MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-Restructured Form Validity Scales: Complementary Approaches to Evaluate Response Validity

被引：3
作者：
James B. Hoelzle
Nathaniel W. Nelson
Paul A. Arbisi
机构：
[1] Department of Psychology, Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI, 53201
[2] University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, MN
[3] Minneapolis VA Medical Center, Minneapolis, MN
[4] University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN
来源：
Psychological Injury and Law | 2012年 / 5卷 / 3-4期
关键词：
Forensic psychology; MMPI-2; MMPI-2-RF; Symptom validity; Validity scales;
D O I：
10.1007/s12207-012-9139-2
中图分类号：
学科分类号：
摘要：
Responsible forensic assessment is dependent on an appreciation for how validity scales differ from one another and function across different evaluation contexts. The primary goal of this review is to evaluate whether there is sufficient empirical support to provide expert testimony using MMPI-2 or MMPI-2-RF validity scales. Towards this goal, we briefly describe the development of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales and review empirical studies that support interpretative strategies. We describe and illustrate with case examples how the respective sets of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales utilize complementary strategies to detect over- and under-reporting of psychological, cognitive, and physical symptoms. Additionally, the review describes standards for expert psychological testimony and illustrates how MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF validity scales are particularly well suited to assess symptom validity and psychological status in secondary-gain settings. © 2012 Springer Science+Business Media New York.
引用
收藏
页码：174 / 191
页数：17
相关论文
共 111 条
[1]  
Arbisi P.A., Ben-Porath Y.S., An MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations: The Infrequency-Psychopathology scale, F(p), Psychological Assessment, 7, pp. 424-431, (1995)
[2]  
Arbisi P.A., Ben-Porath Y.S., Characteristics of the MMPI-2 Fp scale as a function of diagnosis in an inpatient sample of veterans, Psychological Assessment, 9, pp. 102-105, (1997)
[3]  
Arbisi P.A., Ben-Porath Y.S., McNulty J.L., Refinement of the MMPI-2F(p) scale is not necessary: A response to Gass and Luis, Assessment, 10, pp. 123-128, (2003)
[4]  
Archer E.M., Hagan L.D., Mason J., Handel R., Archer R.P., MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evaluation litigants, Assessment, 19, pp. 14-20, (2012)
[5]  
Archer R.P., Buffington-Vollum J.K., Stredny R.V., Handel R.W., A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists, Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, pp. 84-94, (2006)
[6]  
Archer R.P., Handel R.W., Couvadelli B., An evaluation of the incremental validity of the MMPI-2 superlative (S) scale in an inpatient psychiatric sample, Assessment, 11, pp. 102-108, (2004)
[7]  
Archer R.P., Fontaine J., McCrae R.R., Effects of two MMPI-2 validity scales on basic scale relations to external criteria, Journal of Personality Assessment, 70, pp. 87-102, (1998)
[8]  
Austin J.S., The detection of fake good and fake bad on the MMPI-2, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, pp. 669-674, (1992)
[9]  
Baer R.A., Miller J., Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review, Psychological Assessment, 14, pp. 16-26, (2002)
[10]  
Bagby R.M., Marshal M.B., Assessing underreporting response bias on the MMPI-2, Assessment, 11, pp. 115-126, (2004)
12345678910