537347

research-article2014

ASMXXX10.1177/1073191114537347AssessmentTarescavage et al.

Article

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Scores Generated From the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Test Booklets: Internal Structure Comparability in a Sample of Criminal Defendants

Assessment 2015, Vol. 22(2) 188­–197 © The Author(s) 2014 Reprints and permissions: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1073191114537347 asm.sagepub.com

Anthony M. Tarescavage1, Michael L. Alosco1, Yossef S. Ben-Porath1, Arcangela Wood2, and Lynn Luna-Jones2,3

Abstract We investigated the internal structure comparability of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores derived from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets in a sample of 320 criminal defendants (229 males and 54 females). After exclusion of invalid protocols, the final sample consisted of 96 defendants who were administered the MMPI-2-RF booklet and 83 who completed the MMPI-2. No statistically significant differences in MMPI2-RF invalidity rates were observed between the two forms. Individuals in the final sample who completed the MMPI-2-RF did not statistically differ on demographics or referral question from those who were administered the MMPI-2 booklet. Independent t tests showed no statistically significant differences between MMPI-2-RF scores generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets on the test’s substantive scales. Statistically significant small differences were observed on the revised Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) scales. Cronbach’s alpha and standard errors of measurement were approximately equal between the booklets for all MMPI-2-RF scales. Finally, MMPI2-RF intercorrelations produced from the two forms yielded mostly small and a few medium differences, indicating that discriminant validity and test structure are maintained. Overall, our findings reflect the internal structure comparability of MMPI-2-RF scale scores generated from MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Implications of these results and limitations of these findings are discussed. Keywords Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), forensic evaluations, score comparability, reliability, validity

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al., 2001) is the most frequently administered objective personality test in forensic evaluations (Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Vauter Stredny, & Handel, 2006; Archer, Hagan, Mason, Handel, & Archer, 2012; Borum & Grisso, 1995; Lally, 2003). An updated version of the test, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011), offers several advantages, including scales that were developed with modern test construction techniques, conceptual and empirical links to contemporary models and constructs in personality and psychopathology, a standard interpretation strategy, and a 40% reduction in length.

A growing body of empirical research supports and guides use of the MMPI-2-RF in forensic evaluations. Recent work demonstrates that MMPI-2-RF scale scores predict outcomes of drug court and batterer’s intervention programs, with higher scores on the Behavior/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD), Antisocial Behavior (RC4), Aberrant 1

Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA PsychoDiagnostic Clinic, Akron, OH, USA 3 Capella University, Minneapolis, MN, USA 2

Corresponding Author: Anthony M. Tarescavage, Department of Psychology, Kent State University, 144 Kent Hall, Kent, OH 44242, USA. Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

189

Tarescavage et al. Experiences (RC8), Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP), and Aggression (AGG) scales being associated with poor outcome in these settings (Mattson, Powers, Halfaker, Akenson, & Ben-Porath, 2012; Rock, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Salekin, 2012). Sellbom, Ben-Porath, and Stafford (2007) found that the MMPI-2-RF scale RC4 provided substantially improved assessment of psychopathy when compared with the MMPI-2 Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale, and more recent investigations have also demonstrated the utility of MMPI-2-RF scales in assessing this construct (Phillips, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Patrick, 2014; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, et al., 2012). In addition, the extant literature demonstrates the clinical utility of the MMPI-2-RF in child custody litigation and parental fitness evaluations (Archer et al., 2012; Pinsoneault & Ezzo, 2012; Resendes & Lecci, 2012; Sellbom & Bagby, 2008; Stredny, Archer, & Mason, 2006), as well as among traumatic brain injury litigants and workplace disability claimants (Gervais, Ben-Porath, & Wygant, 2009; Sellbom & Bagby, 2009; Sellbom, Lee, BenPorath, Arbisi, & Gervais, 2012; Youngjohn, Weshba, Stevenson, Sturgeon, & Thomas, 2011). Last, the MMPI2-RF includes revised versions of the MMPI-2 Validity scales, which are effective in differentiating between malingering and genuine psychopathology in civil and criminal forensic samples (cf. Schroeder et al., 2012; Sellbom & Bagby, 2010; Tarescavage, Wygant, Gervais, & Ben-Porath, 2013; Wygant et al., 2009). Many of the studies just cited relied on MMPI-2-RF scale scores derived from an administration of the MMPI-2, which is possible because the 338 MMPI-2-RF items are included in the MMPI-2 booklet. Appendix A of the MMPI2-RF Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011) includes 53,970 correlations between MMPI2-RF scale scores and 605 extratest criteria calculated using several existing MMPI-2 data sets, including large samples of criminal defendants and disability litigants. Appendix D of the Technical Manual provides descriptive MMPI-2-RF findings (means and standard deviations on the 51 scales) for a broad range of settings, including prison inmates, child custody litigants, parental fitness evaluatees, criminal defendants, disability litigants, and individuals undergoing independent forensic neuropsychological evaluations. The ability to score MMPI-2-RF scales from MMPI-2 protocols provides investigators with access to more than 20 years of MMPI-2 research databases. A critical assumption of using these data, however, is that MMPI-2-RF scores generated from an administration of the MMPI-2 are comparable to ones obtained from administration of the MMPI2-RF booklet. It is possible, however, that item order and context might affect scale score psychometrics. For example, Knowles (1988) found that items administered toward the end of a single scale were more reliable than those administered toward the beginning. In a follow-up analysis, Knowles and Byers (1996) conducted analyses that led

