The incremental validity and clinical utility of the MMPI-2 infrequency posttraumatic stress disorder scale

The incremental validity and clinical utility of the recently developed Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Infrequency Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale (Fptsd) was examined in relation to the family of MMPI-2 F scales in distinguishing feigned post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from disability claimants with PTSD. Research participants instructed to feign PTSD when completing the MMPI-2 scored significantly higher on the MMPI-2 family of F scales and the Fptsd scale compared with their responses when completing the MMPI-2 under standard instructions and the sample of claimants with PTSD. Although comparable in magnitude, effect sizes derived from mean group differences and hierarchical logistic regressions for the Fptsd scale never exceeded those for F(B), and F(P), F, F(B), and F(P) added incrementally to Fptsd in the prediction of feigned PTSD. These results suggest that the Fptsd scale does not afford any incremental predictive utility for detecting feigned PTSD relative to the complement of the existing family of F scales.     

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.     

An MMPI-2 scale to detect malingered depression (Md scale)

A specialized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity scale was constructed to detect individuals who are knowledgeable about either depression or MMPI-2 detection strategies and who subsequently attempt to malinger depressive symptoms on the MMPI-2. The Malingered Depression (Md) scale consists of 32 items that discriminated college students who feigned depression from those who were genuinely depressed. Further information about the incremental validity and the utility of the Md scale was obtained in a cross-validation study with additional college students who feigned depression and a sample of students with clinically significant depressive symptoms. The results indicate that the Md scale possesses promising value in detecting malingered symptoms of depression.     

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.     

Detection of overreported psychopathology with the MMPI-2-RF [corrected] validity scales

We examined the utility of the validity scales on the recently released Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2 RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) to detect overreported psychopathology. This set of validity scales includes a newly developed scale and revised versions of the original MMPI-2 validity scales. We used an analogue, experimental simulation in which MMPI-2 RF responses (derived from archived MMPI-2 protocols) of undergraduate students instructed to overreport psychopathology (in either a coached or noncoached condition) were compared with those of psychiatric inpatients who completed the MMPI-2 under standardized instructions. The MMPI-2 RF validity scale Infrequent Psychopathology Responses best differentiated the simulation groups from the sample of patients, regardless of experimental condition. No other validity scale added consistent incremental predictive utility to Infrequent Psychopathology Responses in distinguishing the simulation groups from the sample of patients. Classification accuracy statistics confirmed the recommended cut scores in the MMPI-2 RF manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008).     

Detection of Feigned Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Comparison of the MMPI-2 and PAI

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) were compared for detecting feigned posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in a simulation research design. Participants were 85 undergraduates in one of three groups: PTSDs (n = 23), Fakers (n = 31), and Controls (n = 31). As expected, both the MMPI-2 and PAI discriminated PTSDs and Controls, with PTSDs scoring significantly higher on fake-bad validity scales and PTSD-relevant clinical scales. However, only the MMPI-2 discriminated Fakers and PTSDs, with Fakers scoring significantly higher on all MMPI-2 scales considered, but on only one PAI scale. Further, in logistic regression analyses the MMPI-2 demonstrated higher overall correct classification of PTSDs and Fakers than did the PAI. Although the MMPI-2 outperformed the PAI in detecting feigned PTSD, a substantial proportion of Fakers avoided detection by MMPI-2 fake-bad validity scales, suggesting that both tests are vulnerable to feigning of PTSD by motivated respondents with relatively limited coaching.     

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.     

MMPI-2 assessment of malingered emotional distress related to a workplace injury: a mixed group validation

In this study, we examined the capacity of MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 2001) validity indexes to identify malingered depression associated with a workplace injury. We compared 27 graduate students simulating depression with archival records of 33 inpatients diagnosed with major depressive disorder. We employed a mixed-group validation design to generate true positive rates (TPR) and false positive rates (FPR) for the various MMPI-2 validity scales [F, FB, F(p), FBS, F - K, Ds2] while we accounted for base rates of malingering in each sample. The Fake Bad scale (FBS) was the only validity measure that produced acceptable TPR and FPR or a significant correlation with malingering status.     

