In this study, the authors both developed and validated a self-report mindfulness measure, the Toronto Mindfulness Scale (TMS). In Study 1, participants were individuals with and without meditation experience. Results showed good internal consistency and two factors, Curiosity and Decentering. Most of the expected relationships with other constructs were as expected. The TMS scores increased with increasing mindfulness meditation experience. In Study 2, criterion and incremental validity of the TMS were investigated on a group of individuals participating in 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction programs. Results showed that TMS scores increased following treatment, and Decentering scores predicted improvements in clinical outcome. Thus, the TMS is a promising measure of the mindfulness state with good psychometric properties and predictive of treatment outcome.

The vulnerability of remitted depressed patients for illness relapse may be related to the (re)activation of depressive thinking styles triggered by temporary dysphoric states. This is the first study to link such differences to prognosis following successful treatment for depression. Further understanding of factors predisposing to relapse/recurrence in recovered patients may help to shorten the potentially lifelong course of depression.

et al. (2006) demonstrated that depressed patients treated to remission through either antidepressant medication (ADM) or cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), but who evidenced moodlinked increases in dysfunctional thinking, showed elevated rates of relapse over 18 months. The current study sought to evaluate whether treatment response was associated with gains in decentering-the ability to observe one's thoughts and feelings as temporary, objective events in the mind-and whether these gains moderated the relationship between mood-linked cognitive reactivity and relapse of major depression. Findings revealed that CBT responders exhibited significantly greater gains in decentering compared with ADM responders. In addition, high post acute treatment levels of decentering and low cognitive reactivity were associated with the lowest rates of relapse in the 18-month follow-up period.

The Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (DEQ) was constructed to assess two distinct characterological configurations associated with depression--the anaclitic (dependent) and introjective (self-critical). Although the DEQ is widely used as a measure of these two personality constructs, its validity in actually measuring them is questionable. In this study we subjected a correlation matrix comprised of DEQ responses from a large sample of normal adults (N = 404) to confirmatory factor analysis to assess formally whether the DEQ is congruent with the theoretical parameters outlined by the model. Results indicated that neither the two-factor (Dependency, Self-Criticism) nor the three-factor (Dependency, Self-Criticism, Efficacy) models represented good approximations of the data. Using a series of exploratory factor analyses, we identified 19 items (9 dependency, 10 self-critical) from the original DEQ that were an excellent fit to the data for the two-factor model from "normal" adult, depressed outpatient, and student samples. Parameter estimates of the relationship between the two factors indicated only a modest association. Test-retest reliabilities for both the Dependency and Self-Criticism scales indicated excellent temporal stability. There were diagnostically meaningful variations in the mean scores between the "normal" sample and patient sample.

The objective of this study was to examine defensive underreporting on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with a sample of parents involved in custody dispute litigation. With a composite score derived from 2 nontraditional validity indicators-the Wiggins Social Desirability scale (WSD) and the Superlative scale (5), which had previously been identified as the best predictors of fake-good responding, 74% of litigants were identified as underreporting compared with 52% identified using traditional Lie (L) and Correction (K) scale criterion. Litigants identified as underreporters, whether using either the WSD-S criterion or the L-K criterion, had clinical scale profiles that were similar to those identified as nonunderreporters. The outcome of this study suggests that the WSD and S scales are perhaps more useful in the identification of defensive underreporting than the L and K scales.In many situations, individuals undergoing psychological assessment have much to gain by altering their responses to disguise or otherwise minimize their psychopathology; this is commonly referred to as defensive or fake-good responding. Clinicians may encounter fake-good responding in a variety of settings, including personnel selection, correctional and hospital settings, and family access and child custody evaluations (Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 1993). In a recent article outlining the legal basis for forensic applications of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), Ogloff (1995 reported that the MMPI-2 was cited more frequently in custody access and parenting cases than in any other causes of action reaching the appellate level of review, including workers' compensation and employment disability, criminal responsibility, and sexual offenses. In a national survey of custody evaluation practices, Ackerman and Ackerman (1997) reported that the MMPI-2 was the most frequently used instrument in the

The purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of the various validity scales and indices on the MMPI-2 to detect malingered (fake-bad), and defensive (fake-good) responding. The entire sample consisted of 165 college students who completed the MMPI-2 under one of three conditions--fake-bad, fake-good, or respond honestly--and 173 forensic inpatients who completed the test as part of a routine evaluation. To detect faking-good and faking-bad, cutting scores for the validity scales and indices were established from the fake-good and fake-bad groups and were compared to the honest and patient groups. Corresponding sensitivity and specificity rates were then determined. Four validity indicators appeared to be moderately effective-at detecting fake-bad profiles: F, F--K, the MMPI-2 version of revised Gough Dissimulation Scale, and Wiener's Obvious-Subtle index, whereas the fake-good indicators were much less effective--only F--K and the Obvious-Subtle index appeared to have moderate utility.

Lie (L) and Infrequency (F) scales, relative to the Obvious-Subtle Index (O-S), the Positive Malingering (Mp) scale, and the revised Dissimulation scale in the detection of fake-good and fake-bad MMPI-2 protocols was evaluated by asking college students to respond honestly, fake bad, or fake good on the MMPI-2. MMPI-2 protocols of participants asked to fake bad were compared with protocols from general psychiatric and forensic inpatient samples, and MMPI-2 protocols of participants asked to fake good were compared with MMPI-2 protocols of students asked to respond honestly. The F scale was superior in detecting faking bad, and the O-S index and the Mp and L scales were equally effective at detecting faking good. However, we caution against the use of the O-S index in the detection of fake-bad and fake-good responding.Response distortion on self-report measures of personality and psychopathology continues to be an important issue in psychological assessment. From its inception, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & Mc-Kinley, 1940) included scales that were designed to assess response distortion. The Lie (L) and Infrequency (F) scales were implemented initially as validity indicators and were soon followed by the Correction (K) scale (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946). These standard validity scales have been retained on the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). As testimony to the importance of assessing response distortion, and in response to the belief of many investigators that the standard validity scales were perhaps not wholly adequate in the detection of distortion, a second generation of validity indicators emerged (Greene, 1988). These indicators included additional indexes of overreporting (malingering), such as the Wiener-Harmon Subtle-Obvious (S-O) Scales (Wiener, 1948), from which the Obvious-Subtle (O-S) Index is derived; Cough's original and revised Dissimulation (Ds) scales (Gough, 1954; Ds-r;Gough, 1957);' the sum of the Lachar and Wrobel Critical Items (CI; Lachar & Wrobel, 1979); and Cough's F-K Dissimulation Index (F-K;Gough, 1950). The O-S and F-K indexes are bidirectional, which also allows the assessment of defensive or fake-good responding. The Positive

In this study, patients diagnosed with schizophrenia (n = 38) who had previously completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) by responding honestly were asked to complete it again with instructions to conceal their symptoms. A student group (n = 49) followed similar instructions. Under instructions to fake good, both students and patients were able to produce clinical profiles that were significantly less pathological. The Other-Deception and Superlative Scales were best at distinguishing fake-good and honest profiles in the student sample. The Edwards Social Desirability Scale and the L scale were best at distinguishing fake-good and honest profiles in the patient sample. The Wiggins Social Desirability scale was best at distinguishing honestly responding students from patients faking good.In many situations individuals undergoing psychological assessment have much to gain by concealing or otherwise minimizing psychopathology. Are the parties to a custody dispute as well-adjusted as they claim or merely adept at masking psychological dysfunction? Does the repeat offender appear ready to be reintegrated into society because he or she has been rehabilitated or because he or she has learned to simulate psychological health (Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 1993, p. 97)? Is the person with schizophrenia desiring discharge from the hospital really free of symptoms likely to compromise adjustment to the community and precipitate readmission? The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) contains a number of indicators and scales specifically designed to detect overt denial and