them to infer that the improvement in item reliability occurred because individuals gained familiarity with the construct being assessed as they were asked more questions that measured it. In both studies, however, the authors used single-scale measures. It is possible that their findings are less applicable to multiscale inventories such as the MMPI2-RF, because the MMPI-2-RF measures dozens of constructs with items that are spread throughout the test booklet. Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008/2011) tested the assumption of MMPI-2-RF score comparability between the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets empirically using a counterbalanced within-subjects design in a sample of college students, and they found that the two versions of the inventory yield essentially interchangeable reliability and descriptive results. van der Heijden, Egger, and Derksen (2010) replicated these findings also using a within-subjects design with randomly assigned Dutch college students who were administered a translated version of the inventory. These studies were limited in that they used a sample of college students, so the results may not generalize to settings in which test takers present with more meaningful rates of psychopathology and/or content-based invalid responding (e.g., overreporting), both of which the test is predominantly used to assess. The purpose of the current study was to investigate the comparability of MMPI-2-RF scores derived from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets in a sample of criminal defendants, a population characterized by significant psychopathology and incentive to feign symptoms. The issue of booklet comparability is of particular interest in a criminal forensic population, because the standards of test admissibility in court testimony are strict and require evidence to support a test’s scientific validity. Although the literature cited earlier in this article demonstrates the scientific validity of MMPI-2-RF scores in forensic samples, much of this research was conducted with rescored forensic MMPI-2 data sets. A demonstration of score comparability in a sample of criminal defendants would address a potential challenge to this research. Based on previous findings, we hypothesized that the test booklets would generate comparable MMPI-2-RF scores and reliability estimates in a sample of criminal defendants. Extending previous MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklet comparability research, in addition, we hypothesized that the two forms would produce similar invalidity rates, although it was expected that individuals administered the MMPI-2 would score higher on Cannot Say (CNS) as well as on the revised Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) scales, because the MMPI-2’s length may lead to increased non-content-based invalid responding. Finally, we hypothesized that MMPI-2-RF scale intercorrelation comparisons would yield minimal meaningful differences among forms.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

190

Assessment 22(2)

Table 1.  Percentage of Invalid Protocols and Validity Scale Elevations at Interpretive Cutoffs (N = 320).a Elevation Rates   MMPI-2-RF MMPI-2 χ2 (sig.)

n

% Invalid

CNS ≥ 18

VRIN-r ≥ 80

TRIN-r ≥ 80

n

F-r ≥ 120

Fp-r ≥ 100

164 156 320

41.5 46.8 0.922 (.337)

3.0 3.8 0.153 (.696)

4.3 7.7 1.678 (.195)

12.2 19.2 3.002 (.083)

138 118 156

23.9 25.4 0.078 (.780)

18.1 18.6 0.753 (.385)

Note. χ2 df = 1; sig = statistical significance; CNS, VRIN-r, and TRIN-r = no exclusionary criteria; F-r and Fp-r = includes defendants with CNS < 18, VRIN-r < 80, and TRIN-r < 80; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2); MMPI-2-RF = MMPI-2-Restructured Form; VRIN-r = Variable Response Inconsistency; TRIN-r = True Response Inconsistency; F-r = Infrequent Responses; FP-r = Infrequent Psychopathology Responses; FS = Infrequent Somatic Responses; FBS-r = Symptom Validity; L-r = Uncommon Virtues; K-r = Adjustment Validity. a. Ns vary among scales due to variable exclusionary criteria.

This finding would support that MMPI-2-RF scale scores from the two booklets have similar discriminant validity and indicate that the internal structure of the test is generally maintained in both forms (Schmitt, 1996).