Assessing depression with the MMPI and MMPI-2

The usefulness of the MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1951 ) and MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) for diagnosing and assessing symptomatic depression has been the subject of considerable debate for a number of years. In this article, we review the relative contributions of the MMPI and MMPI-2 clinical and content scales in predicting depression. Positive predictive power, negative predictive power, and overall classification rate were computed for Scale 2 (D) of the MMPI and MMPI-2 and the Depression content scale (DEP) of the MMPI-2. Scale 2 (D) of both the MMPI and MMPI-2 appears to be moderately accurate in predicting depression. Although some studies suggest that the content scale DEP provides incremental validity over Scale 2 (D) of the MMPI-2, the results of this review indicate that the content scale DEP of the MMPI-2 does not exceed the diagnostic efficiency of Scale 2 in predicting depression.     

Development and validation of the Malingering Discriminant Function Index for the MMPI-2

The predictive capacity of the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) "fake-bad" validity scales (F, FB, and FP) is diminished when respondents have knowledge (i.e., coached) about the operating characteristics of these scales. In this investigation, we endeavored to develop a MMPI-2 fake bad validity index that would be less vulnerable to validity-scale knowledge. Applying discriminant function procedures, we derived a set of weighted Clinical and Content scales that reliably distinguished large samples of validity-scale coached undergraduate research participants instructed to feign mental illness (n = 534) from psychiatric patient samples (n = 590). We subsequently validated this Malingering Discriminant Function Index (M-DFI) in independent samples of research participants (n = 230) and patients (n = 300) and showed relatively less attenuation in predictive capacity compared with F, FB, and FP across uncoached and validity scale coached feigning conditions.     

Utility of the Deceptive-Subtle Items in the Detection of Malingering

The aim of this study was to assess the capacity of a recently developed set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) subtle items-the Deceptive-Subtle scale (DS)-to detect fake-bad responding on the MMPI-2, relative to the capacity of the F scale and the sum of obvious items (Ob) and sum of subtle items (Su) scales. The MMPI-2 was administered to a sample of research participants asked to fake-bad (n = 74), and compared to psychiatric outpatients (n = 100) and nonclinical participants (n = 100) asked to respond honestly. Although the DS scale proved to be a better predictor of fake-bad response style than Su, and comparable to that of Ob, its predictive capacity was substantially less than that of F. Future research is needed to explore the potentially unique contribution of both DS and Ob to assess different strategies of faking-bad.     

Discriminating malingered from genuine civilian posttraumatic stress disorder: a validation of three MMPI-2 Infrequency scales (F, Fp, and Fptsd)

The Infrequency-Posttraumatic Stress Disorder scale (Fptsd), recently created for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), has demonstrated incremental validity over other MMPI-2 scales in malingered posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) detection. Fptsd was developed with combat-exposed PTSD patients, potentially limiting its use with PTSD patients in general. The current study evaluated the MMPI-2's F, Infrequency-Psychopathology scale (Fp), and Fptsd scales in discriminating genuine civilian PTSD among 41 adult victims of child sexual abuse from a group of 39 students instructed to simulate PTSD. Analyses demonstrated Fptsd's incremental validity over F but not over Fp. Based on the two studies examining Fptsd, Fptsd may be more appropriate for combat trauma victims, and Fp may be more appropriate for civilian trauma victims.     

A comparison of the MCMI-III personality disorder and modifier indices with the MMPI-2 clinical and validity scales

In this study, we examined the relationship of the MCMI-III (Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997; Millon, Millon, & Davis, 1994) modifier indices and personality disorder scales to the validity and basic clinical scales of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). The MCMI-III modifier indices highly correlated with all of the MMPI-2 validity scales except for the F(p) scale. Similarly, the MCMI-III personality disorder scales strongly covaried with the MMPI-2 validity and clinical scales except for the F(p) and 5 (Mf) scales. A factor analysis with Promax rotation revealed substantial relationships between the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III. However, the MMPI-2 F(p) scale did not tend to correlate with MMPI-2 or MCMI-III scales, indicating that F(p) scale variance was largely independent of other scales. The results suggest that clinicians should consider the interrelationship between personality characteristics and dissimulation.     

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.     

