Comparing the Ability of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales to Detect Feigning: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

Several meta-analyses of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) have examined these instruments’ ability to detect symptom exaggeration or feigning. However, limited research has directly compared whether the scales across these two instruments are equally effective. This study used a moderated meta-analysis to compare 109 MMPI-2 and 41 MMPI-2-RF feigning studies, 83 (56.46%) of which were not included in previous meta-analyses. Although there were differences between the two test versions, with most MMPI-2 validity scales generating larger effect sizes than the corresponding MMPI-2-RF scales, these differences were not significant after controlling for study design and type of symptoms being feigned. Additional analyses showed that the F and Fp-r scales generated the largest effect sizes in identifying feigned psychiatric symptoms, while the FBS and RBS were better at detecting exaggerated medical symptoms. The findings indicate that the MMPI-2 validity scales and their MMPI-2-RF counterparts were similarly effective in differentiating genuine responders from those exaggerating or feigning psychiatric and medical symptoms. These results provide reassurance for the use of both the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF in settings where symptom exaggeration or feigning is likely. Findings are discussed in the context of the recently released MMPI-3.

Keywords

MMPI validity scales feigning forensic assessment meta-analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.

American Psychological Association Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? The American Psychologist, 63(9), 839–851.

Aparcero

Picard

E. H.

Nijdam-Jones

Rosenfeld

(2021). The impact of coaching on feigned psychiatric and medical symptoms: A meta-analysis using the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 33(8), 729–745. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001016

Arbisi

P. A.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(1995). On MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations: The Infrequency Psychopathology Scale F(p). Psychological Assessment, 7, 424–431.

Baer

R. A.

Miller

(2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 14, 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.16

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2012). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. University of Minnesota Press.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2020). An MMPI-3 overview [Webinar]. Pearson Assessments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6IDh-WIdME

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

(2011). MMPI-2-RF manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 2008)

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

(2020a). MMPI-3 manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.

10.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

(2020b). MMPI-3 technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.

11.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Tellegen

Graham

J. R.

(2008). The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS). University of Minnesota Press.

12.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.

13.

Burchett

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2019). Methodological considerations for developing and evaluating response bias indicators. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000680

14.

Butcher

J. N.

Dahlstrom

W. G.

Graham

J. R.

Tellegen

Kaemmer

(1989). MMPI-2 manual. University of Minnesota Press.

15.

*Chmielewski

Zhu

Burchett

Bury

A. S.

Bagby

R. M.

(2017). The comparative capacity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) and MMPI–2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scales to detect suspected malingering in a disability claimant sample. Psychological Assessment, 29(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000328

16.

Covidence. (2018). Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation. www.covidence.org

17.

Doucouliagos

Stanley

T. D.

(2009). Publication selection bias in minimum-wage research? A meta-regression analysis. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 47(2), 406–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8543.2009.00723.x

18.

Fisher

Tipton

(2015). Robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02220.

19.

Friedman

A. F.

Nichols

D. S.

(2017). MMPI-3: Revision of the MMPI-2 or marketing hype. National Psychologist, 26, 5–6.

20.

Gervais

R. O.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Wygant

D. B.

Green

(2007). Development and validation of a response bias scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2. Assessment, 14(2), 196–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106295861

21.

*Gervais

R. O.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Wygant

D. B.

Sellbom

(2010). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting scales and RBS in assessing the veracity of memory complaints. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25, 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acq018

22.

Gough

H. G.

(1950). The F minus K dissimulation index for the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14(5), 408–413. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0054506

23.

Gough

H. G.

(1954). Some common misperceptions about neuroticism. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18(4), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062776

24.

Green

Rosenfeld

(2011). Evaluating the gold standard: A review and meta-analysis of the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms. Psychological Assessment, 23, 95–107. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021149

25.

Heilbronner

R. L.

Sweet

J. J.

Morgan

J. E.

Larrabee

G. J.

Millis

S. R.

Conference

(2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(7), 1093–1129. https://doi.org/10.1080=13854040903155063

26.

Ingram

P. B.

Ternes

M. S.

(2016). The detection of content-based invalid responding: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form’s (MMPI-2- RF) over-reporting validity scales. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(4), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1187769

27.