Method Participants Participants were selected from 320 nonconsecutive criminal defendants who underwent forensic psychological evaluations from 2008 to 2011 at a northeastern Ohio forensic center and who completed the MMPI-2 or MMPI-2-RF as part of their assessments. In the initial sample, participants did not statistically differ in terms of ethnicity, age, years of education, or referral question (p > .10 for all). Those administered the MMPI-2, however, were more likely to be male, χ2(1) = 4.357, p = .037, as well as married, χ2(4) = 11.734, p = .019. We excluded individuals with invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols according to the test authors’ published guidelines (CNS ≥ 18; VRIN-r ≥ 80; TRIN-r ≥ 80; F-r ≥ 120; and Fp-r ≥ 100; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011). Table 1 presents comparisons between the two booklets on protocol invalidity rates and Validity scale elevation rates, which yielded nonsignificant differences (p > .08 for all). In the sample of individuals administered the MMPI2-RF (n = 164), we excluded 68 criminal defendants (41.5%) with invalid test protocols. Demographics for the remaining 96 criminal defendants are presented in Table 2. Excluded participants did not statistically differ from the final sample in terms of age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, or evaluation type (p > .09 for all). Excluded criminal defendants were significantly less educated than those in the final sample, however: t(136) = 3.619, p < .001; M (SD) years = 10.9 (2.2) versus 12.2 (2.1). In the sample of individuals administered the MMPI-2 (n = 156), 73 criminal defendants (46.8%) with invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols were excluded. Demographics for the remaining 83 criminal defendants are also presented in Table 2. Excluded

participants did not statistically differ from the final sample on race, gender, marital status, or evaluation type (p > .09 for all). Excluded criminal defendants were, however, younger: t(154) = 2.505, p = .013; M (SD) years = 31.3 (10.0) versus 35.8 (12.1). They were also less educated: t(124) = 3.560, p < .001; M (SD) years = 10.4 (2.9) versus 12.0 (1.3). The final sample of individuals administered the MMPI-2-RF (n = 96) did not statistically differ from the final sample of individuals administered the MMPI-2 (n = 83) on age, gender, ethnicity, education, marital status, or evaluation type (p > .15 for all; see Table 2). These findings indicate that the two samples were comparable, which minimizes the risk of score differences due to inconsistency in patient characteristics among the two samples.

Measures MMPI-2-RF. The MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011) is a 338item restructured version of the MMPI designed to improve psychometric functioning and simplify interpretation. It has nine Validity scales designed to assess protocol validity and 42 substantive scales that assess a broad range of personality and psychopathology constructs. Extensive psychometric analyses reported in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011) indicate adequate reliability and validity in a variety of settings, including criminal forensic settings.

Statistical Analyses MMPI-2-RF scales were generated from both MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF protocols. Independent samples t tests were used to compare the MMPI-2-RF means and standard deviations of participants administered the MMPI-2 and MMPI2-RF booklets. We used Cohen’s d to estimate effect sizes for group differences (Cohen, 1992; .30–.49 = small; .50– .79 = medium; ≥ .80 = large). We next calculated Cronbach’s

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

191

Tarescavage et al. Table 2.  Demographics for Final Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and MMPI-2 Samples. Variable Gender  Men  Women Ethnicity  Caucasian  African-American  Other Marital status  Single  Married   Widowed, divorced, or separated Evaluation type  Competency  NGRI   Competency and NGRI  Presentencing   Post sentencing   Second opinion Continuous variables  Age  Education

MMPI-2-RF (n = 96)

MMPI-2 (n = 83)

72.9% 27.1%

81.9% 18.1%

69.9% 24.7% 5.4%

69.5% 28.8% 1.7%

50.6% 19.0% 30.3%

62.2% 14.9% 22.9%

42.7% 8.3% 16.7% 20.8% 6.2% 5.2% M (SD) 38.7 (14.0) 12.2 (2.1)

43.4% 16.9% 13.3% 19.3% 4.8% 2.4% M (SD) 35.8 (12.1) 12.0 (2.1)

Statistical Comparisons χ2(1) = 2.047,a p = .153     χ2(2) = 1.609,a p = .657       χ2(2) = 5.848,a p = .241       χ2(5) = 4.809,a p = .568               t(177) = 1.457, p = .147 t(177) = 0.692, p = .490

Note. NGRI = not guilty by reason of insanity. a. For χ2 findings, no cells yielded standardized residuals greater than 1.96.

