An examination of the association between psychopathy and dissimulation using the MMPI-2-RF validity scales.

Abstract

This investigation sought to determine whether individuals high on psychopathic traits are better able than those low on such traits to avoid detection when feigning psychopathology in the context of a forensic psychological evaluation. Study 1 tested whether individuals high on psychopathy were better able than those low on psychopathy to avoid detection by the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2-Restructured Form's (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A., 2008, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.) overreporting (F-r, Fp-r) and underreporting (L-r and K-r) validity scales, when undergraduate students were asked to feign good, feign bad, or respond honestly. Study 2 aimed to replicate and extend the overreporting (F-r and Fp-r) analyses in a forensic pretrial sample, in which individuals were classified as malingering or not malingering using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS; Rogers, R., Bagby, R. M., & Dickens, S. E., 1992, Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms. Tampa, FL, Psychological Assessment Resources.). Combined results indicated that psychopathy did not affect the utility of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detecting overreporting. The underreporting analyses indicated that psychopathy did not affect the utility of L-r; however, callous-aggressive (or "meanness") psychopathy traits moderated the utility of K-r in detecting those feigning psychological adjustment, such that K-r was better able to detect individuals high on, rather than low on, psychopathy when underreporting. These results are promising in terms of evidence that individuals high on psychopathic traits are not any better than individuals low on these traits in feigning during psychological evaluations.

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM): Alternative to the PCL-R?

“…However, in practice this is often not the case; an assessment of psychopathy can have long-term implications for the offender. Marion et al (2012) found that psychopathic individuals were no better at avoiding detection of malingering compared to non-psychopathic individuals when completing self-report measures. This may add weight to the use of self-report measures; however, they argue for inclusion of a test of response bias like the PPI, which currently the TriPM lacks.…”

“…These issues aside, initial support for the TriPM's content validity can be drawn from the findings for concurrent validity (described above) in studies such as Marion et al (2012) and Stanley, Wygant and Sellbom (2013). They highlight how the TriPM scales are related to other measures of psychopathy relevant traits.…”

“…High scorers for extroversion would be the impulsive disinhibited personality type and finally high psychoticism would be indicative of the cold, aggressive and mean personality type. This could offer support to the theoretical underpinnings of the triarchic domains however as the factor analysis in Marion et al (2012) was conducted at scale level, rather than item level, given that the TriPM subscales may well be multidimensional and not unidimensional, this may have resulted in a mis-specified model (see Neumann et al, 2013).…”

“…Stanley, Wygant and Sellbom (2013) indicate in their study alphas ranged from .77 (boldness), .84 (disinhibition) and .88 (meanness). Patrick (2010) does not report any reliabilities, neither do Marion et al (2012). The ESI's internal consistencies from which the meanness and disinhibition subscales were developed ranged from .63 to .91.…”

Elucidating the Construct Validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory Triarchic Scales

“…Patrick (2010) developed the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) to directly assess the triarchic domains. Subsequent to its release, several studies had reported evidence supporting the convergent and discriminant validity of the three scale scores in undergraduate Marion et al, 2013;Sellbom & Phillips, 2013), community (Anderson, Sellbom, Wygant, Salekin, & Krueger, in press;Strickland, Drislane, Lucy, Krueger, & Patrick, 2013), and correctional (Patrick, 2010;Sellbom & Phillips, 2013;Stanley, Wygant, & Sellbom, 2013) samples based on their absolute and relative associations with a broad range of other psychopathy measures and conceptually relevant personality traits.…”