{"title":"CAT-PD和MMPI-3效度量表检测模拟的多报和少报。","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":"{\"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}","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
摘要
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。
CAT-PD and MMPI-3 Validity Scales Detect Simulated Overreporting and Underreporting.
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.
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.