The MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales: A Paradigmatic Shift in Scale Development

Rogers, Richard; Sewell, Kenneth W.; Harrison, Kimberly S.; Jordan, Mandy J.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_03

Cited by 54 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For a more thorough discussion of current recommended uses and cutscores for the FBS see Greiffenstein et al (in press). Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, and Jordan (2006) expressed concerns about the face validity of the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales and their susceptibility to response style and faking. The RC1 does not appear to have sufficient predictive validity to identify symptom over-reporting in PI litigants or disability claimants under external incentive conditions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Unfortunately, this basic research design may suffer from generalizability to real-world settings. A better research design, employment of probable known groups, has direct clinical relevance and generalizability as it relies on a two part approach: (1) establishment of criterion groups (malingerers and bona fide patients), and (2) statistical analysis between the criterion groups (Rogers, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale, Henry-Heilbronner Index, and Restructured Clinical Scale 1 in Identifying Noncredible Symptom Reporting

Henry

Heilbronner

Mittenberg

et al. 2008

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A known groups design investigated the comparative predictive validity of the 27-item MMPI-2 Restructured Scale 1 (RC1), the 43-item Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale (FBS), and the 15-item Henry-Heilbronner Index (HHI) to identify noncredible symptom response sets in 63 personal injury litigants and disability claimants compared to 77 non-litigating head-injured controls. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the HHI and FBS were better predictors of group membership than the RC1. Results suggest that the FBS, HHI, and RC1 may be measuring different constructs. The HHI and FBS reflect an exaggeration of disability or illness-related behavior. Differences in scale construction are discussed. The RC1 may have greater relevance under external incentive conditions involving chronic pain patients, or clinical patients with no external incentive to exaggerate their symptom presentation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale, Henry-Heilbronner Index, and Restructured Clinical Scale 1 in Identifying Noncredible Symptom Reporting

Henry

Heilbronner

Mittenberg

et al. 2008

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…They were derived using Jackson's (1970) sequential system of scale development and factor-analytic techniques (Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, & Jordan, 2006). Such procedures can be used to create homogeneous subscales with strong divergence and discriminability (for a review see Lanyon & Goodstein, 1997).…”

Section: Mmpi-2 Restructured Formmentioning

confidence: 99%

Let's Not Get Hysterical: Comparing the MMPI-2 Validity, Clinical, and RC Scales in TBI Litigants Tested for Effort

Michael

Youngjohn

2009

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) scales replace the traditional clinical scales in the MMPI-2 restructured form (MMPI-2-RF). Few studies to date have examined the MMPI-2 RC scales in traumatic brain injury (TBI) litigants. We compared MMPI-2 validity, clinical, and RC scales profiles of 83 mild, complicated mild, and moderate/severe TBI litigants who were tested for effort. Past research shows that patients referred for neuropsychological evaluations with mild TBIs paradoxically have higher MMPI-2 clinical scale elevations than patients with moderate/severe TBIs. Failure on cognitive symptom validity tests (SVTs) has also been associated with elevated validity and clinical scales profiles. The "conversion V" (elevated Hs and Hy, followed by D) is the most frequent elevated profile configuration in mild TBI and/or SVT failure. We sought to determine if these patterns of symptom reporting would replicate on the RC scales profile. Archival data from independent neuropsychological examinations were used to correlate TBI severity, cognitive test effort as indicated by SVTs, and MMPI-2 profiles. Results suggest that the validity, clinical, and RC scales profiles all correlate well with indices of cognitive test effort (namely that failure on SVTs is correlated with elevated symptom reporting). In addition, the validity scales profile, but not the clinical or RC scales profiles, was significantly inversely related to TBI severity. Discriminant function analyses suggest that the MMPI-2 RC scales can aid in the diagnosis of over-reported TBI symptomatology. However, RC3-the RC equivalent of the Hy scale-no longer appears to serve as a marker of somatization and/or malingering.

show abstract

“…176-177), resulting in a "drastically downsized" (p. 175) set of eight Clinical scales . Recommendations that the RC scales could be used to clarify interpretation of the Clinical scales (Tellegen et al, 2003) were suggested to be premature (Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, & Jordan, 2006). A particularly thorny issue for use of the RC scales in clinical settings was the observation that the RC scales did not have elevations in the clinical range, although the traditional Clinical scales did (Megargee, 2006;Wallace & Liljequist, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What Do the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales Reliably Measure? Answers From Multiple Research Settings

Rouse

Greene

Butcher

et al. 2008

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Restructured Clinical (RC; Tellegen et al., 2003) scales were developed to improve measurement of the core constructs of the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) Clinical scales by removing "demoralization," hypothesized to affect these scales adversely. Using 25 samples with MMPI-2 responses from 78,159 subjects across diverse clinical settings, we found that each RC scale was highly correlated with a Supplementary, Content, or Personality Psychopathology 5 (PSY-5; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995) scale: higher, in fact, than the correlation between the RC scale and its parent scale. Furthermore, for over half the RC scales (i.e., RC1, RC3, RC7, RC8, and RCd), the correlations were strong enough to conclude that the RC scales replicate MMPI-2 scales with rich empirical foundations; the remaining RC scales were not redundant. Next, we examined reliability estimates using alpha coefficients and interitem correlations and did not reveal superior reliability for most of the RC scales over existing MMPI-2 scales.

show abstract

The MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales: A Paradigmatic Shift in Scale Development

Cited by 54 publications

References 23 publications

Comparison of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale, Henry-Heilbronner Index, and Restructured Clinical Scale 1 in Identifying Noncredible Symptom Reporting

Comparison of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale, Henry-Heilbronner Index, and Restructured Clinical Scale 1 in Identifying Noncredible Symptom Reporting

Let's Not Get Hysterical: Comparing the MMPI-2 Validity, Clinical, and RC Scales in TBI Litigants Tested for Effort

What Do the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales Reliably Measure? Answers From Multiple Research Settings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About