Examining the “traditional background hypothesis” for the MMPI-2–RF L-r scores in a Muslim faith–based sample.

Abstract

The traditional background hypothesis (TBH) is a long-standing belief associated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) L scale; a validity scale, which appears on every version of the family of MMPI instruments including the soon-to-be released MMPI-3. The L scale was originally designed to assess whether test respondents presented themselves in an unrealistically favorable light. Both researchers and clinicians noted, however, that those from traditional Christian faith–based groups produced elevated L-scale scores. A recent meta-analysis supported this observation, reporting an average L-scale elevation 0.50 SD greater than the MMPI-2 normative sample compared to samples of those with presumptively strong Christian–Judeo faith. Some limitations of this meta-analysis are that (a) the samples used in it included those undergoing an evaluative assessment, which could elevate L-scale scores independent of strength of faith belief, and (b) direct assessments of strength of faith or positive impression management were included or measured independently. Our primary goal in this study was to examine the TBH addressing these limitations with a sample of those who self-identified as believers in the Muslim faith (N = 267), the examination of which expands the scope beyond those of the Christian–Judeo faith. Consistent with previous results, the mean L-r (MMPI/MMPI-2 L scale counterpart on the MMPI-2—Restructured Form) was 56.41 T. Higher L-r scale scores were associated with increasing strength in the Muslim faith, and although increasing L-r scores were primarily associated with impression management, increasing Muslim-based faith values had a nontrivial influence on L-r scores and especially in the moderate score range of this scale.

Detecting symptom exaggeration and minimization using translated versions of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF: A systematic review and preliminary meta-analysis.

“…Likewise, the studies identified in this systematic review demonstrated stronger accuracy in identifying symptom exaggeration, as effect sizes for minimization were substantially smaller. This may also reflect cultural influences, as individuals from some cultures may have response patterns that typically correspond to minimization, making these scales less effective in differentiating deliberate symptom minimization from culturally normative responding (Bagby et al, 2020;Friedman et al, 2001). This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.…”