alphas for MMPI-2-RF scale scores derived from the two booklets. We considered differences in internal consistency greater than .10 as clinically meaningful, which has been used in a past investigation of reliability comparability of MMPI-2-RF scores among samples (Tarescavage, Wygant, Boutacoff, & Ben-Porath, 2013). Of note, consistent with Ben-Porath and Tellegen’s (2008/2011) interpretive guidelines, we used variable exclusionary criteria when comparing descriptives and reliability estimates among the two forms. For the non-content-based invalid responding indicators VRIN-r and TRIN-r, we used no exclusionary criteria, yielding sample sizes of 164 and 156 for the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-2 booklets, respectively. For the other Validity scales, we excluded individuals with elevations on CNS (≥ 18), VRIN-r (≥ 80T), or TRIN-r (≥ 80T), yielding sample sizes of 138 and 118 for the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-2 booklets, respectively. For the remaining substantive scales, we excluded individuals with invalid protocols (i.e., CNS ≥ 18, VRIN-r ≥ 80, TRIN-r ≥ 80, F-r ≥ 120, and Fp-r ≥ 100; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011), yielding sample sizes of 96 and 83 for the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-2 booklets, respectively. In the final analysis, we examined the comparability of MMPI-2-RF scale intercorrelations for the Validity, HigherOrder, Restructured Clinical, Specific Problems, and PSY-5 scale sets. Consistent with intercorrelational analyses presented in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual (Tellegen &

Ben-Porath, 2008/2011), we calculated these estimates using raw scores instead of T-scores. We did not compute intercorrelations among the entire test because of item overlap among the scale set. Validity scale intercorrelations were conducted on the full sample without elevations on CNS, whereas the remaining substantive scale intercorrelations were computed in the sample of valid cases. Fisher’s r-to-z transformations (two-sided) were computed to test for significant differences in intercorrelation coefficients between booklet versions, and Cohen’s q was used to estimate the size of these differences. Cohen (1992) identified q values of .10 as small, .30 as medium, and .50 as large. According to G*Power 3.17 (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007), a sample size of 128 yielded a power value of .80 to identify a medium effect size (Cohen’s d ≥ .50). For the Fisher’s r-to-z analyses, a sample of 350 yielded a power value of .80 to identify a medium effect size (Cohen’s q ≥ .30).

Results Mean Score and Reliability Comparisons Table 3 provides means, standard deviations, internal consistency estimates, and standard errors of measurement for MMPI-2-RF scores generated from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Independent samples t tests showed

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

192

Assessment 22(2)

Table 3.  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Booklet Comparability. MMPI-2-RF Scale Name

M

Validity Scales Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r) True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) 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) Adjustment Validity (K-r) Higher Order Scales Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) Thought Dysfunction (THD) Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD) Restructured Clinical Scales Demoralization (RCd) Somatic Complaints (RC1) Low Positive Emotions (RC2) Cynicism (RC3) Antisocial Behavior (RC4) Ideas of Persecution (RC6) Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (RC7) Aberrant Experiences (RC8) Hypomanic Behavior (RC9) Specific Problems Scales Malaise (MLS) Gastrointestinal Complaints (GIC) Head Pain Complaints (HPC) Neurological Complaints (NUC) Cognitive Complaints (COG) Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI) Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP) Self-Doubt (SFD) Inefficacy (NFC) Stress/Worry (STW) Anxiety (AXY) Anger Proneness (ANP) Behavior-Restricting Fears (BRF) Multiple Specific Fears (MSF) Juvenile Conduct Problems (JCP) Substance Abuse (SUB) Aggression (AGG) Activation (ACT) Family Problems (FML) Interpersonal Passivity (IPP) Social Avoidance (SAV) Shyness (SHY) Disaffiliativeness (DSF)

56.1 62.0 88.6 74.8 72.8 67.2 74.6 57.8 45.6

SD

SEM

12.0 9.7 13.2 7.9 37.2 9.8 31.9 13.5 26.2 11.7 17.8 7.6 23.0 9.8 11.2 7.3 12.3 5.5

MMPI-2 α

M

.34 .64 .93 .82 .80 .82 .82 .57 .80

59.4 66.1 88.8 74.2 74.4 67.9 75.1 58.7 44.8

SD

SEM

13.8 10.3 18.2 9.5 37.5 9.9 31.8 13.1 28.9 11.9 18.4 7.8 21.3 9.8 14.4 7.1 12.8 5.3

