Concordance between the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit-Adult (CAT-A) over-reporting validity scales for detecting invalid ADHD symptom reporting

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Sophie I. Leib ◽  
Christine Schieszler-Ockrassa ◽  
Daniel J. White ◽  
Virginia T. Gallagher ◽  
Dustin A. Carter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Adhd Symptom ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Symptom Reporting ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Adult Cat

A-177 Classification Statistics of the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit – Adult (CAT-A) Negative Impression Scale for ADHD Evaluations in an Active Duty Sample

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (6) ◽  
pp. 1232-1232
Author(s):  
Chad Grills ◽  
Douglas B Cooper ◽  
Jennifer M Yamashita ◽  
Patrick Armistead-Jehle
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Attention Deficit ◽  
Active Duty ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Symptom Validity ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Predictive Values ◽  
Adult Cat ◽  
Negative Impression ◽  
Symptom Validity Scales

Abstract Objective To evaluate the classification statistics of the Clinical Assessment of Attention Deficit – Adult (CAT-A) Negative Impression (NI) scale, relative to the MMPI-2-RF in an active duty military sample. We hypothesized that MMPI-2-RF RBS would have the largest AUC. Method Retrospective review of 108 active duty service members consecutively referred to neuropsychology for clinical ADHD evaluations in a Midwest Army Health Center. Cases with missing data (10) and failures of MMPI-2-RF response consistency scales (3) were removed from analysis, resulting in final sample of 95. Average age was 32.62 (SD = 8.87) and average education was 14.66 (SD = 2.66). MMPI-2-RF symptom validity scales (F-r, Fp-r, Fs, FBS-r, and RBS) were employed as criterion measures at all standard cut-offs to evaluate the CAT-A NI scale. Results ROC analyses for the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting symptom validity scales ranged from 0.599 to 0.808, with the MMPI-2-RF RBS scale >79 demonstrating the lowest AUC (0.599; p 52. With specificity held at or above 0.90, sensitivities ranged from 22.86 to 60.00, with positive and negative predictive values ranging from 11.1 to 58.8 and 66.7 to 98.8, respectively. Conclusions The CAT-A NI scale demonstrated reasonable AUC values for nearly all MMPI-2-RF over-reporting scales. Psychologically-based over-reporting scales were superior to cognitively-based over-reporting scales in terms of classification statistics. The optimal cut in the current data (>52) is slightly higher (though roughly commensurate) to the cut score for atypical responses in the CAT-A manual (>45).

Classification accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)-Restructured form validity scales in detecting malingered pain-related disability.

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (7) ◽  
pp. 857-869 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin J. Bianchini ◽  
Luis E. Aguerrevere ◽  
Kelly L. Curtis ◽  
Tresa M. Roebuck-Spencer ◽  
F. Charles Frey ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Validity Scales

Effects of Information About Validity Scales on Underreporting of Symptoms on the MMPI-2

Assessment ◽  
1995 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 189-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth A. Baer ◽  
Martha W. Wetter ◽  
David T. R. Berry
Keyword(s):  
College Student ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
General Information ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Student Population ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
College Student Population

The effects of two levels of information about the validity scales of the MMPI-2 on underreporting of symptoms were investigated in a college-student population. Subjects who were instructed and offered incentives to underreport were given no information, general information, or detailed information about the validity scales and were compared to a standard-control group. Results suggested that traditional and supplementary underreporting scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI-2) are effective in discriminating standard subjects from uncoached underre-porters, but are much less effective in discriminating standard subjects from subjects given either general or detailed information about the underreporting scales. The findings suggest that coaching may enable some subjects to underreport symptoms without detection, but that at least one scale ( Wsd) shows promising resistance to coaching.

The Generalizability of Overreporting Across Self-Report Measures: An Investigation With the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form and the Personality Assessment Inventory in a Civil Disability Sample

Assessment ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam H. Crighton ◽  
Anthony M. Tarescavage ◽  
Roger O. Gervais ◽  
Yossef S. Ben-Porath
Keyword(s):  
Head Injury ◽  
Personality Assessment ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Personality Assessment Inventory ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Cognitive Complaints ◽  
Validity Scale ◽  
Scale Scores

Elevated overreporting Validity Scale scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) are associated with higher scores on collateral measures; however, measures used in prior research lacked validity scales. We sought to extend these findings by examining associations between elevated MMPI-2-RF overreporting scale scores and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scale scores among 654 non–head injury civil disability claimants. Individuals were classified as overreporting psychopathology (OR-P), overreporting somatic/cognitive complaints (OR-SC), inconclusive reporting psychopathology (IR-P), inconclusive reporting somatic/cognitive complaints (IR-SC), or valid reporting (VR). Both overreporting groups had significantly and meaningfully higher scores than the VR group on the MMPI-2-RF and PAI scales. Both IR groups had significantly and meaningfully higher scores than the VR group, as well as lower scores than their overreporting counterparts. Our findings demonstrate the utility of inventories with validity scales in assessment batteries that include instruments without measures of protocol validity.

Utility of the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in Detection of Simulated Underreporting: Implications of Incorporating a Manipulation Check

Assessment ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (7) ◽  
pp. 853-864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam H. Crighton ◽  
Ryan J. Marek ◽  
Wendy R. Dragon ◽  
Yossef S. Ben-Porath
Keyword(s):  
College Students ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Past Research ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Simulation Design ◽  
Predictive Utility ◽  
Manipulation Check ◽  
Undergraduate College Students ◽  
The Impact

We examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) underreporting Validity Scales in a simulation design with a sample of 257 undergraduate college students. Extending past research by Sellbom and Bagby, we added a manipulation check to determine whether individuals complied with instructions to underreport and examined the impact of underreporting on all of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales. Results indicated that individuals who complied with instructions to underreport produced statistically significantly and meaningfully higher scores on the MMPI-2-RF underreporting Validity Scales (Uncommon Virtues [L-r] and Adjustment Validity [K-r]) when compared with those who received standard instructions and with individuals who did not comply with instructions to underreport. Moreover, in comparisons with both groups, participants who complied with instructions to underreport had lower scores on the majority of the substantive scales. L-r and K-r added incremental predictive utility (in reference to one another) in differentiating individuals who underreported from individuals who were given standard instructions.

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

Assessment ◽  
2022 ◽  
pp. 107319112110675
Author(s):  
Maria Aparcero ◽  
Emilie H. Picard ◽  
Alicia Nijdam-Jones ◽  
Barry Rosenfeld
Keyword(s):  
Study Design ◽  
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory ◽  
Psychiatric Symptoms ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Personality Inventory ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Validity Scales ◽  
Symptom Exaggeration ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Medical Symptoms

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document