Do MMPI-3 Validity Scale Findings Generalize to Concurrently Administered Measures? Validation with a Forensic Disability Sample.

IF 2.1 4区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Kaci F Holmes, Megan R Whitman, Roger O Gervais, Yossef S Ben-Porath
{"title":"Do MMPI-3 Validity Scale Findings Generalize to Concurrently Administered Measures? Validation with a Forensic Disability Sample.","authors":"Kaci F Holmes, Megan R Whitman, Roger O Gervais, Yossef S Ben-Porath","doi":"10.1093/arclin/acae093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Research has demonstrated that over-reporting and under-reporting, when detected by the MMPI-2/-RF Validity Scales, generalize to responses to other self-report measures. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the same is true for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) Validity Scales. We examined the generalizability of over-reporting and under-reporting detected by MMPI-3 Validity Scales to extra-test self-report, performance-based, and performance validity measures.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>The sample included 665 majority White, male disability claimants who, in addition to the MMPI-3, were administered several self-report measures, some with embedded symptom validity tests (SVTs), performance-based measures, and performance validity tests (PVTs). Three groups were identified based on MMPI-3 Validity Scale scores as over-reporting (n = 276), under-reporting (n = 100), or scoring within normal limits (WNL; n = 289).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Over-reporting on the MMPI-3 generalized to symptom over-reporting on concurrently administered self-report measures of psychopathology and was associated with evidence of over-reporting from other embedded SVTs. It was also associated with poorer performance on concurrently administered measures of cognitive functioning and PVTs. Under-reporting on the MMPI-3 generalized to symptom minimization on collateral measures of psychopathology. On measures of cognitive functioning, we found no differences between the under-reporting and WNL groups, except for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64 Card Version and Wide Range Achievement Test-Fifth Edition (each with negligible effect sizes).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>MMPI-3 Validity Scales can identify possible over- and under-reporting on concurrently administered measures. This can be of particular value when such measures lack validity indicators.</p>","PeriodicalId":8176,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"224-244"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acae093","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: Research has demonstrated that over-reporting and under-reporting, when detected by the MMPI-2/-RF Validity Scales, generalize to responses to other self-report measures. The purpose of this study was to investigate whether the same is true for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) Validity Scales. We examined the generalizability of over-reporting and under-reporting detected by MMPI-3 Validity Scales to extra-test self-report, performance-based, and performance validity measures.

Method: The sample included 665 majority White, male disability claimants who, in addition to the MMPI-3, were administered several self-report measures, some with embedded symptom validity tests (SVTs), performance-based measures, and performance validity tests (PVTs). Three groups were identified based on MMPI-3 Validity Scale scores as over-reporting (n = 276), under-reporting (n = 100), or scoring within normal limits (WNL; n = 289).

Results: Over-reporting on the MMPI-3 generalized to symptom over-reporting on concurrently administered self-report measures of psychopathology and was associated with evidence of over-reporting from other embedded SVTs. It was also associated with poorer performance on concurrently administered measures of cognitive functioning and PVTs. Under-reporting on the MMPI-3 generalized to symptom minimization on collateral measures of psychopathology. On measures of cognitive functioning, we found no differences between the under-reporting and WNL groups, except for the Wisconsin Card Sorting Test-64 Card Version and Wide Range Achievement Test-Fifth Edition (each with negligible effect sizes).

Conclusions: MMPI-3 Validity Scales can identify possible over- and under-reporting on concurrently administered measures. This can be of particular value when such measures lack validity indicators.

MMPI-3有效量表的结果是否能推广到同时进行的测量中?法医残疾样本验证。
目的:研究表明,通过 MMPI-2/-RF 效度量表发现的多报和少报现象,会普遍反映在其他自我报告测量中。本研究的目的是调查明尼苏达多相人格量表-3(MMPI-3)的有效性量表是否也有同样的情况。我们研究了明尼苏达多相人格问卷-3(MMPI-3 Validity Scales)所发现的过度报告和报告不足对测试外自我报告、基于表现和表现效度测量的普遍适用性:样本包括 665 名大多数为白人的男性伤残索赔者,除 MMPI-3 外,他们还接受了多项自我报告测量,其中一些还包含症状有效性测试 (SVT)、基于表现的测量和表现有效性测试 (PVT)。根据 MMPI-3 效度量表的得分确定了三组人,分别为过度报告(n = 276)、报告不足(n = 100)或得分在正常范围内(WNL;n = 289):结果:MMPI-3的过度报告与同时进行的精神病理学自我报告测量的症状过度报告有关,并与其他嵌入式SVT的过度报告证据有关。它还与同时进行的认知功能测量和 PVT 测量的较差表现有关。对 MMPI-3 的报告不足会导致对精神病理学附带测量的症状最小化。在认知功能测量方面,我们发现除了威斯康星64卡分类测验和第五版宽范围成就测验(两者的效应大小均可忽略不计)外,低报告组和WNL组之间没有差异:结论:MMPI-3 有效度量表可以识别同时进行的测量中可能存在的多报和漏报。结论:MMPI-3 效度量表可以识别同时进行的测量中可能存在的多报和漏报,当这些测量缺乏效度指标时,这一点尤为重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
7.70%
发文量
358
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original contributions dealing with psychological aspects of the etiology, diagnosis, and treatment of disorders arising out of dysfunction of the central nervous system. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology will also consider manuscripts involving the established principles of the profession of neuropsychology: (a) delivery and evaluation of services, (b) ethical and legal issues, and (c) approaches to education and training. Preference will be given to empirical reports and key reviews. Brief research reports, case studies, and commentaries on published articles (not exceeding two printed pages) will also be considered. At the discretion of the editor, rebuttals to commentaries may be invited. Occasional papers of a theoretical nature will be considered.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信