Larrabee

(2008, February). Evaluation of new MMPI-2 validity scales in malingering civil litigants and non-malingering clinical patients [Paper presentation]. Annual meeting of the International Neuropsychological Society, Hawaii, United State.

28.

Lees-Haley

P. R.

English

L. T.

Glenn

W. J.

(1991). A fake bad scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.

29.

Moher

Liberati

Tetzlaff

Altman

D. G.

, & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Medicine, 6(7), Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

30.

*Morris

N. M.

Mattera

Golden

Moses

Ingram

P. B.

(2021). Evaluating the performance of the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales: Sophisticated simulators and the effects of comorbid conditions. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1968037

31.

Nelson

N. W.

Hoelzle

J. B.

Sweet

J. J.

Arbisi

P. A.

Demakis

G. J.

(2010). Updated meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS): Verified utility in forensic practice. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24(4), 701–724. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903482863

32.

Nelson

N. W.

Sweet

J. J.

Demakis

G. J.

(2006). Meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale: Utility in forensic practice. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 20(1), 39–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040500459322

33.

Nijdam-Jones

Chen

Rosenfeld

(2020). Detection of feigned posttraumatic stress disorder: A meta-analysis of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 12(7), 790–798. https://doi.org/10.1037/tra0000593

34.

Olsen

A. M.

Veltri

C. O.

(2018). The moderating influence of disorder on coached overreporting using the MMPI-2-RF. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1472099

35.

Picard

Aparcero

Nijdam-Jones

Rosenfeld

(2021). Identifying positive impression management using the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF: A meta-analysis [Manuscript submitted for publication]. Department of Psychology, Fordham University.

36.

Rogers

(2018). Researching response styles. In Rogers

Bender

S. D.

(Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 592–614). The Guilford Press.

37.

Rogers

Bender

S. D.

(2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.

38.

Rogers

Gillard

N. D.

(2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In Rosenfeld

Penrod

S. D.

(Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174–188). John Wiley & Sons.

39.

Rogers

Sewell

K. W.

Martin

M. A.

Vitacco

M. J.

(2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10(2), 160–177. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103010002007

40.

Sharf

A. J.

Rogers

Williams

M. M.

Henry

S. A.

(2017). The effectiveness of the MMPI-2-RF in detecting feigned mental disorders and cognitive deficits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 39, 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-017-9590-1

41.

Slick

D. J.

Sherman

E. M. S.

Iverson

G. L.

(1999). Diagnostic criteria for malingered neurocognitive dysfunction: Proposed standards for clinical practice and research. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 13(4), 545–561. https://doi.org/10.1076/1385-4046(199911)13:04;1-Y;FT545

42.

Stanley

T. D.

Doucouliagos

(2012). Meta-regression analysis in economics and business. Routledge.

43.

Stone

P. W.

(2002). Popping the (PICO) question in research and evidence-based practice. Applied Nursing Research, 15, 197–198. http://doi.org/10.1053/apnr.2002.34181

44.

Tellegen

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2008). MMPI-2-RF: Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.

45.

Tipton

(2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011

46.

Tipton

Pustejovsky

J. E.

(2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40, 604–634. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998615606099

47.

*Tylicki

J. L.

Gervais

R. O.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2020). Examination of the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales in a forensic disability sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2020.1856414

48.

*Veltri

C. O.

Williams

J. E.

(2013). Does the disorder matter? Investigating a moderating effect on coached noncredible overreporting using the MMPI-2 and PAI. Assessment, 20, 199–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112464619

49.

*Whitman

M. R.

Tylicki

J. L.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

(2021). Utility of the MMPI-3 validity scales for detecting overreporting and underreporting and their effects on substance scale validity: A simulation study. Psychological Assessment, 33(5), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000988

50.

Wygant

D. B.

Ben-Porath

Y. S.

Arbisi

P. A.

(2004). Development and initial validation of a scale to detect infrequent somatic complaints [Poster presentation]. The 39th annual symposium on Recent Developments of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A, Minneapolis, MN, United States.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.16 MB