Effect of symptom information and validity scale information on the malingering of depression on the MMPI-2

MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) data from college students who were attempting to malinger depression (199 women and 171 men) were compared to MMPI-2 data from students who responded honestly (50 women and 45 men). Mean MMPI-2 scores were compared with analyses of variance, and students' success in malingering depression was evaluated with criteria based on cutting scores for validity indexes and on the clinical scales commonly associated with depression. Students who were given information about the validity scales or about the symptoms of depression were more successful at malingering than students who received no information, indicating that malingerers of depression may be able to elude detection by the MMPI-2 if they are informed about the validity scales or the symptoms of depression.     

Cross-validation of the MMPI-2 in detecting malingered posttraumatic stress disorder

We attempted to cross-validate findings from a previous study (Elhai, Gold, Sellers, & Dorfman, in press) using a clinical sample of combat-related war veterans to distinguish genuine from malingered posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). The MMPI-2 scores of 124 male combat war veterans at the PTSD outpatient treatment program of a Veterans Affairs Medical Center were compared with those of 84 adult college students instructed and trained to malinger PTSD. MMPI-2 overreporting variables examined were F, F-Fb, F-K, F(p), Ds2, O-S, OT, and FBS. A stepwise discriminant analysis identified F. F-Fb, F-K, Ds2, O-S, and OT as the best malingering predictors. A predictive discriminant analysis yielded good hit rates for the model with impressive cross-validation results. We assessed cutting scores for the predictors of the model. We discuss clinical implications for using the MMPI-2 to distinguish malingered PTSD from combat-related PTSD.     

Evading detection on the MMPI-2: does caution produce more realistic patterns of responding?

Studies on MMPI and MMPI-2 malingering indexes often sacrifice generalizability in an attempt to control internal validity. This study improves external validity while still maintaining internal validity by providing graduate student participants with a realistic context for malingering on the MMPI-2 (n=94) and MMPI (n=30). Contextual parameters include a realistic life predicament, psychological knowledge, an incentive, the presence versus absence of a specific diagnosis, and a caution to be realistic. This study found that cautioning participants not to overexaggerate their responses significantly improves their ability to evade detection on the MMPI-2 and MMPI. Standard malingering indexes (Infrequency, F; Back Side, F, Fb; F-Correction, F-K; and Infrequency-Psychopathology, F(p)) were insufficiently sensitive in identifying simulators using common cutoff scores for these cautious simulators.     

Detection of feigned mental disorders: a meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering

The validity of test data from multiscale inventories is dependent on self-reports that may be easily distorted by malingering. In examining the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2's (MMPI-2) role in the assessment of feigning, this review provides a conceptual analysis of the detection strategies underlying the MMPI-2 validity scales. The conceptual analysis is augmented by comprehensive meta-analysis of 65 MMPI-2 feigning studies plus 11 MMPI-2 diagnostic studies. For the rare-symptoms strategy, Fp (Cohen's d = 2.02) appears especially effective across diagnostic groups; its cut scores evidence greater consistency than most validity indicators. The data supported the F as an effective scale but questioned the routine use of Fb. Among the specialized scales, Ds appeared especially useful because of its sophisticated strategy, consistent cut score, and minimalfalse-positives. General guidelines are offeredfor specific MMPI-2 validity scales in the assessment of malingering with specific diagnoses.     

The utility of the MMPI-2 malingering discriminant function index in the detection of malingering: a study of criminal defendants

This study examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2's (MMPI-2) malingering discriminant function index (M-DFI), recently developed by Bacchiochi and Bagby, in the detection of malingering in a forensic sample. Criminal defendants were divided into "malingering" and "not malingering" groups using the structured interview of reported symptoms (SIRS) criteria proposed by Rogers. Logistic regression analysis (LRA) revealed that the MMPI-2 infrequency (F) scale had the best predictive utility of the traditional infrequency scales. Although the M-DFI did significantly differentiate the malingering from the not malingering groups, it did not add significantly to the predictive utility of the MMPI-2 F scale. Receiver operating characteristics analyses demonstrated acceptable sensitivity and specificity for the MMPI-2 F scale, but poor sensitivity for the M-DFI scale. The results are discussed in terms of the utility of the M-DFI in detecting malingering and problems of extending the findings of simulation studies to the forensic context.     

