Potential for Bias in MMPI-2 Assessments Using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS)

We address issues raised by Butcher et al. (Psychological Injury and the Law 1:191-209, 2008) in their critique of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) and show that their analyses and conclusions are based on faulty premises, a misunderstanding of basic concepts in the assessment of overreporting, a selective review of the literature and mischaracterization of the findings they do cite, problematic analyses of a dataset that had already been similarly analyzed, and a flawed analysis of a legal case they discuss. We complement the review of existing research with some new findings that provide further empirical support and clarification of current interpretive recommendations for proper use of the FBS in evaluations of personal injury litigants and claimants. purport to explore potential bias in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2 assessments using the Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) 1 . They consider issues related to the item content of the scale, methods used to identify malingering in FBS studies, evidence of the reliability and validity of the scale, and questions about recommended cutoffs for FBS interpretation. also seek to present evidence of the false positive rate of the FBS in two samples of individuals they believe to be at risk for mischaracterization as "malingerers" based on scores on the scale. Finally, they discuss the results of a recent Frye hearing in Florida, following which a trial judge excluded testimony based on FBS.In this rebuttal, we address the issues raised by and show that their analyses and conclusions are based on faulty premises, a misunderstanding of basic concepts in the assessment of overreporting, a selective review of the literature and mischaracterization of the findings they do cite, problematic analyses of a dataset (Butcher et al. 2003) that had already been similarly analyzed, and an incomplete analysis of a court case they discuss. Before turning to the more specific problems with Butcher et al.'s (2008) critique, we begin with a discussion and illustration of basic conceptual flaws in their article.

“…Before turning to the more specific problems with Butcher et al's (2008) critique, we begin with a discussion and illustration of basic conceptual flaws in their article.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) Is an Empirically Validated Measure of Overreporting in Personal Injury Litigants and Claimants: Reply to Butcher et al. (2008)

Ben‐Porath

Greve

Bianchini

et al. 2009

“…As for the FBS, which had been added to the MMPI-2 F family stable, the authors reviewed the exchange on its utility in the journal Psychological Injury and Law by Butcher and colleagues and Ben-Porath and colleagues (Butcher et al 2008;Gass et al 2010;Williams et al 2009;compared to Ben-Porath et al 2009. Butcher and colleagues and Ben-Porath and colleagues engaged in a heated debate over the value of the FBS scale.…”

Section: Practice Commentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Trends in Psychological/Psychiatric Injury and Law: Continuing Education, Practice Comments, Recommendations

Young

2010

This literature review of the major topics in the field of psychological/psychiatric injury and law is aimed at developing commentary for practice in the area. The field is a fast-developing one, with over ten major topics that it needs to integrate. In particular, the present review focuses current work on: law (evidence, tort); forensic psychology; assessment and testing; psychological injuries (posttraumatic stress disorder, chronic pain, traumatic brain injury, other); the APA DSM-5 draft (Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders; American Psychiatric Association 2010); malingering; causality; multicultural considerations; disability; the American Medical Association (AMA) Guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment (Rondinelli et al. 2008); models; and treatment. At the end of each section of the article, practice comments introduce critical issues in applying the research to psychological work in the area. Whether undertaking tort evaluations, disability, and treatment plan assessments or treating individuals with psychological injuries, the professional needs state-of-the-art information in all the areas listed in order to remain scientifically informed, comprehensive, and impartial. The article concludes with recommendations for an integrated field in psychological/psychiatric injury and law, study in the field, research in its major areas, best practice policies, for example in assessment and treatment, and model building.

“…The scale's addition did not come without controversy or criticism. In particular, it has been argued that it incorrectly classifies females and individuals with genuine medical problems as malingering (Butcher, 2010;Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003;Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally, & Williams, 2008;Dean et al, 2008;Gass, Williams, Cumella, Butcher, & Kally, 2010;Williams, Butcher, Gass, Cumella, & Kally, 2009). However, Ben-Porath et al (2009) demonstrated that when the recommended interpretive cutoff scores (FBS≥100T) were employed, few people with bona fide medical or neurological disorders were mistakenly recognized as noncredible responders.…”

Section: Mmpi-2 Over-reporting Indicatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Framing the Results: Assessment of Response Bias Through Select Self-Report Measures in Psychological Injury Evaluations

Sleep

Petty

Wygant

2015