Further validation of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Response Bias Scale: findings from disability and criminal forensic settings

The present study extends the validation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Response Bias Scale (RBS; R. O. Gervais, Y. S. Ben-Porath, D. B. Wygant, & P. Green, 2007) in separate forensic samples composed of disability claimants and criminal defendants. Using cognitive symptom validity tests as response bias indicators, the RBS exhibited large effect sizes (Cohen's ds = 1.24 and 1.48) in detecting cognitive response bias in the disability and criminal forensic samples, respectively. The scale also added incremental prediction to the traditional MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF overreporting validity scales in the disability sample and exhibited excellent specificity with acceptable sensitivity at cutoffs ranging from 90T to 120T. The results of this study indicate that the RBS can add uniquely to the existing MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detecting symptom exaggeration associated with cognitive response bias.     

MMPI-2 Content Scale Validity Within a Sample of Chronic Pain Patients

The concurrent, criterion-related and discriminant validity of four of the MMPI-2 content scales were examined within a population of 309 patients being evaluated for the treatment of chronic pain. Utilizing both self-report and therapist-derived criteria, the MMPI-2 content scales designed to assess symptoms of anxiety (ANX), depression (DEP), low self-esteem (LSE), and anger (ANG) demonstrated the ability to provide valid information beyond that provided by the traditional MMPI-2 clinical and validity indices. Further, a multi-trait/multi-method analytic approach revealed; (1) strong discriminant validity for the ANG content scale and (2) substantial variance overlap among all the self-report measures of subjective distress, compromising our efforts to evaluate the discriminant validity of the ANX, DEP, and LSE content scales.     

Effectiveness of the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales for Feigned Mental Disorders and Cognitive Impairment: A Known-Groups Study

The MMPI and MMPI-2 validity scales have long been accepted as standard tools in the assessment of feigned mental disorders (FMD) based on their extensive empirical validation. Studies are now examining MMPI-2-RF with modified validity scales plus the new Infrequent Somatic Responses Scale (F_S) and the recently-adapted Response Bias Scale (RBS). The current investigation used a known-groups design to examine the effectiveness of the MMPI-2-RF for differentiating FMD and feigned cognitive impairment (FCI) from patients with genuine disorders for a large civil forensic sample. Criterion measures included the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-2 (SIRS-2) for the FMD group, and below-chance performances on the Victoria Symptom Validity Test (VSVT) and the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) for the FCI group. For FMD, both F-r and F_P-r produced very large effect sizes (ds > 2.00). Moreover, the absence of severe elevations (≥80 T) on F-r proved effective at ruling-out most FMD. For the current study, a F_P-r cut score ≥90 T for FMD produced virtually no false-positives (0.01) and only a moderate level of false-alarms. As predicted by its detection strategies, most MMPI-2-RF validity scales have limited effectiveness with the FCI group. However, FBS-r and RBS may be useful in conjunction with other clinical data for ruling out FCI for genuine neuropsychological consults. An entirely separate concern is whether certain diagnostic groups, such as major depression, will have marked elevations on MMPI-2-RF scales thereby increasing the likelihood of false-positives. On this point, F_P-r performed exceptionally well with unelevated scores (Ms < 55 T) consistently across diagnostic categories.     

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.     

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.     

Malingering as a categorical or dimensional construct: the latent structure of feigned psychopathology as measured by the SIRS and MMPI-2

The 6 nonoverlapping primary scales of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) were subjected to taxometric analysis in a group of 1,211 criminal and civil examinees in order to investigate the latent structure of feigned psychopathology. Both taxometric procedures used in this study, mean above minus below a cut (MAMBAC) and maximum covariance (MAXCOV), produced dimensional results. A subgroup of participants (n = 711) with valid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) protocols were included in a second round of analyses in which the 6 nonoverlapping primary scales of the SIRS and the Infrequency (F), Infrequency-Psychopathology (Fp), and Dissimulation (Ds) scales of the MMPI-2 served as indicators. Again, the results were more consistent with dimensional latent structure than with taxonic latent structure. On the basis of these findings, it is concluded that feigned psychopathology forms a dimension (levels of fabrication or exaggeration) rather than a taxon (malingering-honest dichotomy) and that malingering is a quantitative distinction rather than a qualitative one. The theoretical and clinical practice implications of these findings are discussed.