The Utility of the NEO–PI–R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With the MMPI–2

Morasco, Benjamin J.; Gfeller, Jeffrey D.; Elder, Katherine A.

doi:10.1080/00223890701293924

Cited by 15 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 34 publications

(48 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The INC was designed “to assess random and thoughtless responding,” whereas the PPM was designed to assess the “denial of common faults, attribution of uncommon virtues” and the NPM the “denial of common virtues and attribution of uncommon faults” (Schinka et al, 1997, p. 413). These scales are widely used (Blanch, Aluja, Gallart, & Dolcet, 2009) and well validated (see, e.g., Bagby & Marshall, 2003; Morasco, Gfeller, & Elder, 2007; Sellbom & Bagby, 2008; Young & Schinka, 2001). As we were only interested in over- and underreporting, only the PPM and NPM were used here.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response bias and the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Contrasting self- and informant-report.

Quilty¹,

Cosentino²,

Bagby³

2018

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has raised concerns that scores derived from the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5; American Psychiatric Association, 2013; Krueger, Derringer, Markon, Watson, & Skodol, 2012) may be compromised by response styles such as underreporting or overreporting. The informant-report form of the PID-5 (PID-5-IRF; Markon, Quilty, Bagby, & Krueger, 2013) has been recommended for use when response bias is an assessment concern. The purpose of the current investigation was to evaluate PID-5 and PID-5-IRF scale score elevations across participants exhibiting signs of overreporting or underreporting. A total of 245 adults completed the PID-5 and the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). A family member or friend of at least 1 year's acquaintance completed the PID-5-IRF for 216 of these. A total of 211 target-informant pairs were available for analysis. Participants were categorized as overreporting and underreporting according to NEO PI-R validity scale cutoffs. The majority of PID-5 scale scores were elevated in those identified as overreporting; more than half of the PID-5-IRF scale scores were similarly elevated. The majority of PID-5 scale scores were lower in those scoring above underreporting cut-offs; however, PID-5-IRF scales were not as consistently or strongly impacted. PID-5 scales were strongly impacted by response bias, whereas PID-5-IRF scores were less strongly impacted overall, and more so by overreporting bias. Caution when using these instruments in the assessment of personality disorders prone to over- or underreporting may be warranted. (PsycINFO Database Record

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response bias and the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Contrasting self- and informant-report.

Quilty¹,

Cosentino²,

Bagby³

2018

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The authors of the NEO PI–R maintained that the empirical evidence did not support the use of validity scales. In response to criticism of this position (Ben-Porath & Waller, 1992), Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer (1997) developed three NEO PI–R research validity scales: the Inconsistent Responding scale; the Negative Presentation Management scale, to assess negative response distortion or “faking bad”; and the Positive Presentation Management (PPM) scale, to assess positive response distortion or “faking good.” Several analogue demand-simulation studies and clinical studies have provided support for the validity of these scales in clinical applications (Ballenger, Caldwell-Andrews, & Baer, 2001; Caldwell-Andrews, Baer, & Berry, 2000; Morasco, Gfeller, & Elder, 2007; Morey et al, 2002; Sellbom & Bagby, 2008; Young & Schinka, 2001). Qualified support for the validity of the PPM in personnel contexts has also been demonstrated (Reid-Seiser & Fritzsche, 2001).…”

Section: The Neo Pi–r In Police Officer Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Revised NEO Personality Inventory normative data for police officer selection.

Detrick¹,

Chibnall²

2013

Psychological Services

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) has demonstrated utility in the personnel selection context. Its use in police officer selection has been relatively limited, in part, because there are no published normative data for the NEO PI-R for police officer applicants. The authors present normative data on NEO PI-R domain and facet scores for a large sample (N = 288) of police officer applicants in a large, urban, Midwestern police department who completed the NEO PI-R as part of a preemployment psychological evaluation. Applicants reported low levels of Neuroticism and high levels of Extraversion and Conscientiousness. Neuroticism and Conscientiousness scores were strongly and consistently correlated with the Positive Presentation Management (PPM) research validity scale of the NEO PI-R. Extraversion and Agreeableness scores were moderately and less consistently correlated with PPM. These data may serve as a normative comparison group for professionals and researchers who use or may want to use the NEO PI-R in the police officer selection context.

show abstract

“…Another strength of the MPQ is the inclusion of validity scales such as True Response Inconsistency (TRIN) and Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) that help identify various response sets. These response sets may invalidate personality inferences, and the ability to make statistically informed judgments on this issue has proven useful in both clinical settings for individual case evaluations (Baer & Miller, 2002; Clegg, Fremouw, Horacek, Cole, & Schwartz, 2010) and in research settings (Graham, Watts, & Timbrook, 1991; Morasco, Gfeller, & Elder, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and Validation of the Dutch Brief Form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ-BF-NL)

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study describes the development and psychometric properties of the Dutch brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ-BF-NL). Representative samples from the Netherlands (N = 1,055) and the United States (N = 1,153) and a Dutch student sample (N = 987) were used for development, cross- and external validation, respectively. The authors' strategy for item selection and scale validation replicated the development of the U.S. brief form (MPQ-BF). Internal consistencies were generally good and comparable to the U.S. version, as were correlations with the U.S. full-length scales and higher order structure. Moreover, convergent and divergent patterns were consistent with prediction, with Positive Emotionality related to social and activating behavior, Negative Emotionality to anxiety, and Constraint to reversed impulsivity and externalizing behaviors. In sum, the MPQ-BF-NL provides the Dutch-Flemish language area with a personality inventory well suited for both psychopathology research and clinical practice and offers new opportunities for fundamental and cross-cultural studies on personality.

show abstract

The Utility of the NEO–PI–R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With the MMPI–2

Cited by 15 publications

References 34 publications

Response bias and the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Contrasting self- and informant-report.

Response bias and the Personality Inventory for DSM–5: Contrasting self- and informant-report.

Revised NEO Personality Inventory normative data for police officer selection.

Development and Validation of the Dutch Brief Form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ-BF-NL)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About