the assessment of the overestimation of responses. Individuals who tended to exaggerate problems through over-responses showed increased ERN amplitude but decreased ERN Pe amplitude. Although caution is needed to interpret the results of this study due to limitations, our results suggest that ERP measurement could act as a biological marker for endophenotype in schizophrenia. Furthermore, ERP measurement might be used to visualize or to make concrete illness insight, which by its nature is difficult to measure objectively.ReferencesYeung N, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD. The neural basis of error detection: conflict monitoring and the error-related negativity. Psychol Rev. 2004 Oct;111(4):931–959.Kansal V, Patriciu I, Kiang M. Illness insight and neurophysiological error-processing deficits in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res. 2014 Jun;156(1):122–7.

Comparison of Four MMPI-2 Validity Scales in Identifying Invalid Neurocognitive Dysfunction in Traumatic Brain Injury Litigants

Four Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity scales, the F Scale, Symptom Validity Scale (FBS), Henry-Heilbronner Index (HHI), and Response Bias Scale (RBS), were evaluated in 60 personal injury litigants who sustained a traumatic brain injury (TBI). Based on a modified Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999) diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction and utilizing test-effort measures embedded in standard neuropsychological testing, a group of 23 patients with probable invalid neurocognitive dysfunction (PI) and a comparable group of 37 patients with noninvalid neurocognitive dysfunction were identified and compared with respect to their MMPI-2 validity scale scores. Logistic regression analyses, receiver-operating characteristic curve and area under the curve analyses, as well as sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value analyses all revealed that RBS performed better than F, FBS, and HHI in classifying PIs. The present results add to a number of recent studies that suggest that RBS is a useful predictor of symptom validity failure and probable neuropsychological malingering among litigating TBI patients. The study also encourages further research employing embedded test-effort measures in classifying invalid neurocognitive dysfunction per the Slick et al. diagnostic criteria.

Comparability of the MMPI-2 and PAI in third party reproduction psychological evaluation

To investigate the comparability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Personality Assessment Inventory's (PAI) validity, clinical, and personality subscales in a sample of gestational carrier (GC) applicants. Retrospective review of GC applicant psychological testing from 2009-2011. De-identified MMPI-2 and PAI subscale scores from N = 16 GC applicants. All mean scale scores on the clinical, validity, and personality scales of the measures were within normal limits. Further, no clinical scale scores were elevated above T = 64 on the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales of the MMPI-2 or the PAI. Elevations above T = 64 on MMPI-2 Clinical Scales 1 (Hs), 3 (Hy) and 9 (Ma) were found. Scores on two matching PAI (i.e., PIM, T = 62.25; and DEF, T = 64.06) and MMPI-2 (i.e., L, T = 60.93; and K, T = 63.38) validity scales were more than one standard deviation above the mean. Large correlations were found between PIM and L (r = .65) and multiple other PAI and MMPI-2 clinical and personality scales (e.g., PAI-SOM and RC1, r = .70; PAI-MAN and Clinical Scale 9, r = .62). There was no statistical difference between the number of PAI and MMPI-2 profiles with elevated validity scale scores. Finally, of the applicants who were not accepted into the GC program for psychological reasons, all profiles had validity and/or clinical scale score elevations on both measures. The MMPI-2 and PAI are two measures often utilized independently to assess response style and psychological symptomatology in GC applicants. A comparison of the measures did not find the expected relationships among all matching scales of the PAI and MMPI-2. However, the measures appear to consistently identify invalid responding. Use of both measures could provide greater understanding of applicant response style and symptomatology; however, the increased cost and time commitment may be prohibitive. The results of this study suggest that use of either measure alone is acceptable.

Validation of the MMPI-2 Response Bias Scale and Henry-Heilbronner Index in a U.S. Veteran Population

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) and the Henry-Heilbronner Index (HHI) are two recently developed Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity scales empirically derived for the purpose of detecting feigned symptom report. Utilizing a veteran sample, the present study examined the utility of these and other MMPI-2 validity scales in predicting Word Memory Test (WMT) failure and presence of recent, current, or upcoming compensation evaluation. Although a significant predictor of WMT performance, RBS did not show incremental validity over Infrequency scale of the MMPI-2 in prediction of WMT failure and was not significantly associated with membership in the "Compensation-Context" (CC) group. In contrast, HHI best predicted CC group membership, but only trended toward significance in predicting WMT failure. In predicting CC group membership, HHI showed incremental validity above the established MMPI-2 validity scales, but its specificity was low. In the context of current literature on RBS and HHI, results support continued use of RBS and HHI but suggest that these scales may perform differently in samples other than the compensation-seeking samples on which they were developed.

The Concurrent and Incremental Validity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory in Women Reporting Histories of Sexual Maltreatment

The Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI), Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), and Posttraumatic Diagnostic Scale (PDS) were administered to 71 women who reported histories of childhood and/or adult sexual maltreatment and 25 women who did not report a history of victimization. The TSI validity scales were not effective in identifying MMPI-2 defined invalid responding although were moderately related to MMPI-2 validity scales designed to identify similar response styles. In contrast, the TSI clinical scales displayed good convergent validity with conceptually related scales on the MMPI-2 and PDS. Also, the TSI added incrementally, albeit modestly, to the MMPI-2 in prediction of PDS defined PTSD.