Development and validation of a Response Bias Scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2

This study describes the development of a Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) scale designed to detect negative response bias in forensic neuropsychological or disability assessment settings. The Response Bias Scale (RBS) consists of 28 MMPI-2 items that discriminated between persons who passed or failed the Word Memory Test (WMT), Computerized Assessment of Response Bias (CARB), and/or Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in a sample of 1,212 nonhead-injury disability claimants. Incremental validity of the RBS was evaluated by comparing its ability to detect poor performance on four separate symptom validity tests with that of the F and F(P) scales and the Fake Bad Scale (FBS). The RBS consistently outperformed F, F(P), and FBS. Study results suggest that the RBS may be a useful addition to existing MMPI-2 validity scales and indices in detecting symptom complaints predominantly associated with cognitive response bias and overreporting in forensic neuropsychological and disability assessment settings.     

The validity and clinical utility of the MMPI-2 Malingering Depression scale

In this study, we examined the validity and clinical utility of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Graham, Tellegen, Dahlstrom, & Kaemmer, 2001) Malingering Depression scale (Md) in relation to the MMPI-2 F scales (F, F(B), F(P)) to detect feigned depression. Overall, the F(B) scale and the F/F(P) scale combination were the best single predictors, although the Md scale did discriminate successfully cases of feigned depression from patients with bona fide depression. The Md scale added predictive capacity over the F scales, and the F(B) scale and the F/F(P) scale combination added predictive capacity over the Md scale; however, the actual increase in the number of cases predicted was minimal in each instance. In sum, although the Md scale is able to detect accurately feigned depression on the MMPI-2 (predictive validity), it does not confer a distinct advantage (incremental validity) over the existing standard validity scales-F, F(B), and F(P).     

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.     

Validity rates of the MMPI-2 and PAI in a rural inpatient psychiatric facility

This study examines the validity rates of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) profiles in a rural inpatient population. The validity scales of 90 MMPI-2 and 90 PAI profiles were analyzed using published criteria for determining validity. Random responding, positive impression management, and negative impression management were also evaluated. The PAI had a higher number of valid profiles compared with the MMPI-2. Evidence suggests the primary source of the invalid profiles within the MMPI-2 is a higher level of endorsement of relatively rare statements. The substitution of the Infrequency-Psychopathology scale (Fp) for the Infrequency scale (F) on the MMPI-2 substantially reduced the number of invalid profiles. Contrary to expectations, the PAI did not demonstrate lower levels of invalid profiles due to random responding. Rates of invalid profiles for each scale are provided.     

Can the MMPI-2 validity scales detect depression feigned by experts?

Major depression is one of the most frequently presented disorders for claims of psychiatric disability. Evidence also suggests that many individuals making claims of disability exaggerate or even fabricate mental illness. These facts suggest that the detection of feigned depression is an important task in psychiatric disability claim assessments. In this study, the capacity of a number of MMPI-2 validity scales and indicators to detect feigned depression was examined. Twenty-three mental health professionals with specific expertise and significant experience in assessing and treating major depression were asked to complete the MMPI-2 as if they were suffering from major depression. The MMPI-2 protocols of this sample were compared to those of a sample of patients diagnosed with major depression. Results indicated that the validity scales F, back F (FB), and the Dissimulation scale (Ds) were highly successful at distinguishing MMPI-2 protocols of feigned depression from bona fide depression. Replicating results from previous studies, however, FB proved most effective, outperforming all other validity scales and indicators, including F and Ds. These findings suggest that even experts are unable to feign major depression successfully on the MMPI-2, and that the FB scale might be the most effective indicator for detecting feigned depression.     

