Comparison of clients' standard, exaggerated, and matching MMPI profiles.

Towards an empirical model of malingering and deception

“…stereotypes concerning neurotic patients. This approach appears to be moderately successful at detecting those feigning neurosis and may even have some usefulness in the identification of patients attempting to malinger in general (Anthony, 1971;Exner, McDowell, Pabst, Stackman, & Kirk, 1963).…”

“…These include studies of the MMPI demonstrating that individuals may be successful at adopting a particular role either based on psychopathology (Anthony, 1976) or occupation, (Kroger & lbrnbull, 1975) as well as under various employment conditions (Merbaum, 1972). In addition, there has been considerable literature on social desirability, which represents a slightly different version of defensiveness in which the subject is attempting to respond in a socially approved manner.…”

“…Based on the work of Wiener and Harmon (1946) the items on five scales of the MMPI were divided into those which were obvious (i.e., clearly disordered) from those which were subtle. As a method of detecting dissimulation, several Empirical Model /COM researchers (Anthony, 1971; Buckhart, Christian, & Gynther, 1978) found that individuals attempting to malinger had an overendorsement of obvious vs. subtle items, and those responding defensively evidenced a suppression of obvious items. These findings have been supported by more recent research in which comparisons of obvious and subtle items were an effective approach in the detection of dissimulation (See Grow, McVaugh, & Eno, 1980; Greene,…”

A Psychometric Study of Stereotypes: Assessment of Malingering in a Criminal Forensic Group

“…O n the F-minus-K Index the cutoff point for exaggerating was a raw score difference greater than 6, and for minimizing, a difference less than -11. Previous norrforensic research has shown that malingering can be discriminated through a relative elevation of Obvious subscale scores as compared to corresponding Subtle subscale scores and minimization through an oppasite pattern (Anthony, 1971;Burkhart, Christian, & Gynther, 1978;Grow, McVaugh, & Eno, 1980;Wiener, 1948). Scores for these scales were computed by taking the difference between the sum of Obvious and Subtle subscale T-scores.…”

The Evaluation of Truthfulness in Alleged Sex Offenders' Self-Reports: 16PF and MMPI Validity Scales

“…shown that minimization can be discriminated through a relative elevation of Subtle subscale scores as compared to corresponding Obvious subscale scores, and exaggeration of psychopathology or malingering can be detected by the opposite pattern (Anthony, 1971;Burkhart, Christian, & Gynther, 1978;Griow et al, 1980;Wiener, 1948). The criterion for minimization for the 0-S index was a difference less than or equal to -11 (Greene, 1984).…”