Use of the MMPI–2's VRIN Scale with Severely Disturbed Populations: Consistent Responding May Be More Problematic than Inconsistent Responding

Abstract

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--Second Edition includes a new validity scale, the VRIN scale, intended to detect random responding. High scores are viewed as casting suspicion on the validity of the profile. For the present study, the authors evaluated some of the complexities of the VRIN scale including its interaction with the F scale. In particular, we tested two hypotheses. First is that among psychotically disturbed test takers, some inconsistent responding is an integral and expected mode of responding to a self-report measure. That is, in an inpatient psychiatric population increased confused responding (high VRIN score) is related in predictable ways to increased endorsement of psychotic scales and two-point codes and to increased psychotic diagnoses. The second hypothesis is a corollary--that the absence of inconsistency (low VRIN) in a protocol indicating acute distress (high F) may indicate that a respondent is being too consistent in presenting self as having severe difficulties. In this case, the rest of the protocol may be an exaggerated description of the clinical presentation. A sample of 521 psychiatric inpatients was used to evaluate these hypotheses. Some support for both hypotheses is reported. Further studies are recommended to evaluate the hypotheses.

Detection of back random responding: Effectiveness of MMPI-2 and Personality Assessment Inventory validity indices.

“…Although there are no published data available concerning the frequency of MMPI-2 or PAI PRR among clinical groups, there is evidence that clinical subjects engage in higher levels of inconsistent MMPI-2 responding (see, e.g., Archer, Handel, Greene, Baer, & Elkins, 2001; Pensa, Dorfman, Gold, & Schneider, 1996; Stukenberg, Brady, & Klinetob, 2000) than college students (see, e.g., Berry et al., 1991; Wetter et al., 1992) or those in the normative sample. Furthermore, more disturbed populations tend to exhibit higher rates of random responding than less disturbed populations (Stukenberg et al, 2000). On the basis of these data, it is reasonable to assume that the PRR rates of clinical samples approach or exceed those reported by college students.…”

Response Inconsistency of Patient-Reported Symptoms as a Predictor of Discrepancy Between Patient and Clinician-Reported Depression Severity

“…First, we expected that response inconsistency is positively related to both underreporting and overreporting, because an inaccurate self-report may lead to both positive and negative bias in the test score. Second, several studies showed that in addition to response inconsistency, overconsistency casts doubt on the validity of the test score (Conijn, Sijtsma, & Emons, 2016; Ferrando, 2014; Stukenberg, Brady, & Klinetob, 2000). That is, overconsistent response patterns (i.e., an overly consistent response style) may result from social desirability, malingering or symptom exaggeration, and response inconsistency may therefore have a curvilinear relationship with discrepancy.…”

Person misfit on the Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology: Low quality self‐report or true atypical symptom profile?

“…3‐score) we set the l z value as a missing value. The l z value for these response patterns reflects good person fit, but selecting the same answering category throughout a subscale may be due to a response style, lack of motivation, or exaggerating symptoms (Conijn et al, ; Ferrando, ; Stukenberg, Brady, & Klinetob, ). Hence, including these response patterns in the analysis may lead to non‐linear predictor effects because they may reflect a low quality self‐report.…”