Mean Statistical Comparisons α

ta

p

d

.44 .73 .93 .83 .83 .82 .79 .76 .83

−2.261 −2.291 −0.046 0.136 −0.467 −0.285 −0.188 −0.569 0.519

.024 .023 .963 .892 .641 .776 .851 .570 .604

−.26 −.26 −.01 .02 −.06 −.04 −.02 −.07 .06

56.0 15.1 61.7 17.0 56.0 12.3

3.7 6.1 5.1

.94 .87 .83

56.8 13.9 60.8 16.6 57.5 12.5

3.9 6.8 5.2

.92 .83 .83

−0.386 0.362 −0.779

.700 .717 .437

−.06 .05 −.12

57.5 58.0 58.0 50.8 60.7 68.0 51.9 57.8 47.0

13.7 13.2 15.3 10.9 13.4 18.8 12.9 14.1 10.2

3.9 5.1 6.7 4.9 5.5 7.0 4.5 5.8 4.4

.92 .85 .81 .80 .83 .86 .88 .83 .81

59.7 59.2 56.0 53.6 61.7 65.5 53.9 58.6 48.7

13.6 13.6 12.6 11.4 14.2 17.3 14.3 13.8 10.7

3.8 5.3 6.4 4.8 5.5 7.7 4.5 6.2 4.7

.92 .85 .74 .82 .85 .80 .90 .80 .81

−1.075 −0.570 0.953 −1.654 −0.506 0.900 −0.970 −0.406 −1.097

.284 .570 .342 .100 .613 .370 .333 .685 .274

−.16 −.09 .14 −.25 −.08 .14 −.15 −.06 −.16

56.1 54.8 54.9 61.0 60.2 59.4 53.8 55.3 53.3 54.5 58.4 50.0 53.5 47.8 59.4 54.9 50.7 48.5 53.1 50.7 54.5 49.6 54.4

12.8 13.4 12.5 13.5 15.7 20.9 13.3 13.6 11.8 12.5 18.0 11.2 11.6 9.9 14.5 12.2 13.0 12.3 12.9 10.6 12.7 8.7 12.6

6.7 8.0 6.3 8.0 6.8 9.3 8.3 5.4 5.7 7.0 8.2 5.5 8.5 4.8 6.8 6.9 6.0 6.6 6.6 5.8 5.2 5.1 9.1

.73 .64 .75 .65 .81 .80 .61 .84 .77 .69 .79 .76 .46 .76 .78 .68 .79 .71 .74 .70 .83 .66 .48

55.8 55.3 56.4 61.3 62.4 59.6 53.6 56.9 54.8 55.2 60.8 50.8 55.1 49.8 60.7 58.4 52.0 50.7 53.2 49.2 53.1 50.5 53.9

14.1 6.1 14.1 8 13.0 6.4 14.1 8.1 15.6 7.3 19.6 10.2 13.4 8.2 13.2 6.2 11.9 5.7 12.3 7.1 17.4 9.4 11.5 5.5 12.6 9.1 10.0 4.9 13.6 6.9 14.8 6.9 11.6 6.9 12.1 7.0 12.5 6.6 8.5 5.4 10.2 5.5 10.3 5.0 12.7 8.6

.81 .68 .76 .67 .78 .73 .63 .78 .77 .67 .71 .77 .48 .76 .74 .78 .65 .67 .72 .60 .71 .76 .54

0.143 −0.242 −0.740 −0.138 −0.951 −0.076 0.088 −0.782 −0.811 −0.393 −0.891 −0.477 −0.917 −1.313 −0.637 −1.702 −0.733 −1.239 −0.071 1.035 0.813 −0.670 0.271

.887 .809 .460 .890 .343 .940 .930 .435 .418 .695 .374 .634 .360 .191 .525 .090 .465 .217 .943 .302 .417 .504 .787

.02 −.04 −.11 −.02 −.14 −.01 .01 −.12 −.12 −.06 −.13 −.07 −.14 −.20 −.10 −.25 −.11 −.19 −.01 .16 .12 −.10 .04 (continued)

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

193

Tarescavage et al. Table 3.  (continued) MMPI-2-RF Scale Name Personality-Psychopathology-5 Scale Aggressiveness (AGGR-r) Psychoticism (PSYC-r) Disconstraint (DISC-r) Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (NEGE-r) Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR-r)

MMPI-2

Mean Statistical Comparisons

M

SD

SEM

α

M

SD

SEM

α

ta

p

d

49.9 58.7 55.6 53.3 57.0

10.0 16.2 10.9 12.7 13.9

5.3 6.3 5.5 5.1 5.6

.72 .85 .75 .84 .84

50.6 59.9 57.1 55.1 54.0

9.6 16.4 12.3 13.9 10.5

5.5 6.6 5.6 5.0 5.7

.67 .84 .79 .87 .71

−0.491 −0.469 −0.840 −0.919 1.635

.624 .639 .402 .359 .104

−.07 −.07 −.13 −.14 .25

Note. Ns and degrees of freedom vary among analyses due to variable exclusionary criteria. VRIN-r and TRIN-r: N = 159/150 (includes defendants with CNS < 18); F-r, Fp-r, Fs, FBS-r, RBS, L-r, and K-r: N = 133/112 (includes defendants with CNS < 18, VRIN-r < 80, and TRIN-r < 80); remaining substantive scales: N = 96/83 (includes defendants with CNS < 18, VRIN-r < 80, TRIN-r < 80, F-r < 120, and Fp-r < 100). M = mean; SD = standard deviation; SEM = standard error of measurement; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; MMPI-2-RF = MMPI-2-Restructured Form. a. Independent samples t test comparing means and standard deviations of MMPI-2-RF scales between participants who completed the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklet.

