Literature DB >> 26302101

"False feigners": Examining the impact of non-content-based invalid responding on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form content-based invalid responding indicators.

Danielle Burchett1, Wendy R Dragon2, Ashley M Smith Holbert3, Anthony M Tarescavage3, Curtis A Mattson4, Richard W Handel5, Yossef S Ben-Porath6.   

Abstract

Misinterpretation of non-content-based invalid (e.g., random, fixed) responding as overreporting or underreporting is likely to adversely impact test interpretation and could bias inferences about examinee intentions. We examined the impact of non-content-based invalid responding on the following Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) content-based invalid responding indicators: Infrequent Responses (F-r), Infrequent Psychopathology Responses (FP-r), Infrequent Somatic Responses (FS), Symptom Validity (FBS-r), Response Bias Scale (RBS), Uncommon Virtues (L-r), and Adjustment Validity (K-r). In 4 samples from which invalid responders were excluded, we systematically inserted increasing percentages of random, acquiescent, or counter-acquiescent item responses ranging from 0% to 100% and examined the impact that non-content-based invalid response styles had on the content-based invalid responding indicators. F-r, FP-r, FS, RBS, and L-r were susceptible to non-content-based invalid responding, whereas FBS-r and K-r were unaffected. Individuals with Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) elevations were removed, and the frequencies of content-based invalid responding elevations were then reexamined for false indications of feigning. Findings were consistent across samples and emphasize the need to screen for non-content-based invalid responding before screening for content-based invalid responding in the assessment of personality and psychopathology. VRIN-r and TRIN-r were useful in detecting most-but not all-cases of non-content-based invalid responding. A small but meaningful percentage of the remaining individuals were misclassified as overreporters (i.e., false feigners) by FP-r and FS. Clinicians should interpret FP-r and FS with some caution in the presence of moderate levels of non-content-based invalid responding. Post hoc examinations of scale characteristics indicated that the most susceptible scales were brief, consisted of rarely endorsed items, included a relatively high percentage of true-keyed items, and required a low percentage of endorsed items to reach clinical significance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26302101     DOI: 10.1037/pas0000205

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychol Assess        ISSN: 1040-3590


  2 in total

1.  The Impact of Validity Screening on Associations Between Self-Reports of Bullying Victimization and Student Outcomes.

Authors:  Yuane Jia; Timothy R Konold; Dewey Cornell; Francis Huang
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 2.821

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

Authors:  Judith M Conijn; Philip Spinhoven; Rob R Meijer; Femke Lamers
Journal:  Int J Methods Psychiatr Res       Date:  2016-11-14       Impact factor: 4.035

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.