MMPI-A Validity Scale Uses and Limitations in Detecting Varying Levels of Random Responding

Robert P. Archer · Richard W. Handel · David E. Elkins

17 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Personality Assessment

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Deception detection and forensic psychology

Abstract

Although there is a substantial research literature on the effects of random responding on the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), there are very few studies available on this topic with the MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992). Archer and Elkins (1999) found that MMPI-A validity scales F and VRIN were particularly useful in detecting entirely random profiles from those derived standardly in clinical settings but noted that "all random" protocols could not be used to evaluate the usefulness of the T-score difference between the first half (F1) and the second half (F2) of the MMPI-A test booklet. Following up on this issue, this study extended the methodology of previous research by examining the hit rate, positive predictive power, negative predictive power, sensitivity, and specificity of VRIN, F, F1, F2 and the absolute value of the T-score difference between F1 and F2 (denoted as IF1-F21) in 5 samples varying in the degree of protocol randomness. One of the samples consisted of 100 adolescent inpatients administered the MMPI-A under standard instructions, and another sample consisted of 100 protocols randomly generated by computer. The additional 3 samples of 100 protocols each contained varying degrees of computer-generated randomness introduced in the latter half of the MMPI-A item pool. Over- all, the results generally indicate that several MMPI-A validity scales are useful in detecting protocols that are largely random, but all of these validity scales are more limited in detecting partially random responding that involves less than half the total item pool located in the second half of the test booklet. Clinicians should be particularly cautious concerning validity inferences based on the observed T-score difference that occurs for the F1 and F2 subscales and current findings do not support the clinical usefulness of this index.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 17 citations exist upstream.

References

1989MMPI-2 : Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 : manual for administration and scoring 1992MMPI-2 random responding indices: Validation using a self-report methodology.1990Psychological assessment with the MMPI 1997Detection of Random Responding on the MMPI--A 1991Detection of random responding on the MMPI-2: Utility of F, back F, and VRIN scales.1997MMPI-A: Assessing adolescent psychopathology, 2nd ed.1999Detecting and Discriminating Between Random Responding and Overreporting on the MMPI-A 1999Identification of Random Responding on the MMPI-A

Cited by

2006An Evaluation of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A True Response Inconsistency (TRIN) Scales 2005Detecting random, partially random, and nonrandom Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--Adolescent Protocols.2008MMPI–A Forensic Case Studies: Uses in Documented Court Decisions 2006Updating the Jesness Inventory Randomness Validity Scales for the Jesness Inventory–Revised

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.