Table 4.  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Versus MMPI-2 (in Parentheses) Validity Scale Intercorrelations (N = 159 [150]).

1. VRIN-r 2. TRIN-r 3. F-r 4. Fp-r 5. Fs 6. FBS-r 7. RBS 8. L-r 9. K-r

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

— .11 (.13) .08 (.16) .23 (.30) .12 (.20) .11 (.21) .16 (.19) −.01 (.04) −.15 (−.16)

— — .24 (.35) .11 (.40)** .23 (.33) .13 (.11) .27 (.34) −.27 (−.04)* −.40 (−.41)

— — — .75 (.77) .78 (.78) .74 (.67) .91 (.83)** −.36 (−.32) −.73 (−.71)

— — — — .65 (.69) .59 (.48) .71 (.64) −.12 (−.11) −.49 (−.49)

— — — — — .76 (.68) .76 (.75) −.26 (−.23) −.58 (−.56)

— — — — — — .79 (.71) −.18 (−.11) −.51 (−.42)

— — — — — — — −.24 (−.16) −.68 (−.58)

— — — — — — — — .50 (.46)

— — — — — — — — —

Note. Bold: Medium effect size for the difference among correlations; Cohen’s q ≥ .30; no large differences were observed; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; MMPI-2-RF = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; VRIN-r = Variable Response Inconsistency; TRIN-r = True Response Inconsistency; F-r = Infrequent Responses; FP-r = Infrequent Psychopathology Responses; FS = Infrequent Somatic Responses; FBS-r = Symptom Validity; L-r = Uncommon Virtues; K-r = Adjustment Validity. *Correlation difference significant (p < .05); **Correlation difference significant (p < .01); no differences significant at p < .001.

no statistically significant differences for mean scale scores between MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF protocols on all of the scales except VRIN-r (p = .024; Cohen’s d = −.26) and TRIN-r (p = .023; Cohen’s d = −.26), both of which demonstrated higher mean scores for the MMPI-2 booklet. Cronbach’s alphas were generally comparable among test versions for both versions, but estimates were meaningfully higher (i.e., as defined by an alpha coefficient ≥ .10) for the MMPI-2 booklet on VRIN-r, L-r, SUB, IPP, and SHY, whereas they were meaningfully lower on AGG and SAV. Standard error of measurement information was equivalent, because the absolute difference between the two forms exceeded 1.0 in only one comparison (TRIN-r: MMPI-2-RF SEM = 7.9, MMPI-2 SEM = 9.5).

Intercorrelation Comparisons Intercorrelation comparisons are presented in Table 4 for the Validity scales, Table 5 for the Restructured Clinical

scales, Table 6 for the Specific Problems scales, and Table 7 for the PSY-5 scales. Intercorrelations for the Higher-Order scales Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID), Thought Dysfunction (THD), and Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction (BXD) were not statistically significantly different among the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-2 forms (EID/ THD = .40/.49; EID/BXD = .30/.42; THD/BXD = .22/.33; ps > .30, Cohen’s q range = .11–.14). For the remaining scales, intercorrelations were for the most part similar between booklet versions, because there were few statistically significant differences in the magnitude of the intercorrelation coefficients between the two booklets, and more than 90% of the differences were small to negligible. Some statistically significant (p < .05), moderate differences were observed, however. These included the following intercorrelations: TRIN-r/Fp-r, F-r/RBS, RCd/RC2, RCd/RC9, MLS/SFD, MLS/STW, MLS/IPP, MLS/SAV, MLS/SHY, HPC/FML, COG/SAV, HLP/ANP, HLP/BRF, HLP/FML, HLP/IPP, HLP/SAV, SFD/SAV, NFC/SAV, STW/IPP, STW/

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

194

Assessment 22(2)

Table 5.  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Versus MMPI-2 (in Parentheses) Restructured Clinical Scales Intercorrelations (N = 96 [83]).

