The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) is an Empirically-Validated Measure of Over-reporting in Personal Injury Litigants and Claimants: reply to William et al. (2009)

Abstract

We respond briefly to Williams et al.'s (Psychological Injury and the Law 2:182-197, 2009) most recent effort to critique the MMPI-2 Symptom Validity scale, noting that the authors repeat many of the unfounded claims and conclusions of Butcher et al. (Psychological Injury and the Law 1:191-209, 2008) while ignoring and/or reflecting a misunderstanding of many of the points raised in our rebuttal. Rather than repeat our detailed responses to their initial review, we limit this comment to addressing new points Williams et al. (Psychological Injury and the Law 2:182-197, 2009) bring up and offer a succinct summary of the issues raised in this exchange.

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Assessing Response Style and Malingering

“…Although there has been controversy surrounding the FBS and its value (Arbisi and Butcher 2004;Ben-Porath et al 2009;Butcher et al 2003Butcher et al , 2008Greve and Bianchini 2004b;Lees-Haley and Fox 2004;Williams et al 2009), recent studies (Ardolf et al 2007;Bianchini et al 2008;Demakis et al 2008;Sellers et al 2006;Wygant et al 2007) provide evidence of FBS's validity. Unlike the F family and other traditional response-style scales, FBS typically shows a substantial relationship to performance on cognitive SVTs (Larrabee 2003;Sellers et al 2006;Wygant et al 2007; but see Whitney et al 2008).…”

Psychological Injury and Law: Journal Policy on Ongoing Debates

“…After receiving the note from the first author of the eventual rebuttal (Ben Porath et al 2009), with its concerns about the Butcher et al paper, the obvious decision to make was to review further the article in question. As indicated in the excerpts from the emails sent to the new reviewers, they were asked to review the entire article, not just the section with the anonymous excerpts of the letters [and I even checked with them on this if they indicated their acceptance of all but the letters component].…”

“…It has been followed by a rebuttal by Ben Porath et al (2009), and the first author of that article had communicated with me right from the appearance of the digital version of the article in question on the publisher's website.…”

Protecting Raw Data and Psychological Tests from Wrongful Disclosure: A Primer on the Law and Other Persuasive Strategies

“…In addition to coaching clients, some attorneys have taken to direct attacks on the reliability and relevance of neuropsychological methods and techniques. Nowhere is this current practice more evident than in the application of symptom validity science in neuropsychological evaluation techniques (SVT), as explained in greater detail elsewhere (Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, & Kaufmann, 2009).…”

“…Most judges acknowledge little or no expertise in the science and practice of clinical neuropsychology-many have no scientific training, let alone any fluency in brain-behavior relations. Kaufmann (2008) Detroit Edison has taught us that psychological test materials are an exceptional condition. Such exceptions may warrant appointment of a special master to resolve discovery disputes and other questions about the admissibility of neuropsychological evidence in court.…”