MMPI-2 response styles: Generalization to alcoholism assessment.

Abstract

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Validity scales (L, F, and K) were used to identify subgroups of inpatients seeking treatment for alcoholism and to determine the extent that assessed test-taking attitude could be generalized to other alcohol assessment instruments. Cluster analysis of the inpatients receiving treatment for alcoholism identified 3 distinct response style subgroups: defensive, straightforward, and exaggerated. These patterns were confirmed in a 2nd sample. Calibration equations were generated and used to classify a subsequent sample into subgroups, and expected differences were found across the subgroups on the Alcohol Use Inventory (J. L. Horn, K. W. Wanberg, & F. M. Foster, 1987) and the Inventory of Drinking Situations (H. M. Annis, 1982). These preliminary results suggest that MMPI-2 response style is associated with response to other alcohol abuse assessment instruments. Future research examining the relationship between test-taking attitude and treatment involvement and outcome is discussed. Meehl and Hathaway (1946) were among the first researchers to suggest that personality inventories were susceptible to both conscious "faking" and unconscious self-deception. In their landmark Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Meehl & Hathaway, 1946) work, they devised the Lie (L) and Correction (K) scales (Meiydith & Wallbrown, 1991) to assess response bias. The L scale assesses overall frankness in the individual's approach to the instrument. High L scores are indicative of an unsophisticated attempt to present oneself in a favorable light. The K scale assesses a more subtle attempt to respond defensively and is indicative of an attempt to deny problems and demonstrate no need for psychologi-

Examining replicability in addictions research: How to assess and ways forward.

“…Open sharing of experimental protocols, analysis code, and data will increase the transparency and potential reproducibility of addiction science. Similarly, researchers could plan replication studies as part of ongoing research, such that initial findings can be replicated prior to publication, which has occurred in a number of articles we identified in our review of replications in Psychology of Addictive Behaviors (Alterman et al, 1998; Isenhart & Silversmith, 1996; Jones et al, 2014; Lee & Leeson, 2015; Pantalon et al, 2002). It is also imperative that NIH consider greater investment in replication via individual funding mechanisms, project grants and center grant mechanisms, as well as supplements to existing grants.…”

“…Although many studies could be described to some extent as replication studies, in the case that research questions are addressed that are similar to previous studies, we performed a cursory search of direct mentions of the word “replication” (without year restriction) appearing in the journal Psychology of Addictive Behaviors , which in July 2020 yielded 21 results. Of these articles, one study tested a within-subject replication using an animal model of alcohol self-administration (Cook et al, 2020), five studies reported measurement replications in new samples (Alterman et al, 1998; Isenhart & Silversmith, 1996; Jones et al, 2014; Lee & Leeson, 2015; Pantalon et al, 2002), one used data from the Relapse Replication and Extension Project (Tonigan et al, 2017), five studies mentioned the importance of replication in future work (Hernández-López et al, 2009; Miller et al, 2017; Schüz et al, 2016; Stanger et al, 2020; Von Sternberg et al, 2018), and nine studies reported the results of replication efforts. Seven of these nine studies interpreted their results as replicating or partially replicating previous findings using either subjective assessment or consistency of statistical significance, though the method for determining replication was not always made explicit.…”