The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Meehl, Paul E.; Hathaway, Starke R.

doi:10.1037/h0053634

Cited by 391 publications

(264 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

247

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Another advantage is that "weighted application blanks" tend to be conceptually broad, amorphous, and less operationally transparent compared to more construct-specific scales. Nonetheless, respondents coached to relatively subtle biodata items can distort scores on externally-developed scales (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946;Schrader & Osbum, 1977). Yet, these scales also tend to include a greater proportion of eclectic and behaviorally-objective background types of items that have been shown to he less susceptible to response distortion (Trent, 1987b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Armed Services Applicant Profile (ASAP): Development and Validation of Operational Forms

Trent¹,

Quenette²

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Armed Services Applicant Profile (ASAP): Development and Validation of Operational Forms

Trent¹,

Quenette²

1992

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The M-C is a 33-item questionnaire, answered in a true/false format. Based on the rationale for the Lie Scale of the MMPI (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946), the items for this measure were chosen from a set of behaviors that are culturally sanctioned but for which total compliance is improbable. Higher scores on the measure indicate increased defensiveness.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychometric Properties of the Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI): A Replication With Motor Vehicle Accident Survivors.

Beck¹,

Coffey²,

Palyo³

et al. 2004

Psychological Assessment

182

204

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined the factor structure, internal consistency, concurrent validity, discriminant validity, and discriminative validity of the Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI; E. B. Foa, A. Ehlers, D. M. Clark, D. F. Tolin, & S. M. Orsillo, 1999) in a sample of 112 individuals who had experienced a serious motor vehicle accident. Results generally supported the 3-factor structure of the PTCI: (a) Negative Cognitions About Self, (b) Negative Cognitions About the World, and (c) Self-Blame. Subscales reflecting negative thoughts of the self and world showed adequate internal consistency, as well as good concurrent, discriminant, and discriminative validity. However, difficulties with the subscale representing self-blame emerged, specifically poor concurrent and discriminant validity. Potential reasons for this finding are discussed. The PTCI seems to be a promising measure of negative and dysfunctional posttrauma cognitions, which deserves continuing attention.Current accounts of posttrauma recovery place considerable emphasis on the role of negative and dysfunctional cognitions in the etiology and maintenance of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). For example, Foa and colleagues (Foa & Riggs, 1993;Foa & Rothbaum, 1998) have theorized that specific thoughts about the dangerousness of the world and one's own incompetence mediate the development of PTSD in the aftermath of sexual assault in women. Likewise, Ehlers and Clark (2000) emphasized the importance of negative appraisals of the traumatic event and one's reactions during the event as salient in PTSD. According to these authors, these negative appraisals help to create a sense of threat, which perpetuates PTSD symptomatology and heightens anxiety. Similar accounts have been presented by Resick and Schnicke (1993) and McCann and Pearlman (1990), indicating some convergence across writers concerning the importance of specific types of dysfunctional thoughts in PTSD, particularly thoughts about one's perceived weaknesses and the dangerousness of the world.Despite apparent agreement about the importance of dysfunctional thoughts in the origins and maintenance of PTSD, measurement of this domain has lagged behind other forms of assessment. As reviewed by Norris and Riad (1997), the field has concentrated in large part

show abstract

“…A survey of the literature reflects this consensus and reveals a distinction between social desirability scales that measure IM (Wiggins's Gamma factor) and scales that measure self-deception (Wiggins's Alpha factor; cf., Millham, 1974;Paulhus, 1984Paulhus, , 2002Rutledge, 2006;Sackeim & Gur, 1979;Wiggins, 1964). Some of the scales that fit into the first group include the MMPI Lie scale (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946), the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire-Revised (EPQ-R) Lie scale (S.B.G. Eysenck, Eysenck, & Barrett, 1985), Wiggins Social Desirability scale (Wiggins, 1959), the interpersonal sensitivity subscale (Holden & Fekken, 1989), the Other-Deception Questionnaire (Sackeim & Gur, 1978), and the impression management subscale of the BIDR (Paulhus, 1984).…”

Section: The Concept a Brief Historical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The MCSDS (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960) is also a stronger marker of this factor than of any other. The second group includes the MMPI K scale (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946), the Edwards Social Desirability scale (Edwards, 1957), the Repression-Sensitization scale (Byrne, 1961), the sense of own general capability subscale (Holden & Fekken, 1989), the Self-Deception Questionnaire (Sackeim & Gur, 1978), and the self-deception subscale of the BIDR (Paulhus, 1984).…”

Section: The Concept a Brief Historical Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rethinking Social Desirability Scales

Uziel

2010

Perspect Psychol Sci

282

135

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social desirability (specifically, impression management) scales are widely used by researchers and practitioners to screen individuals who bias self-reports in a self-favoring manner. These scales also serve to identify individuals at risk for psychological and health problems. The present review explores the evidence with regard to the ability of these scales to achieve these objectives. In the first part of the review, I present six criteria to evaluate impression management scales and conclude that they are unsatisfactory as measures of response style. Next, I explore what individual differences in impression management scores actually do measure. I compare two approaches: a defensiveness approach, which argues that these scales measure defensiveness that stems from vulnerable self-esteem, and an adjustment approach, which suggests that impression management is associated with personal well-being and interpersonal adjustment. Data from a wide variety of fields including social behavior, affect and wellbeing, health, and job performance tend to favor the adjustment approach. Finally, I argue that scales measuring impression management should be redefined as measures of interpersonally oriented self-control that identify individuals who demonstrate high levels of self-control, especially in social contexts.

show abstract

The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Cited by 391 publications

References 45 publications

Armed Services Applicant Profile (ASAP): Development and Validation of Operational Forms

Armed Services Applicant Profile (ASAP): Development and Validation of Operational Forms

Psychometric Properties of the Posttraumatic Cognitions Inventory (PTCI): A Replication With Motor Vehicle Accident Survivors.

Rethinking Social Desirability Scales

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About