MMPI-2 in Child Custody Litigation

Roma, Paolo; Ricci, Federica; Kotzalidis, Georgios D.; Abbate, Luigi; Lavadera, Anna Lubrano; Versace, Giorgia; Pazzelli, Floriana; Togliatti, Marisa Malagoli; Girardi, Paolo; Ferracuti, Stefano

doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000192

Cited by 15 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is comprised of 567 items that each require a dichotomous answer (true vs. false). The MMPI-2 is largely used in forensic and evaluation settings [38][39][40][41][42] . The present study used three MMPI-2 validity scales: Lie (L), Correction (K), and Superlative Self-Presentation (S).…”

Section: Materials Underreporting Validity Scales (L K S) Of the Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of mouse-tracking software to detect faking-good behavior on personality questionnaires: an explorative study

Mazza

Monaro

Burla

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

the aim of the present study was to explore whether kinematic indicators could improve the detection of subjects demonstrating faking-good behaviour when responding to personality questionnaires. one hundred and twenty volunteers were randomly assigned to one of four experimental groups (honest unspeeded, faking-good unspeeded, honest speeded, and faking-good speeded). Participants were asked to respond to the MMPI-2 underreporting scales (L, K, S) and the PPI-R Virtuous Responding (VR) scale using a computer mouse. The collected data included T-point scores on the L, K, S, and VR scales; response times on these scales; and several temporal and spatial mouse parameters. these data were used to investigate the presence of significant differences between the two manipulated variables (honest vs. faking-good; speeded vs. unspeeded). The results demonstrated that T-scores were significantly higher in the faking-good condition relative to the honest condition; however, fakinggood and honest respondents showed no statistically significant differences between the speeded and unspeeded conditions. Concerning temporal and spatial kinematic parameters, we observed mixed results for different scales and further investigations are required. The most consistent finding, albeit with small observed effects, regards the L scale, in which faking-good respondents took longer to respond to stimuli and outlined wider mouse trajectories to arrive at the given response.One of the main limitations of the use of self-report questionnaires to assess personality is that such tests are vulnerable to faking behavior 1 -that is, the tendency to deliberately distort one's responses in order to fulfil personal goals 2 . In one form of faking, respondents exaggerate or create symptoms to emphasize their psychological suffering and discomfort (faking-bad); in another, respondents present themselves in a particularly favourable fashion, emphasizing their desirable traits and rejecting their undesirable ones (faking-good). Faking behaviour is widespread in many contexts, with alarming estimates of prevalence (e.g., 30-50% in personnel selection 3 and up to 30% in forensic settings 4,5 ). Many studies have focused on faking-bad behaviour and developed tools to facilitate its detection; such tools include the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms-2 (SIRS-2) 6 , the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) 7 , and the Inventory of Problems-29 8 . Faking-bad behaviour has received more research attention 9,10 perhaps because its welfare/social costs (in terms of, e.g. insurance compensation) are more easily recognizable; thus, the literature on the subject is not as rich and instruments to identify faking-good behaviour are lacking; for this reason, the present study focused on faking-good behavior, specifically.Analysis of validity scales is one of the most commonly used methods to detect fakers. Validity scales were designed to gather information on the validity and interpretability of self-report questionnaires by exploring the ...

show abstract

Section: Materials Underreporting Validity Scales (L K S) Of the Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of mouse-tracking software to detect faking-good behavior on personality questionnaires: an explorative study

Mazza

Monaro

Burla

et al. 2020

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Again, the identification of faking-good subjects is critical in forensic settings, in which individuals can obtain some advantages by presenting themselves favorably (11). This is particularly true in forensic evaluations of parental skills (12) in the context of child custody hearings in which from 20% to as high as 74% of custody litigants (9) are prone to ménage a positive impression of themselves. A similar risk concerns psychological evaluations for obtaining gun or driving licenses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Introducing Machine Learning to Detect Personality Faking-Good in a Male Sample: A New Model Based on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form Scales and Reaction Times