1. RCd 2. RC1 3. RC2 4. RC3 5. RC4 6. RC6 7. RC7 8. RC8 9. RC9

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

— .55 (.60) .74 (.57)** .23 (.48) .48 (.51) .38 (.49) .79 (.84) .56 (.56) .21 (.54)**

— — .35 (.41) .32 (.33) .23 (.42) .37 (.49) .62 (.55) .48 (.49) .26 (.33)

— — — .04 (.02) .22 (.22) .20 (.14) .53 (.40) .30 (.32) −.14 (.00)

— — — — .15 (.39) .46 (.51) .37 (.57) .27 (.28) .43 (.60)

— — — — — .20 (.43) .51 (.52) .31 (.36) .50 (.57)

— — — — — — .39 (.57) .58 (.63) .34 (.49)

— — — — — — — .57 (.66) .43 (.61)

— — — — — — — — .45 (.50)

— — — — — — — — —

Note. Bold: Medium effect size for the difference among correlations; Cohen’s q ≥ .30; no large differences were observed; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; MMPI-2-RF = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; RCd = Demoralization; RC1 = Somatic Complaints; RC2 = Low Positive Emotions; RC3 = Cynicism; RC4 = Antisocial Behavior; RC6 = Ideas of Persecution; RC7 = Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; RC8 = Aberrant Experiences; RC9 = Hypomanic Activation. *Correlation difference significant (p < .05); **Correlation difference significant (p < .01); no differences significant at p < .001.

SAV, AXY/IPP, AXY/SAV, ANP/FML, ANP/SHY, ANP/ DSF, BRF/DSF, SUB/FML, AGG/FML, SAV/SHY, AGGR-r/NEGE-r, and NEGE-r/INTR-r. Overall, these findings accounted for 31 out of 338 (9.2%) statistical comparisons. Significant moderate differences were most common among the Specific Problems scales, in which 25 out of 253 comparisons were statistically significant (9.8%), and among the PSY-5 scales, in which two out of 10 (20%) comparisons were statistically significant. Significant moderate differences were least common among the RC and Validity scales, in which two out of 36 (5.5%) comparisons in both sets were statistically significant moderate differences (i.e., both sets have nine scales).

Discussion The purpose of this study was to investigate the comparability of MMPI-2-RF scale scores generated from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets in a sample of criminal defendants. We examined differences in protocol invalidity rates, reliability, descriptive statistics, and intercorrelations of MMPI-2-RF scale scores among the booklets. We found no statistically significant differences in MMPI-2-RF Validity scale elevation rates. As expected, however, the MMPI-2 booklet sample produced significantly higher scores on VRIN-r and TRIN-r, although it was a small effect. This result is not surprising, given that the MMPI-2 is substantially (67%) longer than the MMPI2-RF, and extratest factors such as fatigue may affect response style. Our hypothesis that reliability estimates for MMPI-2-RF scores derived from the two booklets would be similar was supported, because although some internal consistency differences were observed, standard errors of measurement were generally equivalent for all scales except

TRIN-r, which differed by 1.6 T between the two forms. Standard error of measurement information is of more practical utility than internal consistency estimates, because it can be used to evaluate observed scale scores in the context of true score estimates and confidence intervals that take into account a scale’s reliability and variability (GrothMarnat, 2009). Although small effects were observed in the descriptive and intercorrelational analyses, the pattern of the findings between the two forms was largely similar. As recommended by Ellis (2010), one should not assume that Cohen’s (1992) effect size guidelines indicate meaningful findings. Indeed, MMPI-2-RF substantive scale score descriptive findings (means and standard deviations) were comparable between the booklets, because no statistically significant differences were observed and all effect sizes were small to negligible. The differences in scale scores all fell lower than 5T score points, which is the traditionally used value to define clinically meaningful differences in scale scores (Graham, 2012). MMPI-2-RF scale intercorrelation comparisons yielded differences among forms of a small effect size, and in some cases of a moderate effect size, but the latter were relatively minimal and the pattern of findings supports that the intercorrelations were generally equivalent between booklets, especially in light of our study’s betweensubjects design. When moderate differences did occur, they were primarily among the Specific Problems scales, which are generally shorter and less reliable than the other MMPI2-RF scales. As just noted, however, mean scores did not significantly differ between booklets for these scales. Overall, our results indicate that MMPI-2-RF scale scores derived from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets are comparable in forensic settings. This finding adds to and extends previous research with college students showing that MMPI-2-RF scores derived from the two booklets are

