The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) Is an Empirically Validated Measure of Overreporting in Personal Injury Litigants and Claimants: Reply to Butcher et al. (2008)

Abstract

We address issues raised by Butcher et al. (Psychological Injury and the Law 1:191-209, 2008) in their critique of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) and show that their analyses and conclusions are based on faulty premises, a misunderstanding of basic concepts in the assessment of overreporting, a selective review of the literature and mischaracterization of the findings they do cite, problematic analyses of a dataset that had already been similarly analyzed, and a flawed analysis of a legal case they discuss. We complement the review of existing research with some new findings that provide further empirical support and clarification of current interpretive recommendations for proper use of the FBS in evaluations of personal injury litigants and claimants. purport to explore potential bias in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-2 assessments using the Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) 1 . They consider issues related to the item content of the scale, methods used to identify malingering in FBS studies, evidence of the reliability and validity of the scale, and questions about recommended cutoffs for FBS interpretation. also seek to present evidence of the false positive rate of the FBS in two samples of individuals they believe to be at risk for mischaracterization as "malingerers" based on scores on the scale. Finally, they discuss the results of a recent Frye hearing in Florida, following which a trial judge excluded testimony based on FBS.In this rebuttal, we address the issues raised by and show that their analyses and conclusions are based on faulty premises, a misunderstanding of basic concepts in the assessment of overreporting, a selective review of the literature and mischaracterization of the findings they do cite, problematic analyses of a dataset (Butcher et al. 2003) that had already been similarly analyzed, and an incomplete analysis of a court case they discuss. Before turning to the more specific problems with Butcher et al.'s (2008) critique, we begin with a discussion and illustration of basic conceptual flaws in their article.

Official Position of the American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology Social Security Administration Policy on Validity Testing: Guidance and Recommendations for Change

“…In addition, over 260 peer-reviewed studies report MMPI-2-RF results (for an up-to-date bibliography, see https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/MMPI-2-RF/ mmpi-2-rf-references). It should also be noted that the previous version, the MMPI-2, with which SSA is most familiar and which was defunded by SSA (Coburn, 2013), also contained symptom validity scales that had been established as sensitive and specific (Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, & Kaufmann, 2009;Greve, Bianchini, Love, Brennan, & Heinly, 2006), and therefore useful for disability examinations before the development of the MMPI-2-RF.…”

Validation of the MMPI-2 Response Bias Scale and Henry-Heilbronner Index in a U.S. Veteran Population

“…This argument is not without merit, since traditional MMPI validity scales, such as the F scale, were not derived for the purpose of detecting symptom exaggeration. Nevertheless, subsequent research has found that some scales, such as F, have utility in detection of cognitive response bias (Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, & Kaufman, 2009). Further, the statement by Bush and colleagues (2005) raises an empirical question whether response patterns on a personality measures, such as the MMPI-2, can display strong operational characteristics in the detection of response bias.…”

Dementia does not Preclude Very Reliable Responding on the MMPI-2 RF: A Case Report

“…Although much of the research on MMPI validity scales has focused on over-reporting or under-reporting symptoms (Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, & Kaufmann, 2009;Sellbom & Bagby, 2008), consistency of responding is also critical to examine. On the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al, 2001) and MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008), this is evaluated with the Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN/VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN/TRIN-r) scales, respectively.…”