Ambiguous Measures of Unknown Constructs: The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (aka Symptom Validity Scale, FBS, FBS-r)

Abstract

The Fake Bad Scale (FBS; Symptom Validity Scale) has fundamental psychometric flaws, interpretive problems, and potentially adverse societal consequences that are not appreciated by Ben-Porath et al. (Psychological Injury and Law 2(1), 62-85, 2009a, b). The FBS was constructed without due consideration to scientifically based guidelines for scale development (Clark and Watson, Psychological Assessment

Trends in Psychological/Psychiatric Injury and Law: Continuing Education, Practice Comments, Recommendations

“…As for the FBS, which had been added to the MMPI-2 F family stable, the authors reviewed the exchange on its utility in the journal Psychological Injury and Law by Butcher and colleagues and Ben-Porath and colleagues (Butcher et al 2008;Gass et al 2010;Williams et al 2009;compared to Ben-Porath et al 2009. Butcher and colleagues and Ben-Porath and colleagues engaged in a heated debate over the value of the FBS scale.…”

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

“…The scale's addition did not come without controversy or criticism. In particular, it has been argued that it incorrectly classifies females and individuals with genuine medical problems as malingering (Butcher, 2010;Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003;Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally, & Williams, 2008;Dean et al, 2008;Gass, Williams, Cumella, Butcher, & Kally, 2010;Williams, Butcher, Gass, Cumella, & Kally, 2009). However, Ben-Porath et al (2009) demonstrated that when the recommended interpretive cutoff scores (FBS≥100T) were employed, few people with bona fide medical or neurological disorders were mistakenly recognized as noncredible responders.…”

MMPI-2 Symptom Validity (FBS) Scale: Psychometric Characteristics and Limitations in a Veterans Affairs Neuropsychological Setting

“…This type of research can potentially provide strong circumstantial evidence for valid FBS applications, particularly when adequate controls are used to eliminate confounding variables such as litigation status and psychiatric comorbidity. The limitations of this approach to test validation in general, and to the FBS in particular, have been discussed in recent articles (Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally, & Williams, 2008;Gass, Williams, Cumella, Butcher, & Kally, 2010;Williams, Butcher, Gass, Cumella, & Kally, 2009) with opposing viewpoints offered by Ben-Porath, Kaufmann (2009a, 2009b). Although there are published reliability estimates for the FBS in various settings (Ben-Porath, Graham, & Tellegen, 2009), there have been no detailed investigations of the FBS on an itemmetric level.…”

“…Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, and McNulty (2003) classified items into categories of somatic symptoms, low energy=anhedonia, tension or stress, sleep disturbance, and denial of deviant attitudes or behaviors. Gass et al (2010) suggested the presence of common psychological and physical problems, claims of self-virtue, optimistic views of people, and a sense of situational pressure=stress. Although these impressions are interesting, statistical methods can provide more precision in clarifying the dimensions that underlie the FBS.…”