The detection of content-based invalid responding: a meta-analysis of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form’s (MMPI-2-RF) over-reporting validity scales

Paul B. Ingram · Michael S. Ternes

73 citations0/0 files storedThe Clinical Neuropsychologist

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

OBJECTIVE: This study synthesized research evaluation of the effectiveness of the over-reporting validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) for detecting intentionally feigned over-endorsements of symptoms using a moderated meta-analysis. METHOD: After identifying experimental and quasi-experimental studies for inclusion (k = 25) in which the validity scales of the MMPI-2-RF were compared between groups of respondents, moderated meta-analyses were conducted for each of its five over-reporting scales. These meta-analyses explored the general effectiveness of each scale across studies, as well as the impact that several moderators had on scale performance, including comparison group, study type (i.e. real versus simulation), age, education, sex, and diagnosis. RESULTS: The over-reporting scales of the MMPI-2-RF act as effective general measures for the detection of malingering and over endorsement of symptoms with individual scales ranging in effectiveness from an effect size of 1.08 (Symptom Validity; FBS-r) to 1.43 (Infrequent Pathology; Fp-r), each with different patterns of moderating influence. CONCLUSIONS: The MMPI-2-RF validity scales effectively discriminate between groups of respondents presenting in either an honest manner or with patterned exaggeration and over-endorsement of symptoms. The magnitude of difference observed between honest and malingering groups was substantially narrower than might be expected using traditional cut-scores for the validity scales, making interpretation within the evaluation context particularly important. While all over-reporting scales are effective, the FBS-r and RBS scales are those least influenced by common and context specific moderating influences, such as respondent or comparison grouping.

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 — 73 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 1992A power primer.2009Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 2021Introduction to Meta‐Analysis 1998Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis.1989MMPI-2 : Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 : manual for administration and scoring 2007Development and Validation of a Response Bias Scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2

Cited by

2019Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)2022Comparing the Ability of MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales to Detect Feigning: A Meta-Analysis 2021Assessing Negative Response Bias: a Review of the Noncredible Overreporting Scales of the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3 2019Patterns of MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scale scores observed across Veteran Affairs settings.2019Methodological considerations for developing and evaluating response bias indicators.

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.