Comparison of MMPI-2 Validity Scales Among Compensation-Seeking Caucasian and Asian American Medical Patients

Validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) are widely used for the detection of exaggerated psychological complaints, although little is known about the results of these scales with racial or ethnic minority individuals. Five validity scales derived from the MMPI-2, including the F Scale, the Back Infrequency Scale, the Symptom Validity Scale, the Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale, and the Dissimulation Scale-MMPI-2, were evaluated in 157 medical patients-109 Caucasian Americans and 48 Asian Americans. All patients were involved in personal injury litigation or seeking compensation for alleged psychological conditions. Analyses of variance (ANOVAs) conducted on the five validity scales revealed no significant group effects for race. The results were consistent with the limited available data on the MMPI-2 validity scales with minority group samples. Further research with other racial minorities, including relevant extra-test criteria for malingering, is encouraged.

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, F-sub(B), F-sub(p), 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, F-sub(B), and F-sub(p) scales were able to distinguish both the noncoached and the validity-scale-coached participants from the PTSD claimants. F, F-sub(B), and F-sub(p) always outperformed the ATR and FBS; neither the ATR nor the FBS was able to add incremental predictive variance to that of F, F-sub(B), or F-sub(p).

Utility of the Response Bias Scale (RBS) and other MMPI-2 validity scales in predicting TOMM performance

The present study represents a replication and extension of the original Response Bias Scale (RBS) validation study. In addition to examining the relationship between the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), RBS, and several other well-researched Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI-2) validity scales (i.e., F, Fb, Fp, and the Fake Bad Scale), the present study also included the recently developed Infrequency Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale and the Henry–Heilbronner Index (HHI) of the MMPI-2. Findings from this retrospective data analysis ( N = 46) demonstrated the superiority of the RBS, and to a certain extent the HHI, over other MMPI-2 validity scales in predicting TOMM failure within the outpatient Veterans Affairs population. Results of the current study confirm the clinical utility of the RBS and suggest that, particularly if the MMPI-2 is an existing part of the neuropsychological assessment, examination of RBS scores is an efficient means of detecting negative response bias.

MMPI-2 validity, clinical and content scales, and the Fake Bad Scale for personal injury litigants claiming idiopathic environmental intolerance

Background Idiopathic environmental intolerance (IEI) is a descriptor for nonspecific complaints that are attributed to environmental exposure. Methods The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI-2) was administered to 50 female and 20 male personal injury litigants alleging IEI. Results The validity scales indicated no overreporting of psychopathology. Half of the cases had elevated scores on validity scales suggesting defensiveness, and a large number had elevations on Fake Bad Scale (FBS) suggesting overreporting of unauthenticated symptoms. The average T-score profile for females was defined by the two-point code type 3-1 (Hysteria–Hypochondriasis), and the average T-score profile for males was defined by the three-point code type 3-1-2 (Hysteria, Hypochondriasis–Depression). On the content scales, Health Concerns (HEA) scale was significantly elevated. Conclusion Idiopathic environmental intolerance litigants ( a) are more defensive about expressing psychopathology, ( b) express distress through somatization, ( c) use a self-serving misrepresentation of exaggerated health concerns, and ( d) may exaggerate unauthenticated symptoms suggesting malingering.

The Relationship Among Malingering, Psychopathy, and the MMPI-2 Validity Scales in Maximum Security Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients

ABSTRACT The records of 392 men hospitalized in a maximum security forensic psychiatric hospital were reviewed. Demographic information was collected as well as data from the men's performance on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Prevalence rates for malingering were low across the sample. However, results of chi-square analysis revealed that those who scored high on the PCL-R received a diagnosis of malingering significantly more frequently than those who scored low on the PCL-R. Clinical applications and theoretical implications of the results are discussed.

Psychometric Perspectives on Detection of Malingering of Pain

Self-report plays a primary but not exclusive role in pain assessment. As is true of all self-reported experiences, under certain circumstances, the report of chronic pain can be distorted and misrepresented. There are unique challenges associated with the detection and assessment of malingering or self-report distortion in the evaluation of chronic pain. The current paper provides a rationale for the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) in the comprehensive assessment of chronic pain with an emphasis on the advantage the MMPI-2 provides in the detection of response bias or malingering. A critical review of available MMPI-2 validity scales is presented, and recommendations for use of these scales in the evaluation of patients with chronic pain are made.

