The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale Does this scale measure somatic malingering and feigned emotional distress?^☆,☆☆

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

“…Other reliability measures (e.g., test-retest) are lacking. In addition, not surprisingly, given its item content, Butcher et al (2003) found the FBS to be most highly correlated with raw scores on the clinical scales, Hypochondriasis (Hs or scale 1), Depression (D or scale 2), and Hysteria (Hy or scale 3); and the content scales, Health Concerns (HEA) and Depression (DEP). This suggests that FBS appears to be a measure of general maladjustment and somatic complaints, as opposed to malingering.…”

“…Butcher et al (2003) provided some psychometric data on the performance of the FBS in several large samples of psychiatric inpatients (n=6,731), VA inpatients (n=901 men), chronic pain patients (n=4,408), general medical patients (n=5,080), inmates in a correctional facility (n=2,897), and a smaller personal injury litigant's sample drawn from nine forensic practices (n=157). In all samples, the FBS showed low to modest alpha coefficients, a reliability measure of internal consistency (range 0.43 to 0.74 for women; 0.49 to 0.65 for men), except in the personal injury sample, where somatic symptoms were prominent (alphas were 0.85 for women; 0.86 for men).…”

“…Greiffenstein et al (2007) cited an unpublished factor analytic study of FBS items by Fox (2005) in which five factors were found. It is not known if these five factors constitute similar item clusters to those in Butcher et al (2003). Independent of alleged faking and related motivations, many factors can influence a person's responses to somatic items, including the effects of a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders.…”

“…Using as a starting point Geisinger's (2005) description of the traditional wisdom for developing fair and unbiased high stakes psychological measures, we will explore the following: 1) Potential item bias in the FBS; 2) Definition of the criterion groups used to develop the FBS, including how inclusive and representative they are of the populations administered the MMPI-2 and whether the criteria used to classify people as malingerers are replicable and objective; 3) Information about the reliability and validity of the FBS; 4) Recommendations regarding raw score cut-offs and how they relate to T scores; 5) Illustrations of a potential for bias when using the FBS with psychiatric inpatients; 6) The publisher's statement on the use of the FBS in lieu of a traditional test manual or interpretive guide; 7) Recent Frye hearings on the use of the FBS as part of expert testimony, highlighting one of three Florida court cases. Butcher et al (2003) rationally grouped the 43 FBS items into five categories: denial of deviant attitudes (15 items), somatic symptoms (14 items), low energy/anhedonia (8 items), tension or stress (4 items), and sleep disturbance (2 items). Many of the items are symptoms of physical health problems (e.g., six of the somatic items are symptoms of gastrointestinal disorders; the low energy items frequently accompany physical illnesses and/or depression) and mental health problems (e.g., FBS item content includes suicidal ideation, and frequent nightmares and concentration problems, often associated with PTSD).…”

Framing the Results: Assessment of Response Bias Through Select Self-Report Measures in Psychological Injury Evaluations

“…The scale's addition did not come without controversy or criticism. In particular, it has been argued that it incorrectly classifies females and individuals with genuine medical problems as malingering (Butcher, 2010;Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003;Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally, & Williams, 2008;Dean et al, 2008;Gass, Williams, Cumella, Butcher, & Kally, 2010;Williams, Butcher, Gass, Cumella, & Kally, 2009). However, Ben-Porath et al (2009) demonstrated that when the recommended interpretive cutoff scores (FBS≥100T) were employed, few people with bona fide medical or neurological disorders were mistakenly recognized as noncredible responders.…”