Invalidity of validity scales: The case of the MMPI.

Abstract

The hypothesis was tested that subjects fake personality tests by enacting a specific social role, rather than by responding in terms of personality constructs, and that such role faking cannot be detected by validity scales. In Experiment 1, male undergraduates were able to reproduce without detection the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) profile of an air force officer but not that of a creative artist. The latter was attributed to the subjects' inaccurate conception of the artist role. However, when subjects in a second experiment were given an accurate conception of the artist role, they succeeded in reproducing the MMPI artist profile without detection as well. The results are interpreted as favoring the hypothesis, provided that the subjects possess an accurate conception of the role to be simulated.

A Model of Faking Likelihood in the Employment Interview

“…Leary and Kowalski (1990) argued when people are motivated to make a ''good'' impression, they construct an image that (a) reflects the self-concept but is biased in a positive direction, (b) matches perceived role demands, and (c) exhibits the attributes of the prototypic or ideal group member. In support of this notion, research on personality measures distinguish between role faking, which is responding fraudulently in accord with a specific social role, vs. faking according to an ideal-self, which amounts to claiming good traits and denying negative ones (Furnham, 1990;Ironson & Davis, 1979;Kroger, 1967;Kroger & Turnbull, 1975;Mahar, Cologon, & Duck, 1995;Match & Wiggins, 1974).…”

What is Applicant Faking Behavior? A Review on the Current State of Theory and Modeling Techniques

“…The most used method of detecting faking in practical as well as research settings is using SDR scales (Goffin & Christiansen, 2003;O'Connell, Kung, & Tristan, 2011). However, these are highly correlated with personality traits (Christiansen et al, 2010;Ones et al, 1996), and are also susceptible to faking (Kroger & Turnbull, 1975;Viswesvaran & Ones, 1999). Therefore, applicants high in SDR might not have faked but could get classified as having faked.…”

The detection of faking on the millon clinical multiaxial inventory (MCMI)

“…Remember that all you have to do is complete this form as if you were a highly successful, ideal air force officer. Role Fake Negative (taken in part from Kroger & Turnbull, 1975) …”

“…Remember that all you have to do is complete this form as if you were a highly unsuccessful, unfit air force officer. Role Neutral (taken from Kroger & Turnbull, 1975) (N = 14 clinical, 14 control You are to complete this test as if you were an air force oficer; that is, a regular commissioned officer in the air force, someone who is making a career of the air force. Normally persons complete this test by checking items that are descriptive of themselves.…”

“…First, his use of college students as subjects raises the question of how generalizeable his results may be to a clinical sample, because the manual clearly states that the test is only appropriate for actual psychiatric patients. Second, Millon used traditional "best" and "worst" faking instructions, a procedure that has drawn criticism from some in this field (Kroger & Turnbull, 1975). In fact, Kroger and Turnbull argued that these "best" and "worst" instructions virtually ensure detection of test faking scales, and they showed that in a sample of college students asked to take the MMPI using a faked social role (to respond as an air force officer), the validity scale configurations were within normal limits and the profiles were not detected as faked.…”