In this study research participants completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) under standard instructions and then were asked to fake posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when completing the MMPI-2 for a 2nd time in 1 of 4 conditions with different instructions on how to fake PTSD: (a) uncoached, (b) coached about PTSD symptom information, (c) coached about MMPI-2 validity scales, or (d) coached about both symptoms and validity scales. These MMPI-2 protocols were then compared with protocols of claimants with workplace accident-related PTSD. Participants given information about the validity scales were the most successful in avoiding detection as faking. The family of F scales (i.e., F, FB, FP), particularly FP, produced consistently high rates of positive and negative predictive power.

The objective of this study was to examine the relative effectiveness of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) validity scales and indexes to detect malingering. Research participants were either informed (coached) or not informed (uncoached) about the presence and operating characteristics of the validity scales and instructed to fake bad on both the MMPI-2 and PAI. The validity scale and index scores produced by these research participants were then compared to those scores from a bona fide sample of psychiatric patients (n = 75). Coaching had no effect on the ability of the research participants to feign more successfully than those participants who received no coaching. For the MMPI-2, the Psychopathology F scale, or F(p), proved to be the best at distinguishing psychiatric patients from research participants instructed to malinger, although the other F scales (i.e., F and Fb) were also effective. For the PAI, the Rogers Discriminant Function index (RDF) was clearly superior to the other PAI fake-bad validity indicators; neither the Negative Impression Management scale nor Malingering Index were effective at detecting malingered profiles in this study. Overall, RDF proved to be marginally superior to F and F(p) in distinguishing MMPI-2 and PAI protocols produced by research participants asked to malinger and psychiatric patients. Both the RDF and the F and F(p) scales, however, were able to increase the predictive capability of one another.

No abstract

The MMPI-2 (Butcher, Graham, et al., 2001) is the measure most commonly used to assess personality and psychopathology in a variety of assessment contexts (Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000; Greene, 2000). Although there are many attributes of this instrument that contribute to its frequent and wide-ranging use, perhaps one of its greatest strengths, distinguishing it from other instruments, is the inclusion of a number of extensively examined and well-validated scales to detect response bias. Indeed, since its inception, the MMPI and its revision, the MMPI-2, have included validity scales to detect the underreporting (i.e., fake-good responding) and overreporting (i.e., fake-bad responding). It is widely accepted that test takers may be motivated for a variety of reasons not to respond honestly or in a straightforward manner to items on instruments measuring psychopathology. Such responding, of course, directly affects scores on the content and clinical scales, which comprise the interpretative meaning of test results.

These results indicate that reduced fitness is an important genetic force in FS and is likely inherent to the illness. Sex differences are important and would need to be considered when examining maternal and paternal transmission of schizophrenia. The results support a proposed high mutation rate for schizophrenia, consistent with a dynamic mutation mechanism.