Detection of Underreporting on the MMPI--A in Clinical and Community Samples

Baer, Ruth A.; Ballenger, James F.; Kroll, Larry S.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa7101_7

Cited by 15 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The L and K scales have been shown to be reasonably good at assessing symptom underreporting (Baer, Ballenger, & Kroll, 1998;Stein & Graham, 2005). Validity scale cut scores had to be lowered somewhat to detect a fake good response set when evaluating adolescents in a correctional facility (Stein & Graham, 1999).…”

Section: Validity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Validity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This score correctly classified 71.4% and 90.4% of participants with fake-good and standard instructions. Baer, Ballenger, and Kroll (1998) compared the profiles of clini-cal adolescents instructed to fake good with the profiles of both clinical and nonclinical adolescents who received standard instructions. Their findings support the continued use of scales L and K in detecting underreporting.…”

Section: Detecting Underreporting Using the Mmpi-amentioning

confidence: 99%

Ability of Substance Abusers to Escape Detection on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) in a Juvenile Correctional Facility

Stein

Graham

2005

Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability of respondents to underreport successfully on substance abuse and validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent was evaluated. Incarcerated teens (67 substance abusing, 59 non-substance abusing) completed the MMPI-A twice: once under standard instructions (SI) and once under instructions to fake good (FG). Under SI, substance scales correctly classified about 60% to 85% of adolescents. Under FG, substance-and nonsubstance-abusing juveniles produced lower scores on substance scales. However, the Lie Scale (L) was able to detect more than 75% of deceptive profiles and about 77% of honest profiles. When scale L and the best substance scale were used in combination, only about 18% of faking substance abusers were not identified as either substance abusers or as underreporting. For feigning substance abusers, only about 10% of substance abusers were detected, with about 72% being categorized as faking and needing further assessment. Keywords incarcerated; faking; MMPI-A; substance useGiven the social and economic costs of adolescent substance abuse, professionals have attempted to develop valid and efficient screening and assessment instruments to identify adolescents with such problems (Personal Experiences Inventory [PEI], Winters, 1999; Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory for Adolescents [SASSI-A], Miller, 1990). It is especially important to screen and assess for such disorders in juvenile correctional settings, where often this is the adolescent's first opportunity for intervention. There is a high rate of substance use and abuse in justice-involved teens (Teplin, Abram, McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002), and it is important to be able to identify those adolescents who need more services and those who may not require as many services from a system with few resources.There has been increasing interest in the application of the MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992) to juvenile offender populations (e.g., see Cashel, Rogers, Sewell, & Holliman, 1998;Pena, Megargee, & Brody, 1996;, 2001). Screening and assessing for substance problems can be important for understanding factors that may have been involved in misconduct as well as treatment placement. However, screening and assessment can be impeded by motivation to misreport symptoms of substance use. It is important that NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author Manuscript screening and assessment measures be able to effectively detect substance use difficulties and misreporting. Fortunately, the MMPI-A has scales to detect substance use problems as well as misreported symptoms and behavior. Detecting Substance Abuse Using the MMPI-AThe MMPI-A has three scales to detect substance use problems: the MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale-Revised (MAC-R; Butcher et al., 1992), the Alcohol/Drug Problem Acknowledgment (ACK) scale, and the Alcohol/Drug Problem Proneness (PRO) scale (Weed, Butcher, & Williams, 1994). The MAC-R was originally devised by MacAndrew in 1965 and was called the MAC. Effectiveness o...

show abstract

“…Another classification category used in this review focused on the assessment of the validity of test responses. The literature has addressed the ability of the MMPI-A to assess fake-bad responding or overreporting (e.g., Stein, Graham, & Williams, 1995), random responding (e.g., Archer, Handel, Lynch, & Elkins, 2002), and the detection of fake-good responding or underreporting (e.g., Baer, Ballenger, & Kroll, 1998). Research has also addressed the creation of new MMPI-A scales to assess response validity, such as the Fp-A scale by McGrath et al (2000).…”

Section: Quantification Of the Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—Adolescent (MMPI-A) and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) With an Emphasis on Juvenile Justice Samples

et al. 2009

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) are frequently used objective personality self-report measures. Given their widespread use, the purpose of the current study was to examine and compare the literature base for the two instruments. A comprehensive review of the literature was conducted between the years 1992 and 2007 using the PsycINFO Database. Results indicate the publication of 277 articles, books, book chapters, monographs, and dissertation abstracts on the MMPI-A. This was compared with the results of a comparable search for the MACI, which yielded 84 citations. The literature was further explored by determining the content of the topic areas addressed for both instruments. A particular focus was placed on the utility of the instruments with juvenile justice populations; scale means, standard deviations, and effect sizes calculated from this literature were examined. Results indicate that the use of the MMPI-A is supported by a substantial literature and a growing research base is also available for the MACI. Both instruments appear to provide useful results in juvenile justice settings.

show abstract

Detection of Underreporting on the MMPI--A in Clinical and Community Samples

Cited by 15 publications

References 8 publications

Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior

Clinical Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality and Behavior

Ability of Substance Abusers to Escape Detection on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) in a Juvenile Correctional Facility

A Review of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—Adolescent (MMPI-A) and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) With an Emphasis on Juvenile Justice Samples

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About