对接受神经心理学评估的退伍军人重新评估 MMPI 反应偏差量表项目的初步发现。

IF 1.7 4区 心理学
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult Pub Date : 2024-09-01 Epub Date: 2022-08-02 DOI:10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571
Lauren N Ratcliffe, Andrew C Hale, Brian D Gradwohl, Robert J Spencer
{"title":"对接受神经心理学评估的退伍军人重新评估 MMPI 反应偏差量表项目的初步发现。","authors":"Lauren N Ratcliffe, Andrew C Hale, Brian D Gradwohl, Robert J Spencer","doi":"10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Response Bias Scale (RBS) was developed to predict non-credible cognitive presentations among disability claimants without head injury. Developers used empirical keying, which is independent of apparent content, to select items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) item pool that distinguished between individuals passing or failing performance validity tests (PVTs). No study has examined which of these items would have psychometric value when used in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. This study reexamined items comprising RBS with reference to manifest item content, internal consistency, PVTs, and a symptom validity test (SVT) in a sample of 173 predominately White male veterans (<i>M<sub>AGE</sub></i> = 50.70, <i>M<sub>EDU</sub></i> = 13.73) in a VA outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants completed the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), PVTs, and an SVT. The 28-item RBS appears to contain three types of items: those that manifestly address cognitive functioning, those that are supported but do not appear to address cognitive functioning, and nine items that were unrelated to cognition and not statistically supported. The 19 empirically supported items, or RBS-19, predicted PVT and SVT failures marginally better than the RBS. Both the RBS and RBS-19 had stronger relationships with SVTs relative to PVTs. Although the removal of the nine problematic items improved the diagnostic accuracy of the scale, it still did not reach the level that is generally considered to be clinically optimal. The RBS-19 offers a measure with improved internal consistency and predictive validity compared to the RBS and warrants additional research.</p>","PeriodicalId":50741,"journal":{"name":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Preliminary findings from reevaluating the MMPI Response Bias Scale items in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.\",\"authors\":\"Lauren N Ratcliffe, Andrew C Hale, Brian D Gradwohl, Robert J Spencer\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The Response Bias Scale (RBS) was developed to predict non-credible cognitive presentations among disability claimants without head injury. Developers used empirical keying, which is independent of apparent content, to select items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) item pool that distinguished between individuals passing or failing performance validity tests (PVTs). No study has examined which of these items would have psychometric value when used in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. This study reexamined items comprising RBS with reference to manifest item content, internal consistency, PVTs, and a symptom validity test (SVT) in a sample of 173 predominately White male veterans (<i>M<sub>AGE</sub></i> = 50.70, <i>M<sub>EDU</sub></i> = 13.73) in a VA outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants completed the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), PVTs, and an SVT. The 28-item RBS appears to contain three types of items: those that manifestly address cognitive functioning, those that are supported but do not appear to address cognitive functioning, and nine items that were unrelated to cognition and not statistically supported. The 19 empirically supported items, or RBS-19, predicted PVT and SVT failures marginally better than the RBS. Both the RBS and RBS-19 had stronger relationships with SVTs relative to PVTs. Although the removal of the nine problematic items improved the diagnostic accuracy of the scale, it still did not reach the level that is generally considered to be clinically optimal. The RBS-19 offers a measure with improved internal consistency and predictive validity compared to the RBS and warrants additional research.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":50741,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/8/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied Neuropsychology-Adult","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/8/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

开发反应偏差量表(RBS)是为了预测无头部损伤的伤残索赔者的非可信认知表现。开发人员使用经验抠像法从明尼苏达多相人格量表-2(MMPI-2)的项目库中挑选出能够区分通过或未通过表现真实性测试(PVT)的项目,而经验抠像法与表面内容无关。目前还没有研究对这些项目中的哪些项目在用于临床神经心理学评估时具有心理测量学价值进行研究。本研究在退伍军人事务部(VA)的一家神经心理学门诊中,以 173 名主要为白人的男性退伍军人(MAGE = 50.70,MEDU = 13.73)为样本,参照表现项目内容、内部一致性、PVT 和症状有效性测试(SVT),重新审查了 RBS 的组成项目。参与者完成了 MMPI-2 重组表 (MMPI-2-RF)、PVT 和 SVT。28 个项目的 RBS 似乎包含三种类型的项目:明显涉及认知功能的项目、得到支持但似乎不涉及认知功能的项目,以及 9 个与认知无关且未得到统计学支持的项目。19 个经验支持项目或 RBS-19 对 PVT 和 SVT 失败的预测略好于 RBS。相对于 PVT,RBS 和 RBS-19 与 SVT 的关系都更密切。虽然删除了 9 个有问题的项目后,量表的诊断准确性有所提高,但仍未达到临床上普遍认为的最佳水平。与 RBS 相比,RBS-19 的内部一致性和预测有效性都有所提高,值得进一步研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Preliminary findings from reevaluating the MMPI Response Bias Scale items in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) was developed to predict non-credible cognitive presentations among disability claimants without head injury. Developers used empirical keying, which is independent of apparent content, to select items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) item pool that distinguished between individuals passing or failing performance validity tests (PVTs). No study has examined which of these items would have psychometric value when used in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. This study reexamined items comprising RBS with reference to manifest item content, internal consistency, PVTs, and a symptom validity test (SVT) in a sample of 173 predominately White male veterans (MAGE = 50.70, MEDU = 13.73) in a VA outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants completed the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), PVTs, and an SVT. The 28-item RBS appears to contain three types of items: those that manifestly address cognitive functioning, those that are supported but do not appear to address cognitive functioning, and nine items that were unrelated to cognition and not statistically supported. The 19 empirically supported items, or RBS-19, predicted PVT and SVT failures marginally better than the RBS. Both the RBS and RBS-19 had stronger relationships with SVTs relative to PVTs. Although the removal of the nine problematic items improved the diagnostic accuracy of the scale, it still did not reach the level that is generally considered to be clinically optimal. The RBS-19 offers a measure with improved internal consistency and predictive validity compared to the RBS and warrants additional research.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult
Applied Neuropsychology-Adult CLINICAL NEUROLOGY-PSYCHOLOGY
自引率
11.80%
发文量
0
审稿时长
>12 weeks
×
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