MMPI-2 profiles of NGRI and civil patients

Abstract

Reason of Insanity (NGRI) to other psychiatric patients. This study examined the MMPI-2 profiles of 36 NGRIs and 35 civilly committed inpatients at 3 state psychiatric hospitals. The NGRI and civil patient groups differed in terms of race and gender with more minority individuals and fewer women in the NGRI group. Therefore, these demographic variables were used as covariates in a MANCOVA comparing the MMPI-2 validity and clinical scales for these 2 groups. NGRIs and civil inpatients produced significantly different mean MMPI-2 profiles, with NGRIs reporting less pathology overall compared to civil inpatients. Specifically, NGRIs had lower scores on scales F, 1, 2, 7, 8, and 0 and higher scores on scale K. Contrary to expectations, NGRIs and civil patients did not differ on scale 4, supplementary scale Re, and content scales ANG, CYN , and ASP, or Harris-Lingoes subscale Pd2. Overall, these results suggest that NGRI patients are functioning at a higher level than civil patients. These findings are considered in terms of previous results and potential selection bias. Implications for treatment and future research are also considered.

Criminal responsibility: Meta‐analysis and study space

“…Overall, individuals with no criminal history were more often classified insane. Although Moskowitz et al () reached a contrary finding, their comparison group was civil inpatients, who are less likely to have criminal histories than justice‐involved subsamples. Moderate heterogeneity was revealed, which could be explained by variability across studies in the definition of this defendant characteristic.…”

“…There was high heterogeneity and inconsistency [ Q (8) = 112.05, p < 0.001, I 2 = 92.86] across studies. Non‐psycholegal groups (Linhorst & Turner, ; Moskowitz et al, ) appeared to influence the overall result. The effect was no longer significant after removing non‐psycholegal cases (OR = 1.13, 95% CI = 0.76, 1.67, p = 0.553), and heterogeneity and inconsistency were still significant [ Q (4) = 63.05, p < 0.001, I 2 = 93.66].…”

“…That defendants diagnosed with psychotic disorders were more often opined insane was a robust finding. Only two studies did not demonstrate this relationship (Linhorst & Turner, 1999;Moskowitz et al, 1999). Given that these studies used civil psychiatric samples as their "sane" comparison groups, significant differences in diagnoses across "sane" and "insane" subgroups would not be anticipated.…”

Potential for Bias in MMPI-2 Assessments Using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS)

“…However, the MMPI F scale has been researched in both experimentally controlled simulation research (e.g., Bagby et al 1995;Elhai et al 2000;Graham et al 1991;Hunt 1948) and in "real world" studies as well, including correctional settings (e.g., Grossman and Wasyliw 1988;Moskowitz et al 1999;Wasyliw et al 1988); compensation cases (e.g., Charles 2000); inpatients (e.g., Gynther and Petzel 1967;Post and Gasparikova-Krasnec 1979); and with suicidal patients (e.g., Rissmiller et al 1998), to mention only a few. Furthermore, like F, the FBS was developed using the MMPI item pool initially to identify those "simulating or exaggerating emotional distress" from those "who are not malingering" (Lees-Haley et al 1991, p. 203).…”

The criminogenic, clinical, and social problems of forensic and civil psychiatric patients.

“…Schulz (1995) compared 30 forensic and 30 civil patients and found that forensic patients had better premorbid adjustment than the civil patients, scored higher on psychopathy, and had much longer average length of stays. Moskowitz, Lewis, Ito, and Ehrmentraut (1999) administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory to a group of 36 forensic and 35 civil patients and found that the forensic patients scored lower in overall psychopathology than the civil patients and were similar in their histories of prior hospitalizations, but still received lower clinician ratings of overall functioning and were in hospital longer. Heilbrun, Golloway, Shoukry, and Gustafson (1995) found that 119 forensic patients were more likely to be threatening, agitated, or hostile than 124 civil patients, but civil patients were more likely to be aggressive or to destroy property.…”