Examination of the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales in a forensic disability sample

Tylicki, Jessica L; Gervais, Roger O.; Ben‐Porath, Yossef S.

doi:10.1080/13854046.2020.1856414

Cited by 23 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…He proposed that SVT be reserved for tests that assess the validity of reported symptom complaints (such as the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology [SIMS; Merckelbach & Smith, 2003] or validity scales within various inventories, such as the multiple forms of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory e.g. MMPI-3; Whitman et al, 2020;Tylicki et al, 2020). Larrabee also proposed that performance validity test (PVT) be used to identify tests that examine the validity of stand-alone performance-based activities (such as the commonly used Test of Memory Malingering, Tombaugh, 1996, reviewed in Martin et al, 2020 and embedded validity measures, such as the commonly used Reliable Digit Span (RDS; Greiffenstein et al, 1994) and other Digit Span score derivations (reviewed by Webber & Soble, 2018).…”

Section: Updates Since 2009mentioning

confidence: 99%

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Sweet

Heilbronner²,

Morgan³

et al. 2021

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

224

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Citation and download data pertaining to the 2009 AACN consensus statement on validity assessment indicated that the topic maintained high interest in subsequent years, during which key terminology evolved and relevant empirical research proliferated. With a general goal of providing current guidance to the clinical neuropsychology community regarding this important topic, the specific update goals were to: identify current key definitions of terms relevant to validity assessment; learn what experts believe should be reaffirmed from the original consensus paper, as well as new consensus points; and incorporate the latest recommendations regarding the use of validity testing, as well as current application of the term 'malingering.' Methods: In the spring of 2019, four of the original 2009 work group chairs and additional experts for each work group were impaneled. A total of 20 individuals shared ideas and writing drafts until reaching consensus on January 21, 2021. Results: Consensus was reached regarding affirmation of prior salient points that continue to garner clinical and scientific support, as well as creation of new points. The resulting consensus statement addresses definitions and differential diagnosis, performance and symptom validity assessment, and research design and statistical issues. Conclusions/Importance: In order to provide bases for diagnoses and interpretations, the current consensus is that all clinical and forensic evaluations must proactively address the degree to which results of neuropsychological and psychological testing are valid.

show abstract

Section: Updates Since 2009mentioning

confidence: 99%

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

Sweet

Heilbronner²,

Morgan³

et al. 2021

The Clinical Neuropsychologist

224

129

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In effect, this is what was done in the second set of analyses conducted by Tylicki et al (2020). Using the same data set, these authors carved the participants into two groups-"Pass" or "Fail"-based on the recommended cutoffs for each of the PVTs that were administered: the Word Memory Test (WMT; Green, 2003), the Nonverbal Medical Symptom Validity Test (NV-MSVT; Green, 2008), and the California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II; Delis et al, 2000).…”

Section: Validity Of the Mmpi-3 Overreporting Validity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…These similarities across these two versions allow the clinician to draw upon empirically based evidence on the MMPI-2-RF (e.g., Brown & Sellbom, 2019;Ingram & Ternes, 2016;Sharf et al, 2017;Wygant et al, 2018) to support their use of the MMPI-3 and interpretations drawn from it despite its very recent release. It is noteworthy, nonetheless, that the empirical literature on the MMPI-3 is accumulating rapidly (e.g., Hall et al, 2021;Morris et al, 2021;Tylicki et al, 2020Tylicki et al, , 2021Whitman et al, 2020;Whitman et al, 2021a, b). Some differences between Validity scales across the two versions do exist and as mentioned earlier these are again largely attributable to the updated normative sample and altered or slightly reworded item pool.…”

Section: The Mmpi-2-rf and Mmpi-3 Validity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In another MMPI-3 study, Tylicki et al (2020) analyzed data from a large sample of disability claimants (N = 550) from a pool composed of non-head injury disabilityrelated referrals assessed at a private clinic in Edmonton, Alberta, Canada. The preponderance of the participants in this sample completed an extensive and comprehensive test battery including neurocognitive tests, inventories of personality and psychopathology, and performance validity tests.…”

Section: Validity Of the Mmpi-3 Overreporting Validity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The investigators also had available detailed medical histories for most participants. Using this rich dataset, Tylicki et al (2020) conducted several analyses, including correlational analyses that addressed issues of criterion (concurrent) validity of the MMPI-3 overreporting scales and mean scale score differences across different groups of interest to both psychologists and neuropsychologists, and finally, examined the clinical utility of several different cutoff scores.…”

Section: Validity Of the Mmpi-3 Overreporting Validity Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

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

Burchett

Bagby

2021

Psychol. Inj. and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) instruments have a rich history of the inclusion of embedded strategies to identify invalidating response styles-such as non-responding, inconsistent responding, and noncredible underreporting or overreporting of symptoms-and to identify the impact of such response styles on substantive test score conclusions and extra-test considerations. This paper briefly reviews that history before focusing on the scales that detect overreported psychopathology, somatic complaints, and cognitive complaints on the most recent adult instruments, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and MMPI-3. Specifically, we discuss the detection strategies used to develop MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3 overreporting Validity Scales, evaluative contexts in which they are used, and studies of their validity. We also briefly discuss identified strengths and weaknesses and suggestions for the use of these scales in the assessment of overreporting.

show abstract

Forensic assessment instruments: Their reliability and applicability to criminal forensic issues

Rogers

Tazi

Drogin

2023

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Forensic evaluations have advanced considerably with the development of specialized measures validated on forensic and correctional samples. Prior to this progress, such evaluations relied heavily on extrapolations from general psychological tests to crucial, legally relevant questions. Since then, decades of empirical work have produced forensic assessment instruments (FAIs) addressing psycholegal standards in addition to forensically relevant instruments (FRIs) examining issues central to forensic practice (e.g., malingering) but not the standards themselves. This article provides a critical examination of the development, validation, and modern applications of six published FAIs that each address one of three broad criminal forensic issues (i.e., insanity, competency to stand trial, and Miranda abilities and waivers). Evaluations of the measures' reliability and validity particularly in forensic samples are highlighted. To complement FAIs, FRIs related to response styles are briefly explored. As a primary goal, forensic practitioners are provided with the knowledge and background about FAIs to enhance their criminal forensic practices.

show abstract

Examination of the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales in a forensic disability sample

Cited by 23 publications

References 43 publications

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology (AACN) 2021 consensus statement on validity assessment: Update of the 2009 AACN consensus conference statement on neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering

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

Forensic assessment instruments: Their reliability and applicability to criminal forensic issues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About