Patterns of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scale elevation across veterans seen in a Veterans Affairs (VA) assessment clinic: The impact of compensation status.
Keegan J Diehl, Paul B Ingram, Louis A Pagano, Hunter J Gideon
{"title":"Patterns of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scale elevation across veterans seen in a Veterans Affairs (VA) assessment clinic: The impact of compensation status.","authors":"Keegan J Diehl, Paul B Ingram, Louis A Pagano, Hunter J Gideon","doi":"10.1037/ser0000946","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of this investigation is to provide descriptive information on veteran response styles for compensation and pension (C&P) evaluations Veterans Affairs (VA) referral types using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), which has well-supported embedded validity scales capturing invalid response styles. The total sample included 356 veterans from a single VA psychological testing clinic who were administered the MMPI-2-RF during a broader psychological evaluation, with 201 veterans undergoing C&P evaluations. This study examines frequencies of protocol invalidity based on the MMPI-2-RF's validity scales and provides comprehensive descriptive findings on validity scale scores across appointment types (i.e., C&P and non-C&P). Three distinct trends emerged: (1) Veterans generally produced valid MMPI-2-RF profiles, (2) when more than one elevation emerges, it is likely to be thematically consistent (e.g., overreporting scales), and (3) overreporting generally captured the highest frequency of validity scale elevations relative to underreporting or noncontent-based invalid responding. Implications and limitations for practice and the utility of the MMPI-2-RF within VA testing clinics are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20749,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Services","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Services","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/ser0000946","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation is to provide descriptive information on veteran response styles for compensation and pension (C&P) evaluations Veterans Affairs (VA) referral types using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), which has well-supported embedded validity scales capturing invalid response styles. The total sample included 356 veterans from a single VA psychological testing clinic who were administered the MMPI-2-RF during a broader psychological evaluation, with 201 veterans undergoing C&P evaluations. This study examines frequencies of protocol invalidity based on the MMPI-2-RF's validity scales and provides comprehensive descriptive findings on validity scale scores across appointment types (i.e., C&P and non-C&P). Three distinct trends emerged: (1) Veterans generally produced valid MMPI-2-RF profiles, (2) when more than one elevation emerges, it is likely to be thematically consistent (e.g., overreporting scales), and (3) overreporting generally captured the highest frequency of validity scale elevations relative to underreporting or noncontent-based invalid responding. Implications and limitations for practice and the utility of the MMPI-2-RF within VA testing clinics are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Psychological Services publishes high-quality data-based articles on the broad range of psychological services. While the Division"s focus is on psychologists in "public service," usually defined as being employed by a governmental agency, Psychological Services covers the full range of psychological services provided in any service delivery setting. Psychological Services encourages submission of papers that focus on broad issues related to psychotherapy outcomes, evaluations of psychological service programs and systems, and public policy analyses.