The effects of description clarity and disorder type on MMPI-2 fake-bad validity indices

Abstract

Simulation research indicates that the MMPI‐2 validity scales easily detect faked‐bad profiles that follow vague, but not specific, instructions. The present study compared the fake‐bad validity scales (i.e., F, F‐Back, F‐K, Fake‐Bad Scale, critical items, and O‐S scales) for differences among one authentic and four simulation (fake‐bad) groups. The simulation groups differed according to the type of disorder simulated (neurotic or psychotic) and the clarity of the behavioral descriptions they received (clear or unclear descriptions). Results indicated that the validity scales together could discriminate (a) clear from unclear description profiles; (b) neurotic from psychotic simulation profiles; and (c) authentic from simulated profiles. Actuarial analyses indicated that participants given clear character descriptions were more likely to escape detection than were participants given unclear character descriptions. Future research on incentive and punishment is considered.

Detecting Incomplete Effort on the MMPI-2: An Examination of the Fake-Bad Scale in Mild Head Injury

“…A cutoff score of 20, originally offered by Lees-Haley (1991) resulted in slightly reduced specificity of 85%, though an increased sensitivity of 95%. In contrast, using a cutoff score of 25, as Cramer (1995) suggested, resulted in a lower sensitivity of 81% but relatively high specificity of 95%. Although Lees-Haley (1992) has reported different cutoff scores for males and females, we found no significant differences between men and women across groups on the FBS, t(113) ¼ 0.45, p > .60.…”

“…For women, the cut score resulted in a comparable number of malingerers (74%) and controls (92%) being correctly classified. Similarly, Cramer (1995) found that simulators had significantly higher scores on the FBS than authentic patients. A cut score of greater than or equal to 26 was used.…”

“…Later, the Fback (Fb) and F-psychopathology (F(p)) scales were developed using this same basic approach to validity scale construction. Numerous studies have shown these scales to be useful in distinguishing persons feigning various types of psychiatric disorder from true patients and normal controls (Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1998;Archer, Handel, Greene, Baer, & Elkins, 2001;Bagby et al, 1997;Cramer, 1995;Elhai, Gold, Frueh, & Gold, 2000;Elhai, Gold, Sellers, & Dorfman, 2001;Larrabee, 1998;Lees-Haley, 1991Nicholson et al, 1997;Pensa, Dorfman, Gold, & Schneider, 1996;Strong, Greene, & Schinka, 2000;Tsushima & Tsushima, 2001). The Infrequency minus Correction (FÀK), or Gough's (1950) Dissimulation index, is another measure that has been used in detecting malingering (Cramer, 1995;Elhai et al, 2000;Elhai et al, 2001;Larrabee, 1998;Lees-Haley, 1991;LeesHaley, 1992;Pensa et al, 1996;Smith & Frueh, 1996;Wetzler & Marlowe, 1990) and defensiveness (Putzke, Williams, & Boll, 1998;Putzke et al, 1997).…”

The Continuum of Conscientiousness: The Antagonistic Interests among Obsessive and Antisocial Personalities

“…3. The MMPI-II is the second edition of the Minnesota Muliphasic Personality Inventory; an assessment tool widely used in forensic, clinical and research settings (Cramer, 1995). The MMPI-II is at once a self-report measure and a personality measure.…”

Identifying faking bad on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—Adolescent with Mexican Adolescents

“…These MMPI-2 results are quite similar to those previously reported for the original MMPI. More recent MMPI-2 faking-bad studies with adults (Bagby, Nicholson, Buis, & Bacchiochi, 2000;Cramer, 1995;Lim & Butcher, 1996) also suggest that the F and Fb Scales and the F-K index are the best ways to discriminate persons faking bad from those completing the MMPI-2 with standard instructions.…”