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.
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). American Psychiatric Association.
2.
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.
3.
AparceroM.PicardE. H.Nijdam-JonesA.RosenfeldB. (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
4.
ArbisiP. A.Ben-PorathY. S. (1995). On MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations: The Infrequency Psychopathology Scale F(p). Psychological Assessment, 7, 424–431.
5.
BaerR. A.MillerJ. (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
6.
Ben-PorathY. S. (2012). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. University of Minnesota Press.
Ben-PorathY. S.TellegenA. (2011). MMPI-2-RF manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published 2008)
9.
Ben-PorathY. S.TellegenA. (2020a). MMPI-3 manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
10.
Ben-PorathY. S.TellegenA. (2020b). MMPI-3 technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
11.
Ben-PorathY. S.TellegenA.GrahamJ. R. (2008). The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS). University of Minnesota Press.
12.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2011). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
13.
BurchettD.Ben-PorathY. S. (2019). Methodological considerations for developing and evaluating response bias indicators. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1497–1511. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000680
14.
ButcherJ. N.DahlstromW. G.GrahamJ. R.TellegenA.KaemmerB. (1989). MMPI-2 manual. University of Minnesota Press.
15.
*ChmielewskiM.ZhuJ.BurchettD.BuryA. S.BagbyR. 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.
DoucouliagosH.StanleyT. 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.
FisherZ.TiptonE. (2015). Robumeta: An R-package for robust variance estimation in meta-analysis. arXiv preprint arXiv:1503.02220.
19.
FriedmanA. F.NicholsD. S. (2017). MMPI-3: Revision of the MMPI-2 or marketing hype. National Psychologist, 26, 5–6.
20.
GervaisR. O.Ben-PorathY. S.WygantD. B.GreenP. (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.
*GervaisR. O.Ben-PorathY. S.WygantD. B.SellbomM. (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.
GoughH. 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.
GoughH. G. (1954). Some common misperceptions about neuroticism. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 18(4), 287–292. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0062776
24.
GreenD.RosenfeldB. (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.
HeilbronnerR. L.SweetJ. J.MorganJ. E.LarrabeeG. J.MillisS. R.ConferenceP. (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.
IngramP. B.TernesM. 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.
LarrabeeG. (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-HaleyP. R.EnglishL. T.GlennW. J. (1991). A fake bad scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203–210.
29.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. 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.
*MorrisN. M.MatteraJ.GoldenB.MosesS.IngramP. 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.
NelsonN. W.HoelzleJ. B.SweetJ. J.ArbisiP. A.DemakisG. 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.
NelsonN. W.SweetJ. J.DemakisG. 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-JonesA.ChenY.RosenfeldB. (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.
OlsenA. M.VeltriC. 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.
PicardE.AparceroM.Nijdam-JonesA.RosenfeldB. (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.
RogersR. (2018). Researching response styles. In RogersR.BenderS. D. (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 592–614). The Guilford Press.
37.
RogersR.BenderS. D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed.). The Guilford Press.
38.
RogersR.GillardN. D. (2011). Research methods for the assessment of malingering. In RosenfeldB.PenrodS. D. (Eds.), Research methods in forensic psychology (pp. 174–188). John Wiley & Sons.
39.
RogersR.SewellK. W.MartinM. A.VitaccoM. 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.
SharfA. J.RogersR.WilliamsM. M.HenryS. 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.
SlickD. J.ShermanE. M. S.IversonG. 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.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2012). Meta-regression analysis in economics and business. Routledge.
43.
StoneP. 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.
TellegenA.Ben-PorathY. S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF: Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
45.
TiptonE. (2015). Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3), 375–393. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000011
46.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. 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.
*TylickiJ. L.GervaisR. O.Ben-PorathY. 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.
*VeltriC. O.WilliamsJ. 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.
*WhitmanM. R.TylickiJ. L.Ben-PorathY. 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.
WygantD. B.Ben-PorathY. S.ArbisiP. 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.
