Assessing Negative Response Bias: a Review of the Noncredible Overreporting Scales of the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3

Burchett, Danielle; Bagby, R. Michael

doi:10.1007/s12207-021-09435-9

Cited by 22 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The main purpose of PVTs is to assess excessively poor performance on cognitive tests (underperforming on cognitive tasks), which is often done with the Reliable Digit Span of the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (e.g., Babikian et al, 2006), the Test of Memory Malingering (Tombaugh, 1996), and/or other similar tools. The primary purpose of SVTs is to assess negative response bias on symptom scales (overreporting of experienced psychological problems), which is often done using the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) instruments (see Burchett & Bagby, 2022), the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS; Smith & Burger, 1997), and/or other similar measures. Ideally, professionals assessing the credibility of alleged mental health problems should include multiple independent SVTs and multiple independent PVTs in their assessment batteries (Gancedo et al, 2021a; Sweet et al, 2021).…”

Section: The Current Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Compared to the large and growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated SVTs available to professionals (Pina et al, 2022; Sherman et al, 2020; Sweet et al, 2021). The most widely used and probably most empirically sound negative response bias indices are the validity scales of the MMPI instruments (Burchett & Bagby, 2022; Giromini et al, 2022). However, administering the MMPI requires a nonnegligible amount of time and noticeable cognitive effort on the part of the person being assessed, so that administering additional and independent SVTs alongside the MMPI instruments may not always be feasible.…”

Section: The Current Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): A systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Puente-López¹,

Pina²,

López‐Nicolás³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

29 (IOP-29) is a 29-item self-administered symptom validity test (SVT) that assesses the credibility of clinical presentations related to posttraumatic stress disorder, depression/anxiety, psychosis, cognitive impairment and combination thereof. To date, no publications have summarized the classification accuracy of the IOP-29 using a bivariate meta-analytical approach that preserves the twodimensional nature of the estimators. Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis of the IOP-29 according to the relevant guidelines. Twenty-one independent samples were included, with a total sample size of 4,163 participants. The results indicated that the IOP-29 is able to discriminate adequately between instructed simulators and healthy controls/clinical patients. Using the recommended cutoff (False Disorder Probability Score [FDS], ≥.50), a sensitivity of 82% was achieved, maintaining specificity at 93% (false positive rate of 7%). The language of the test and the type of comparison group have been identified as possible sources of heterogeneity. Specificity decreases for the non-English version of the IOP-29, for the FDS ≥ .30, and also decreases for studies using clinical controls, for all three cutoff scores. In general, our findings support the usefulness of the IOP-29 as an SVT; however, most of the included studies use a simulation design and have been coauthored by the test authors. Likewise, about half of the studies did not include bona fide patient controls but only nonclinical controls. The results obtained are highly promising, but further research, especially that using the criterion group paradigm, is recommended. Public Significance StatementFollowing a bivariate meta-analytic model, we have evaluated the discriminative ability of the IOP-29, a novel symptom validity test. The results obtained indicate that it is able to discriminate adequately between instructed simulators and healthy controls/clinical patients.

show abstract

Section: The Current Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Current Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): A systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Puente-López¹,

Pina²,

López‐Nicolás³

et al. 2023

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, some minor wording changes were also made to simplify existing items. The first article in this Special Issue focuses on the validity scales of the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3 (Burchett & Bagby, 2021).…”

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Mmpi-2-rf And Mmpi-3mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The amount of empirical research supporting the effectiveness of the validity scales of the MMPI-2-RF is impressive, and studies contributing to the validity of their MMPI-3 counterparts are also rapidly accumulating. Based on their review of the relevant literature, Burchett and Bagby (2021) conclude that the Fp-r is by far the most effective MMPI-2-RF validity scale for capturing overreporting of various types of mental health problems, with a cut score ≥ 100 T maximizing the balance between overall hit rates and specificity. Indeed, the Fp-r has shown the most satisfactory classification accuracy not only in detecting feigned emotional disturbance, but also in detecting feigned cognitive impairment.…”

Section: The Validity Scales Of the Mmpi-2-rf And Mmpi-3mentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

