CAT-PD and MMPI-3 Validity Scales Detect Simulated Overreporting and Underreporting.

IF 2.8 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL
Omeed Tartak, Leah T Emery, Leonard J Simms
{"title":"CAT-PD and MMPI-3 Validity Scales Detect Simulated Overreporting and Underreporting.","authors":"Omeed Tartak, Leah T Emery, Leonard J Simms","doi":"10.1080/00223891.2024.2430315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Individuals can sway legal, medical, employment, or other decisions by dishonestly self-reporting on psychological tests. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Assessment of Traits relevant to Personality Disorder (CAT-PD) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) include validity scales to detect overreporting and underreporting. Although many studies have empirically tested the validity scales of the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF, fewer have done so with the updated MMPI-3, and none with the CAT-PD. Therefore, in the present study, a simulation design was conducted to determine how successfully the CAT-PD and MMPI-3 validity scales would discriminate between credible responders and noncredible responders (i.e., overreporters and underreporters). Undergraduates and crowd-sourced adults (Total <i>N</i> = 484) were randomly assigned to respond honestly, overreport, or underreport while completing the MMPI-3 and the CAT-PD. Relative to honest responders, overreporters and underreporters significantly increased their respective validity scale scores (Cohen's <i>d</i> range = 1.04 - <i>d</i> = 4.87); they also significantly biased their substantive scale profiles. Moreover, CAT-PD validity scales demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity with MMPI-3 validity scales and similar classification accuracy estimates <i>via</i> receiver operating characteristic curves. These results suggest that, within a nonclinical simulation design, CAT-PD and MMPI-3 validity scales both effectively detect noncredible responding.</p>","PeriodicalId":16707,"journal":{"name":"Journal of personality assessment","volume":" ","pages":"1-12"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of personality assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2024.2430315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Individuals can sway legal, medical, employment, or other decisions by dishonestly self-reporting on psychological tests. Accordingly, the Comprehensive Assessment of Traits relevant to Personality Disorder (CAT-PD) and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) include validity scales to detect overreporting and underreporting. Although many studies have empirically tested the validity scales of the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF, fewer have done so with the updated MMPI-3, and none with the CAT-PD. Therefore, in the present study, a simulation design was conducted to determine how successfully the CAT-PD and MMPI-3 validity scales would discriminate between credible responders and noncredible responders (i.e., overreporters and underreporters). Undergraduates and crowd-sourced adults (Total N = 484) were randomly assigned to respond honestly, overreport, or underreport while completing the MMPI-3 and the CAT-PD. Relative to honest responders, overreporters and underreporters significantly increased their respective validity scale scores (Cohen's d range = 1.04 - d = 4.87); they also significantly biased their substantive scale profiles. Moreover, CAT-PD validity scales demonstrated convergent and discriminant validity with MMPI-3 validity scales and similar classification accuracy estimates via receiver operating characteristic curves. These results suggest that, within a nonclinical simulation design, CAT-PD and MMPI-3 validity scales both effectively detect noncredible responding.

CAT-PD和MMPI-3效度量表检测模拟的多报和少报。
个人可以通过在心理测试中不诚实的自我报告来影响法律、医疗、就业或其他决定。因此,《人格障碍相关特征综合评估》(CAT-PD)和《明尼苏达多相人格量表-3》(MMPI-3)都包含了效度量表来检测多报和少报。尽管许多研究已经对MMPI-2和MMPI-2- rf的有效性量表进行了实证测试,但很少有研究对更新的MMPI-3进行了测试,而对CAT-PD则没有进行测试。因此,在本研究中,进行了模拟设计,以确定CAT-PD和MMPI-3效度量表在区分可信应答者和不可信应答者(即报告过多和报告不足)方面的成功程度。在完成MMPI-3和CAT-PD时,本科生和人群来源的成年人(总N = 484)被随机分配如实回答、多报或少报。相对于诚实应答者,过度报告者和少报告者各自的效度量表得分显著提高(Cohen’s d = 1.04 - d = 4.87);他们也明显偏向于他们的实质性量表。此外,CAT-PD效度量表与MMPI-3效度量表和相似的分类精度估计通过受试者工作特征曲线显示收敛和判别效度。这些结果表明,在非临床模拟设计中,CAT-PD和MMPI-3效度量表都能有效地检测出不可信的反应。
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
7.20
自引率
8.80%
发文量
67
期刊介绍: The Journal of Personality Assessment (JPA) primarily publishes articles dealing with the development, evaluation, refinement, and application of personality assessment methods. Desirable articles address empirical, theoretical, instructional, or professional aspects of using psychological tests, interview data, or the applied clinical assessment process. They also advance the measurement, description, or understanding of personality, psychopathology, and human behavior. JPA is broadly concerned with developing and using personality assessment methods in clinical, counseling, forensic, and health psychology settings; with the assessment process in applied clinical practice; with the assessment of people of all ages and cultures; and with both normal and abnormal personality functioning.
×
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