Normative data for the F(p) Scale of the MMPI–2: Implications for clinical and forensic assessment of malingering.

Rothke, Steven E.; Friedman, Alan F.; Jaffe, Alan M.; Greene, Roger L.; Wetter, Martha W.; Cole, Patricia E.; Baker, Kathryn

doi:10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.335

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Because cutting scores have been demonstrated to be notoriously inconsistent and unstable across different samples (Berry et al, 2001), we used cutting scores for the detection of fake-bad protocols recommended and derived originally by Rogers, Sewell, and Ustad (1995) and replicated in two subsequent studies (Berry et al, 1996(Berry et al, , 2001 rather than derive cutting scores based on the current sample. Because neither meta-analytic study (i.e., Berry et al, 1996;Rogers et al, 1995) included F P , for this scale we used a raw score of Ͼ 8, which is similar to that used by Berry et al (2001) and has been proposed and used in three recent studies (Archer, Handel, Greene, Baer, & Elkins, 2001;Rothke et al, 2000;Strong, Greene, & Schinka, 2000). These classification rates are displayed in Table 8.…”

Section: Classification Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims.

Bury¹,

Bagby²

2002

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this study research participants completed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) under standard instructions and then were asked to fake posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when completing the MMPI-2 for a 2nd time in 1 of 4 conditions with different instructions on how to fake PTSD: (a) uncoached, (b) coached about PTSD symptom information, (c) coached about MMPI-2 validity scales, or (d) coached about both symptoms and validity scales. These MMPI-2 protocols were then compared with protocols of claimants with workplace accident-related PTSD. Participants given information about the validity scales were the most successful in avoiding detection as faking. The family of F scales (i.e., F, FB, FP), particularly FP, produced consistently high rates of positive and negative predictive power.

show abstract

Section: Classification Ratesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Classification Rates Using Cut Scores From a Meta-Analysis byRogers et al (1994) F P cutting score derived fromStrong et al (2000),Rothke et al (2000), andArcher et al (2001).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims.

Bury¹,

Bagby²

2002

Psychological Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A review of results from classification statistics in the literature indicates that F and Fp serve different functions related to clinical utility. In comparison with Fp, the F scale has generally maximized sensitivity (e.g., Archer, Handel, Greene, Baer, & Elkins, 2001;Rothke et al, 2000), which indicates that the majority of malingerers elevate F. Conversely, the Fp scale has greater specificity and positive predictive power than the F scale (e.g., Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1998;Archer et al, 2001;Rothke et al, 2000). False positives, therefore, are minimized by few nonmalingerers elevating Fp and by most high scores on Fp produced by malingerers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

A Comparative Analysis of MMPI-2 Malingering Detection Models Among Inmates

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There are several strategies, or models, for combining the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity indicators to detect malingered psychiatric symptoms. Some scholars have recommended that an elevated F (Infrequency) score should be followed by the inspection of Fp (Infrequency-Psychopathology), whereas a recent meta-analysis indicated that Fp and Ds (Gough's Dissimulation Scale) should be examined. For correctional settings, one model of malingering suggests that F, Fp, and F - K (Gough's Dissimulation Index) should be inspected for one or more elevated scores. Although a large body of research has examined malingering detection with the MMPI-2, this research has typically focused on the contributions of individual validity indicators to differentiate malingered from genuine psychiatric symptoms. Therefore, the current study compared these models of malingering detection on the MMPI-2. Inmate simulators were contrasted with inmates who were hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. Results from classification and logistic regression analyses supported the sequential use of F and Fp in malingering detection.

show abstract

“…It is thought the F(p) scale will discriminate persons who produce a high Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) F scale score because of genuine psychopathology from those who produce a high F because they are attempting to "fake bad." Several published studies (e.g., Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1995Berry et al, 1996;Rothke et al, 2000;Storm & Graham, 2000;Strong, Greene, & Schinka, 2000) have presented information about how F(p) functions with respect to other MMPI-2 validity indicators, and evidence that F(p) provides an advantage over the F scale for detecting malingering appears mixed (Archer, Handel, Greene, Baer, & Elkins, 2001;Bagby, Nicholson, Bacchiochi, Ryder, & Bury, 2002;Kucharski & Johnsen, 2002). Much of this research has been conducted by means of analogue designs, wherein some of the subjects were instructed to fake bad.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparability of the MMPI-2 F(p) and F Scales and the SIRS in Clinical Use with Suspected Malingerers

McCusker¹,

Moran²,

Serfass

et al. 2003

Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Relationships among Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) scores and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--2 (MMPI-2) F(p) and F scores were examined for 63 suspected malingerers evaluated at either of two psychiatric facilities. Despite differences between facilities in terms of seriousness of subjects' offenses, mean scores on the malingering tests were similar. Cutting scores for F(p) and F resulting in substantial correspondence between these scales and the SIRS were derived. Use of the cut score for F(p) proposed by Arbisi and Ben-Porath (1995) resulted in less agreement with the SIRS than did a lower cut score. No substantial difference between F(p) and F in each scale's overall agreement with the SIRS was observed. A principal components analysis of the SIRS primary scales produced two factors, interpreted as Overreporting of Symptoms and Implausible Symptoms. F(p) was observed to correlate significantly with Implausible Symptoms but not with Overreporting of Symptoms; F was significantly correlated with both factors.

show abstract

Normative data for the F(p) Scale of the MMPI–2: Implications for clinical and forensic assessment of malingering.

Cited by 18 publications

References 10 publications

The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims.

The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims.

A Comparative Analysis of MMPI-2 Malingering Detection Models Among Inmates

Comparability of the MMPI-2 F(p) and F Scales and the SIRS in Clinical Use with Suspected Malingerers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About