Diagnostic accuracy of the MMPI-2 Malingering Discriminant Function Index in the detection of malingering among inmates

The MMPI-2 Malingering Discriminant Function Index (M-DFI) was designed to detect malingerers educated about MMPI-2 validity indicators. However, given current attorney practices, the clinical utility of the M-DFI lies in its ability to detect examinees who are cautioned about the indicators. In this study, we compared 45 inmate simulators cautioned to avoid detection on the MMPI-2 with 46 psychiatric inmates who completed the MMPI-2 under standard instructions. Logistic regression analyses indicated that although the M-DFI performed better than several individual indicators, results were mixed for combinations of indicators, and the M-DFI did not outperform different sets of existing indicators. These findings support existing strategies to detect malingering on the MMPI-2. We discuss considerations concerning the clinical applicability of M-DFI.     

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.     

Validity rates of the Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 in a VA Medical Center Setting

In this study, we compared protocol validity rates between the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) in a veteran population. Veterans (N=472) were administered both instruments as part of routine psychological evaluations. Profile validity was based on previously published criteria. When applying primary validity indicators, inpatients produced significantly fewer invalid PAI profiles (37%) than MMPI-2 profiles (63%). We found similar results among outpatients for which we considered 47% of MMPI-2 profiles invalid compared to only 21% of PAI profiles. When applying both primary and supplementary validity indicators, both inpatients and outpatients continued to produce fewer invalid PAI profiles than MMPI-2 profiles. We discuss factors that may be related to the differences in validity rates.     

Psychopathy and malingering of psychiatric disorder in criminal defendants

Because the use of deception is an important clinical characteristic of psychopathy, there is intuitive appeal to the idea that psychopathy and malingering are associated. There is, however, very little research showing that psychopaths are more likely to malinger. We classified a sample of criminal defendants as high, moderate, or low in psychopathy, based on PCL-R scores, and compared their scores on indices typically used to detect malingering on the MMPI-2, the PAI and the SIRS. The high psychopathy group scored significantly higher on the MMPI-2 F and F-K; the PAI NIM, and the SIRS, but not the MMPI-2 Fb, F(p), or the PAI RDF or Mal, lending some support for the DSM-IV recommendation that malingering should be considered whenever there is a diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder. Logistic regression analysis (LGA) revealed that Factor I but not Factor II of the PCL-R significantly discriminated malingerers from nonmalingerers with 75% correct classification. However, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that psychopathy ratings had poor sensitivity and specificity in the detection of malingering. Calculation of the percentages of those exceeding accepted cut-offs on each of the malingering measures revealed that a high percentage of severe psychopaths did not attempt to feign psychiatric disorder. The results suggest that psychopathy is not a clinically useful indictor of malingering. The results are discussed in terms of confirmatory bias and the impact such a bias could have on the evaluation of criminal defendants.     

Maximizing internal and external validity in MMPI malingering research: a study of a military population

The authors investigated the effectiveness of various commonly used Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) indices of exaggeration and malingering in detecting suspected malingering in a military sample of 121 enlisted men. To maximize external validity, only men undergoing psychological evaluation were used as participants. Forty-one participants were identified as suspected malingerers through multiple criteria and were contrasted with schizophrenic-spectrum and clinic outpatient groups. To improve internal validity, the 41 suspected malingering participants were asked to retake the test without exaggerating. Results revealed that there were many false positives and fewer, but nonetheless many, false negatives with standard malingering indices. It appeared that the Gough Dissimulation scale (Gough, 1947) might hold the most promise as a measure of malingering, but other scales are also useful. Individual comparisons between different samples and implications for MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989) are presented.     