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose. The use of machine learning (ML) models in the detection of malingering has yielded encouraging results, showing promising accuracy levels. We investigated the possible application of this methodology when trained on behavioral features, such as response time (RT) and time pressure, to identify faking behavior in self-report personality questionnaires. To do so, we reintroduced the article of Roma et al. (2018), which highlighted that RTs and time pressure are useful variables in the detection of faking; we then extended the number of participants and applied an ML analysis. Materials and Methods. The sample was composed of 175 subjects, of whom all were graduates (having completed at least 17 years of instruction), male, and Caucasian. Subjects were randomly assigned to four groups: honest speeded, faking-good speeded, honest unspeeded, and faking-good unspeeded. A software version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) was administered. Results. Results indicated that ML algorithms reached very high accuracies (around 95%) in detecting malingerers when subjects are instructed to respond under time pressure. The classifiers’ performance was lower when the subjects responded with no time restriction to the MMPI-2-RF items, with accuracies ranging from 75% to 85%. Further analysis demonstrated that T -scores of validity scales are ineffective to detect fakers when participants were not under temporal pressure (accuracies 55–65%), whereas temporal features resulted to be more useful (accuracies 70–75%). By contrast, temporal features and T -scores of validity scales are equally effective in detecting fakers when subjects are under time pressure (accuracies higher than 90%). Discussion. To conclude, results demonstrated that ML techniques are extremely valuable and reach high performance in detecting fakers in self-report personality questionnaires over more the traditional psychometric techniques. Validity scales MMPI-2-RF manual criteria are very poor in identifying under-reported profiles. Moreover, temporal measures are useful tools in distinguishing honest from dishonest responders, especially in a no time pressure condition. Indeed, time pressure brings out malingerers in clearer way than does no time pressure condition.

show abstract

“…This finding is consistent with data presented in other studies (16–18). Due to the wide use of the MMPI-2 in child custody evaluations, there is a considerable literature regarding the MMPI-2 psychometric characteristics of CCLs (4, 5, 11, 19–22, 23). This literature indicates that, overall, subjects undergoing a parental skills evaluation obtain, on some scales, significantly different scores relative to non-CCL subjects and the normative population.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In more detail, CCL respondents tend to deny or omit negative features of their personality in order to present themselves in a better light, to show more adaptive psychological and behavioral functioning, and to appear as responsible caregivers who will provide for the best interests of their child. This underreporting attempt—stemming from a faking-good profile and usually combined with elevated scores on the MMPI-2 clinical scales of Hysteria (Hy), Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), and Paranoia (Pa)—is thought to be an effect of the legal environment (6, 11, 24, 25).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

MMPI-2-RF Profiles in Child Custody Litigants

et al. 2019

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Purpose: A psychological assessment of parents in post-divorce child custody disputes highlighted parents’ motivation to appear as adaptive and responsible caregivers. The study hypothesized that personality self-report measures completed by child custody litigants (CCLs) during a parental skills assessment would show underreporting, rendering the measures worthless. The study also analyzed gender differences in a CCL sample, general CCL profiles, and the implicit structure of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in the CCL sample. Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 400 CCLs undergoing personality evaluation as part of a parenting skills assessment. The mean age of the 204 mothers was 41.31 years (SD = 6.6), with an overall range of 24–59 years. Mothers had a mean educational level of 14.48 years (SD = 3.2). The 196 fathers were aged 20–59 years (M = 42.31; SD = 7.8), with an average of 14.48 years (SD = 3.9) of education. The MMPI-2-RF was administered. To test the hypotheses, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) and two-step cluster analyses were run. Results: CCL subjects reported higher scores in underreporting (L-r and K-r) and lower scores in overreporting [F-r, Fp-r, Fs-r, and response bias scale (RBS)] validity scales and restructured clinical (RC) scales, with the exception of RC2 and RC8. RC6 (Ideas of Persecution) was the most elevated. Intercorrelations within the RC scales significantly differed between CCL and normative samples. Women appeared deeply motivated to display a faking-good defensive profile, together with lower levels of cynicism and antisocial behaviors, compared to CCL men. Two-step cluster analyses identified three female CCL profiles and two male CCL profiles. Approximately 44% of the MMPI-2-RF profiles were deemed possibly underreporting and, for this reason, considered worthless. Discussion: The present study adds useful insight about which instruments are effective for assessing the personality characteristics of parents undergoing a parental skills assessment in the context of a child custody dispute. The results show that almost half of the MMPI-2-RF protocols in the CCL sample were worthless due to their demonstration of an underreporting attitude. This highlights the necessity to interpret CCL profiles in light of normative data collected specifically in a forensic setting and the need for new and promising methods of mainstreaming and administering the MMPI-2-RF.

show abstract

MMPI-2 in Child Custody Litigation

Cited by 15 publications

References 25 publications

Use of mouse-tracking software to detect faking-good behavior on personality questionnaires: an explorative study

Use of mouse-tracking software to detect faking-good behavior on personality questionnaires: an explorative study

Introducing Machine Learning to Detect Personality Faking-Good in a Male Sample: A New Model Based on Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form Scales and Reaction Times

MMPI-2-RF Profiles in Child Custody Litigants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About