Relationship Between Neuropsychological and Emotional Functioning in Severe Chronic Alcoholism

Previous studies of patients with severe chronic alcoholism have shown a high prevalence of emotional distress such as anxiety and depression, and neuropsychological impairments such as executive deficits, but few have examined the relationship between these disorders. We addressed this issue in 51 abstinent patients with histories of severe chronic alcoholism utilizing the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Halstead–Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery (HRNTB). Applying factor analysis to the MMPI clinical and validity scales, we derived four dimensions accounting for 78% of the available variance. We found that Factor 1, which loaded on most clinical scales of the MMPI, was significantly correlated (p <.01) with performance on the Halstead Category Test (HCT), a measure of executive functioning. Further, group analysis with MANOVA using HCT (impaired and nonimpaired) as the independent variable revealed a significant main effect for Factor 1 (p <.004), which was maintained and strengthened when age and education were controlled as covariates (p <.001). The results suggest a relationship between emotional distress and executive functioning as measured by the HCT, reflecting differing facets of frontal lobe dysfunction common to cognitive and affective domains in patients with severe chronic alcoholism.

The Predictive Capacity of the MMPI-2 and PAI Validity Scales and Indexes to Detect Coached and Uncoached Feigning

The objective of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales and indexes to detect malingering. Research participants were either informed (coached) or not informed (uncoached) about the presence and operating characteristics of the validity scales and instructed to fake bad on both the MMPI-2 and PAI. The validity scale and index scores produced by these research participants were then compared to those scores from a bona fide sample of psychiatric patients (n = 75). Coaching had no effect on the ability of the research participants to feign more successfully than those participants who received no coaching. For the MMPI-2, the Psychopathology F scale, or F(p), proved to be the best at distinguishing psychiatric patients from research participants instructed to malinger, although the other F scales (i.e., F and Fb) were also effective. For the PAI, the Rogers Discriminant Function index (RDF) was clearly superior to the other PAI fake-bad validity indicators; neither the Negative Impression Management scale nor Malingering Index were effective at detecting malingered profiles in this study. Overall, RDF proved to be marginally superior to F and F(p) in distinguishing MMPI-2 and PAI protocols produced by research participants asked to malinger and psychiatric patients. Both the RDF and the F and F(p) scales, however, were able to increase the predictive capability of one another.

The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims.

In this study research participants completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) under standard instructions and then were asked to fake posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when completing the MMPI-2 for a 2nd time in 1 of 4 conditions with different instructions on how to fake PTSD: (a) uncoached, (b) coached about PTSD symptom information, (c) coached about MMPI-2 validity scales, or (d) coached about both symptoms and validity scales. These MMPI-2 protocols were then compared with protocols of claimants with workplace accident-related PTSD. Participants given information about the validity scales were the most successful in avoiding detection as faking. The family of F scales (i.e., F, FB, FP), particularly FP, produced consistently high rates of positive and negative predictive power.

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 (MMPI-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.

Using IRT to separate measurement bias from true group differences on homogeneous and heterogeneous scales: an illustration with the MMPI.

The authors present a didactic illustration of how item response theory (IRT) can be used to separate measurement bias from true group differences on homogeneous and heterogeneous scales. Several bias detection methods are illustrated with 12 unidimensional Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) factor scales (Waller, 1999) and the 13 multidimensional MMPI validity and clinical scales. The article begins with a brief review of MMPI bias research and nontechnical reviews of the 2-parameter logistic model (2-PLM) and several IRT-based methods for bias detection. A goal of this article is to demonstrate that homogeneous and heterogeneous scales that are composed of biased items do not necessarily yield biased test scores. To that end, the authors perform differential item- and test-functioning analyses on the MMPI factor, validity, and clinical scales using data from 511 Blacks and 1,277 Whites from the California Youth Authority.

A Racial Comparison of Combat Veterans Evaluated for PTSD

This study attempted to replicate the work of Frueh, Smith, and Libet (1996), which showed racial differences on psychological measures of dissociation/thought disturbance and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) F-K index in combat veterans evaluated for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Veterans completed the Beck Depression Inventory, Mississippi Scale for Combat-Related PTSD, a fixed-response format version of the Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES-FRF), and MMPI-2 prior to treatment at a Veterans Affairs hospital outpatient PTSD clinic. Contrary to expectation, significant racial differences on the DES-FRF, MMPI-2 validity scales, and MMPI-2 Scales 6 and 8 were not found. Consistent with the previous study, no racial differences on measures of anxiety, depression, or PTSD symptomatology were found; nor were there racial differences on clinician ratings of global assessment of functioning or on most categories of psychiatric diagnoses. This suggests that Black and White combat veterans evaluated for PTSD do not differ with regard to reported manifestation or severity of psychopathology.

Can psychosis be malingered on the Rorschach? An empirical study.

Can psychosis be faked on the Rorschach? We examined this question by comparing 2 groups of subjects with a high incentive to malinger, persons accused of serious crimes. All subjects were administered both the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and the Rorschach and were assigned to honest (N = 35) and malingered (N = 13) groups on the basis of MMPI validity scales. The Rorschach protocols of these 2 groups were compared to assess how successfully malingerers could deliberately produce records that appeared psychotic on empirically derived Rorschach indices of psychosis. Despite an attempt to portray themselves as psychotic on the MMPI, subjects in the malingered group did not differ from honest responders on Rorschach variables that distinguish psychotic from nonpsychotic patients, but did differ in the number of dramatic responses produced. Our data suggest that the combination of the MMPI and Rorschach provides a powerful psychometric technique for detecting deliberate malingering of psychosis.