A Comparative Analysis of MMPI-2 Malingering Detection Models Among Inmates

Abstract

There are several strategies, or models, for combining the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity indicators to detect malingered psychiatric symptoms. Some scholars have recommended that an elevated F (Infrequency) score should be followed by the inspection of Fp (Infrequency-Psychopathology), whereas a recent meta-analysis indicated that Fp and Ds (Gough's Dissimulation Scale) should be examined. For correctional settings, one model of malingering suggests that F, Fp, and F - K (Gough's Dissimulation Index) should be inspected for one or more elevated scores. Although a large body of research has examined malingering detection with the MMPI-2, this research has typically focused on the contributions of individual validity indicators to differentiate malingered from genuine psychiatric symptoms. Therefore, the current study compared these models of malingering detection on the MMPI-2. Inmate simulators were contrasted with inmates who were hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. Results from classification and logistic regression analyses supported the sequential use of F and Fp in malingering detection.

The Detection of Feigned Psychiatric Disorders Using the MMPI-2-RF Overreporting Validity Scales: An Analog Investigation

“…All four scales have shown utility in detection of overreporting (Rogers et al 2003;Nelson et al 2006). Of these scales, the F P scale has proven to be the most effective, showing incremental validity over the F scale in detecting the overreporting of psychopathology among prison inmates (e.g., Steffan et al 2010), college students (e.g., Bagby et al 1997a), and psychiatric inpatients (e.g., Arbisi and Ben-Porath 1995).…”

A pilot study on the Chinese Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐2 in detecting feigned mental disorders: Simulators classified by using the Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms

“…Nevertheless, the eight indices were significantly inter‐correlated ( r = .590–.981, p < .001, two‐tailed). Detection models that consist of algorithms integrating individual indices have been advocated to increase the accuracy of detecting feigned mental disorders (Meyers et al, ; Rosenfeld, Green, Pivovarova, Dole, & Zapf, ; Steffan et al, ). Future research might examine these detection models in relation to the Chinese MMPI‐2.…”

“…Various indices of the MMPI‐2 have been proposed and studied for their effectiveness in the detection of feigned mental disorders. Based on intensive research, the following are often recommended: Infrequency (F) scale, Back F (Fb) scale, Infrequency Psychopathology (Fp) scale, Gough Dissimulation index (F‐K), Gough Dissimulation (Ds) scale, Gough Dissimulation scale–revised (Dsr), and Fake Bad Scale (FBS; also known as the Symptom Validity scale; Greene, ; Nelson, Hoelzle, Sweet, Arbisi, & Demakis, ; Rogers et al, ; Steffan, Morgan, Lee, & Sellbom, ). The first four indices use the detection strategy of rare symptoms, while the others belong to the strategy of erroneous stereotypes.…”

Framing the Results: Assessment of Response Bias Through Select Self-Report Measures in Psychological Injury Evaluations

“…Fp has also been shown to add incrementally to the F scale in differentiating between psychiatric inpatients and overreporting (Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1995;Bagby et al, 1997;Graham, 2011). Therefore, if an elevation is observed on F or F B , clinicians should review Fp to differentiate between genuine psychopathology and noncredible symptom exaggeration (Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1995;Butcher et al, 2001;Steffan, Morgan, Lee, & Sellbom, 2010). Lastly, since this scale was developed in relation to psychiatric samples, it is less sensitive to bona fide psychopathology and does not require adjusted interpretive guidelines dependent on the population for which it is used, although Nichols (2011) cautioned that Fp can be elevated when all of the family enmity items are endorsed even if no other Fp items are endorsed.…”