Giromini

Young

Sellbom

2022

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In psychological injury and related forensic evaluations, two types of tests are commonly used to assess Negative Response Bias (NRB): Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs). SVTs assess the credibility of self-reported symptoms, whereas PVTs assess the credibility of observed performance on cognitive tasks. Compared to the large and ever-growing number of published PVTs, there are still relatively few validated self-report SVTs available to professionals for assessing symptom validity. In addition, while several studies have examined how to combine and integrate the results of multiple independent PVTs, there are few studies to date that have addressed the combination and integration of information obtained from multiple self-report SVTs. The Special Issue of Psychological Injury and Law introduced in this article aims to help fill these gaps in the literature by providing readers with detailed information about the convergent and incremental validity, strengths and weaknesses, and applicability of a number of selected measures of NRB under different conditions and in different assessment contexts. Each of the articles in this Special Issue focuses on a particular self-report SVT or set of SVTs and summarizes their conditions of use, strengths, weaknesses, and possible cut scores and relative hit rates. Here, we review the psychometric properties of the 19 selected SVTs and discuss their advantages and disadvantages. In addition, we make tentative proposals for the field to consider regarding the number of SVTs to be used in an assessment, the number of SVT failures required to invalidate test results, and the issue of redundancy when selecting multiple SVTs for an assessment.

show abstract

“…Notably, higher RBS scores have been associated with more subjective memory complaints but not with objective memory test performance (Gervais et al, 2008(Gervais et al, , 2010. The RBS has been shown to be highly sensitive for cognitive symptom validity across civilian (forensic and clinical), military, and veteran populations (Burchett & Bagby, 2022;Grossi et al, 2017;Jones et al, 2012;Jones & Ingram, 2011; N. W. Nelson et al, 2007;Sharf et al, 2017;Whitney et al, 2008;Wygant et al, 2010;Young et al, 2011), as well as shown clinical utility in a seizure disorder sample . Given the emphasis of the present study on detecting cognitive symptom invalidity and that other MMPI-2-RF validity indicators either assess noncognitive symptom invalidity (e.g., Fp-r assessing psychopathology symptom invalidity) or assess multiple types of symptom invalidity (e.g., FBS-r assessing both cognitive and somatic symptom invalidity), only the RBS scale was used in the present study.…”

Section: Examinee-completed Symptom Validity Testsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Cross-validation and classification accuracy of informant report via the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) for identifying examinee-generated performance and symptom invalidity.

Choudhury¹,

Christensen²,

Miller³

et al. 2023

Psychology & Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Although informant report of examinee functioning has previously been associated with examinee-generated performance and cognitive symptom invalidity performance and symptoms validity test (PVT; SVT-C), extant data are limited, and empirically derived guidelines for interpreting informant-report validity are lacking. This study sought to (a) replicate the association of a widely used informant-report measure, the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS), and examinee-generated PVT/SVT-C in a larger/enriched sample and (b) recommend clinical cutoffs for informant-report invalidity. Method: Data were collected from 145 examinee–informant dyads who completed neuropsychological batteries as part of a routine workup in an epilepsy monitoring unit (EMU). PVT status was determined using two approaches based on combinations of three indicators, whereas SVT-C status was determined using three approaches based on combinations of two indicators. Receiver operating characteristic curves assessed the classification accuracy of the DSRS for discriminating PVT/SVT-C status. Results: The DSRS demonstrated acceptable accuracy in classifying PVT and SVT-C status across operationalizations (PVT AUCs = .71–.77; SVT-C AUCs = .71–.74). Replication sample data indicated the DSRS accurately classified PVT status area under the curves (AUCs = .73–.80), with a large-to-very large effect size across operationalizations (d = −.99 to −1.51). Replication sample data indicated the DSRS was inconsistent in accurately classifying SVT-C (AUCs = .63–.72), though a medium-to-large effect size was observed across operationalizations (d = −.71 to −.98). Conclusion: We replicate previously published associations of informant-reported examinee functioning and examinee-generated PVT/SVT-C. The results suggest empirically derived psychometric guidelines for interpreting informant reports as noncredible on an EMU and lay groundwork for future investigations of informant-report response validity.

show abstract

Assessing Negative Response Bias: a Review of the Noncredible Overreporting Scales of the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3

Cited by 22 publications

References 49 publications

The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): A systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

The Inventory of Problems–29 (IOP-29): A systematic review and bivariate diagnostic test accuracy meta-analysis.

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

Cross-validation and classification accuracy of informant report via the Dementia Severity Rating Scale (DSRS) for identifying examinee-generated performance and symptom invalidity.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About