Utility of the MMPI-3 validity scales for detecting overreporting and underreporting and their effects on substantive scale validity: A simulation study.

Abstract

The current study utilized an experimental design to investigate the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-3 Validity Scales for detecting overreporting and underreporting and the impact of these response sets on substantive scale scores. College students completed a battery of criterion measures before assignment to a Standard Instructions (SIs) Group (n = 288), an Overreporting Group (n = 250), or an Underreporting Group (n = 215). t tests demonstrated that scores on MMPI-3 overreporting indicators and most substantive scales were higher among the Overreporting Group relative to the SI group with very large effect sizes, and scores on MMPI-3 underreporting indicators were higher and most substantive scales scores were lower among the Underreporting Group relative to the SI group, with moderate to large effects. Classification accuracy estimates documented the effectiveness of MMPI-3 Validity Scales in detecting overreporting and underreporting. Bivariate correlations between MMPI-3 substantive scale scores and criterion measures (which were completed under SIs for all three groups) were substantially attenuated for both simulation groups relative to the SI Group. Bivariate correlations were also attenuated for groups identified as overreporting or underreporting using MMPI-3 Validity Scale scores relative to individuals with valid MMPI-3 protocols, highlighting the need for and importance of appraising threats to protocol validity when assessing personality and psychopathology by self-report. Public Significance StatementThis study used an experimental simulation design and demonstrated that MMPI-3 Validity Scales can detect overreporting and underreporting with good classification accuracy, and that the validity of substantive scales is substantially attenuated when individuals engage in these problematic response styles, highlighting the importance of appraising threats to protocol validity when assessing personality and psychopathology.

An examination of the MMPI-3 validity scales in detecting overreporting of psychological problems.

“…The classification accuracy findings were also supportive of the MMPI-3 scales and our findings were generally consistent with those observed in previous literature for the MMPI-2-RF (Sharf et al, 2017) and MMPI-3 (Whitman et al, 2021). 6 Our results were supportive of the cut scores recommended in the MMPI-3 manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020b) with excellent specificity rates.…”

“…Furthermore, Wygant et al’s (2007) findings of context effects in overreporting are also supportive of this explanation. They observed that in criminal contexts, the overreporting scales across the board (but especially Fp and F) were elevated when overreporting was present (akin to Whitman et al, 2021), whereas in civil litigation, more specific patterns of elevation, especially RBS, were indicated regardless of the type of symptom overreporting. It should also be noted that uncoached participants will often overreport indiscriminantly in analogue studies regardless of instruction (e.g., Morris et al, 2021; Sellbom & Bagby, 2010; Whitman et al, 2021), and given that we observed a relatively distinct profile of symptom overreporting in the present study, we are therefore relatively unconcerned about the secondary contextual effects on responding.…”

“…However, the results indicated no meaningful differences between the feigning groups on the Validity Scales due to small effect sizes ( ds = 0.07–0.43). Similarly, to Whitman et al’s (2021) study, Morris et al (2021) did not use a genuine patient group (with PTSD and/or mTBI), which precluded comparisons on the extent to which the MMPI-3 overreporting Validity Scales could differentiate between overreporting and genuine psychopathology.…”

Assessing Negative Response Bias Using Self-Report Measures: New Articles, New Issues

“…Furthermore, the normative sample of the MMPI-3 is more updated compared to that of the MMPI-2-RF, which was collected in the 1980s. Clinicians are therefore encouraged to monitor the accumulation of MMPI-3 studies (see, e.g., Morris et al, 2021;Reeves et al, in press;Tylicki et al, 2020;Whitman et al, 2021) and assess the extent to which these studies are conducted in a context similar to their practice. In any case, the considerations to be made in deciding which version of the MMPI to use for a given case can be expected to change significantly in the near future as the research base for the use of the MMPI-3 continues to grow.…”

Assessing Negative Response Bias: a Review of the Noncredible Overreporting Scales of the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3

“…Second, Whitman et al (2021a) used a traditional simulation design with a large sample of university students, in which participants completed a battery of tests measuring constructs related to those assessed by the MMPI-3 under honest instructions before completing the MMPI-2-RF-EX in standard or simulation conditions. This study was conducted to examine the concurrent validity of the MMPI-3, which had yet to be done and subjected to peer review.…”