Classification accuracy of MMPI-2 validity scales in the detection of pain-related malingering: a known-groups study

The purpose of this study was to determine the accuracy of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2nd edition (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) validity indicators in the detection of malingering in clinical patients with chronic pain using a hybrid clinical-known groups/simulator design. The sample consisted of patients without financial incentive (n = 23), nonmalingering patients with financial incentive (n = 34), patients definitively determined to be malingering based on published criteria ( n = 32), and college students asked to simulate pain-related disability (n = 26). The MMPI-2 validity scales differentiated malingerers from nonmalingerers with a high degree of accuracy. Hypochondriasis and Hysteria were also effective. For all variables except Scale L, more extreme scores were associated with higher specificity. This study demonstrates that the MMPI-2 is capable of differentiating intentional exaggeration from the effects on symptom report of chronic pain, genuine psychological disturbance, and concurrent stress associated with pursuing a claim in a medico-legal context.     

The test validation summary

Common rates employed in classificatory testing are the true positive rate (TPR), false positive rate (FPR), positive predictive power (PPP), and negative predictive power (NPP). FPR and TPR are estimated from research samples representing populations to be distinguished by classificatory testing. PPP and NPP are used by clinicians to classify test takers into populations. PPP and NPP depend on the base rate (BR) of population members in the clinician's sample. The authors introduce the test validation summary (TVS) as a means to report within a single graph the FPR and TPR and the ranges of PPP and NPP across all potential sample BRs for any chosen cut score. The authors investigate how the TVS has other applications, including the estimation of local BR for the condition of interest and the estimation of standard errors for FPR and TPR when estimated across multiple independent validation studies of the classificatory test.     

Overreport on the MCMI-III: concurrent validation with the MMPI-2 using a psychiatric inpatient sample

The MCMI-III (Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997) is a widely used measure of personality often used in inpatient psychiatric settings. Although patients in such settings often overreport or exaggerate their symptoms, relatively little is known about how such a response set presents on the validity indexes of the MCMI-II. In this study, we used a sample of 191 psychiatric inpatients and compared MCMI-III modifier indices (Disclosure, Desirability, and Debasement) with the validity measures (L, F, Fb, F(p), K, and F - K) of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). In addition, the MCMI-III Disclosure Index (Scale X, which imposes a set cutoff score for invalidity due to overreport) was compared to several cutoff scores on the validity scales of the MMPI-2. Although the MCMI-III indexes generally performed as expected, the MCMI-III had a very high tolerance for overreport. When contrasted with MMPI-2 F scale, the MCMI-II Disclosure Index (which gauges overreport) remained valid until scores on MMPI-2 F scale approached a T score of 120. In addition, the Disclosure Index was at the upper end or slightly exceeded the highest recommended cutoff scores on all other MMPI-2 validity scales except F - K. Clinicians using the MCMI-III alone are cautioned to consider the high tolerance the MCMI-III has for overreport.     

Refinement of the MMPI-2 F(p) scale is not necessary: a response to Gass and Luis

Gass and Luis (2001) reported that four MMPI-2 Lie scale items contained on the F(p) scale do not measure symptom exaggeration but measure defensiveness. They hold that elimination of the four Lie scale items improves the utility of the F(p) scale in the identification of exaggeration in VA samples. To directly address the assertion that removal of the L scale items from the F(p) scale enhances the predictive validity of F(p), data derived from a previously published study where 74 psychiatric inpatients were asked to retake the MMPI-2 and either feign psychopathology or respond in an honest manner were reanalyzed. The intact F(p) scale demonstrated a stronger correlation with group membership, increased incremental validity, and superior classification rates compared with the F(p) scale without the 4 Lie scale items. Consequently, the F(p) refinement recommended by Gass and Luis is unnecessary.     

Profile validity standards for MMPI and MMPI-2 F scales

Although numerous indices of validity have been developed for the MMPI and MMPI-2, interest in the F scale and its variants continues, especially among practicing clinicians. The use of the binomial for assessing standards for random answering and possibly for judgments of malingering offers another approach for the interpretation of F-scale scores. The theoretical binomial distribution and Monte Carlo data are in accord. Cut-off scores of 24 for the MMPI and 23 for the MMPI-2 suggest random responses, and scores of 40 and 37, respectively, suggest clinical interpretation rather than randomness of responding.