Overreporting of closed-head injury symptoms on the MMPI-2.

Abstract

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) validity scales were compared in 4 groups: nonclinical participants answering under standard instructions (n = 20), nonclinical participants instructed to fake closed-head injury (CHI) symptoms (n = 18), non-compensation-seeking CHI patients (« = 31), and compensation-seeking CHI patients (n = 30). The highest scores on MMPI-2 overreporting scales were obtained by nonclinical participants faking CHI, and significantly higher scores on these scales were obtained by compensation-seeking relative to non-compensation-seeking CHI patients. These results suggest that MMPI-2 overreporting scales are sensitive to fabrication of CHI complaints, and possibly to exaggeration of CHI complaints, although further research is necessary to evaluate the latter hypothesis fully.Closed-head injury (CHI) is currently one of the most common neuropathologies in the United States, resulting annually in an estimated 2 million medically attended injuries, 300,000 hospitalizations, and 75,000 deaths (Kraus & Sorenson, 1994). In addition to the peripheral injuries caused by trauma incurred in accidents producing CHI, neuropsychological (Lovell & Franzen, 1994) and neuropsychiatric (Taylor & Price, 1994) symptoms are quite common. In order to address the psychiatric symptoms of CHI (Prigatano, 1987), assessment of psycho-

A Meta-Analytic Review of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2nd Edition (MMPI-2) Profile Elevations Following Traumatic Brain Injury

“…However, the potential contribution of compensation-seeking/litigation status to the paradoxical effect could not be explored in the present analysis. Second, scales 1, 2, 3, and 7 were higher for seeking/litigating than non-seeking/litigating samples, which supports previous studies' results (e.g., Berry et al, 1995;Thomas & Youngjohn, 2009;Youngjohn et al, 1997). Notably, this moderating effect was found despite the fact that all studies included in this review were screened for invalidity using the basic validity scales.…”

“…Consistent with Berry et al (1995), a comparison between samples seeking compensation and/or in litigation at the time of assessment (seeking/litigating group) and those who were not (nonseeking/litigating group) revealed higher effects for seeking/ litigating samples on scales 1, 2, 3, and 7 (p<0.01 to 0.001). Additionally, many studies either did not indicate their samples' compensation-seeking/litigation status (n =6) or did not report MMPI-2 profiles by compensationseeking/litigation status (n=1), leaving few studies that could be included (three with seeking/litigating samples, two with non-seeking/litigating).…”

“…Youngjohn et al (1997) found higher elevations on scales 1, 3, and 8 and more clinically significant clinical scale elevations for TBI litigants than non-litigating individuals; interestingly, litigating and non-litigating individuals did not differ on the validity scales. Also, Berry et al (1995) found higher elevations on scales 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 0 for compensation-seeking than non-compensation-seeking individuals with closed head injury.…”

“…To determine if test scores reflect true functioning, validity scales and extra-MMPI-2 performance validity tests are employed (e.g., Graham, 2006;Sollman & Berry, 2011). The MMPI is a valuable assessment tool for post-TBI psychopathology, in part, because its validity scales effectively assess random responding (Gallen & Berry, 1996;Wetter, Baer, Berry, Smith, & Larsen, 1992), symptom exaggeration (Berry et al, 1995;Rogers, Sewell, Martin, & Vitacco, 2003), and symptom minimization (Baer & Miller, 2002). In fact, based on the most recent published survey at the time of this writing, the MMPI-2 is the most commonly used test in contemporary forensic psychological evaluations of adults (Archer et al, 2006).…”

Practical guidelines in the use of symptom validity and other psychological tests to measure malingering and symptom exaggeration in traumatic brain injury cases

“…They noted that previous studies examining overreporting of psychopathology tended to have a greater mean effect size than those examining underreporting, and therefore overreporting on the MMPI was easier to detect than underreporting. Berry et aL (1995) used eight MMPI-2 validity indicators to compare four groups of subjects: nonclinical subjects asked to fake closed head injury symptoms, nonclinical subjects instructed to take the test in standard fashion, noncompensation-seeking closed head injury patients, and compensation-seeking closed head injury patients. Results replicated previous MMPI/MMPI-2 studies (Berry et al, 1991;Heaton et al, 1978; finding that the F or Fb Scales differentiated between analogue malingerers of closed head injuries or mental illness symptoms.…”