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

195

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

2

3

4

5

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .44 (.38) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .38 (.34) .49 (.46) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .33 (.25) .50 (.46) .64 (.65) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .41 (.35) .45 (.62) .69 (.59) .63 (.61) — — — — — — — — — — — — — .34 (.48) .33 (.46) .54 (.56) .60 (.54) .65 (.66) — — — — — — — — — — — — .23 (.33) .19 (.50)* .41 (.47) .43 (.52) .45 (.62) .44 (.46) — — — — — — — — — — — .19 (.15) .16 (.44)* .26 (.39) .39 (.50) .34 (.49) .56 (.46) .30 (.49) — — — — — — — — — — .24 (.22) .14 (.07) .13 (.18) .24 (.32) .28 (.24) .29 (.37) .13 (.13) .39 (.34) — — — — — — — — — .06 (.19) .03 (.28) .21 (.18) .28 (.32) .15 (.40) .23 (.30) .41 (.41) .17 (.15) -.00 (.00) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — .29 (.15) .18 (.23) .31 (.31) .33 (.37) .31 (.35) .27 (.29) .39 (.35) .00 (.10) .05 (.12) .46 (.59) .18 (.26) .19 (.43) .22 (.33) .31 (.36) .23 (.47) .18 (.36) .64 (.64) .08 (.18) .04 (.00) .50 (.60) .48 (.49) — — — — — — .11 (.19) .13 (.24) .18 (.35) .29 (.41) .27 (.44) .30 (.36) .50 (.43) .32 (.20) .12 (.25) .38 (.46) .22 (.30) .46 (.40) — — — — — .11 (.22) .09 (.49)** .42 (.49) .35 (.46) .37 (.52) .45 (.45) .23 (.51)* .32 (.37) .10 (.25) .19 (.37) .13 (.42)* .18 (.52)** .15 (.40) — — — — .08 (−19) .26 (−13)** .24 (11) .15 (−04) .17 (−22)** .21 (−10)* −.09 (−16) .08 (−10) .12 (−05) −.08 (−17) −.04 (.04) −.20 (−19) −.15 (−31) .07 (−06) — — — .27 (.38) .39 (.09)* .42 (.12)* .39 (.02)* .39 (.01)** .47 (.16)* .22 (.18) .25 (.10) .15 (.32) .11 (−14) .13 (−10) .12 (−05) .07 (.00) .16 (.01) .39 (.14) — — .28 (.25) .32 (.43) .50 (.46) .51 (.57) .53 (.56) .57 (.45) .27 (.58)* .34 (.40) .29 (.30) .15 (.19) .23 (.26) .11 (.28) .06 (.32) .38 (.35) .18 (.13) .58 (.27)** — −.09 (.18) .19 (.32) .06 (.21) .06 (.23) .09 (.32) .06 (.22) .16 (.44)* .11 (.47)* .04 (.14) .14 (.15) .00 (.01) .11 (.27) .02 (.16) .01 (.30) -.03 (−12) .35 (.22) .16 (.23)

6

— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —

23

Note. Bold: Medium effect size for the difference among correlations; Cohen’s q ≥ .30; no large differences were observed; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; MMPI-2-RF = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; MLS = Malaise; GIC = Gastrointestinal Complaints; HPC = Head Pain Complaints; NUC = Neurological Complaints; COG = Cognitive Complaints; SUI = Suicidal/Death Ideation; HLP = Helplessness/ Hopelessness; SFD = Self-Doubt; NFC = Inefficacy; STW = Stress/Worry; ANX = Anxiety; ANP = Anger Proneness; BRF = Behavior-Restricting Fears; MSF = Multiple Specific Fears; JCP = Juvenile Conduct Problems; SUB = Substance Abuse; AGG = Aggression; ACT = Activation; FML = Family Problems; IPP = Interpersonal Passivity; SAV = Social Avoidance; SHY = Shyness; DSF = Disaffiliativeness. *Correlation difference significant (p < .05); **Correlation difference significant (p < .01); no differences significant at p < .001.

1. MLS — — — — — 2. GIC .40 (.50) — — — — 3. HPC .38 (.57) .58 (.47) — — — 4. NUC .51 (.53) .52 (.41) .51 (.56) — — 5. COG .60 (.55) .38 (.43) .43 (.52) .53 (.57) — 6. SUI .42 (.33) .25 (.21) .38 (.27) .34 (.31) .41 (.30) 7. HLP .50 (.38) .06 (.22) .17 (.31) .24 (.41) .41 (.61) 8. SFD .65 (.40)* .22 (.43) .28 (.38) .39 (.41) .60 (.63) 9. NFC .55 (.42) .34 (.41) .36 (.47) .40 (.47) .70 (.68) 10. STW .62 (.37)* .30 (.44) .44 (.45) .50 (.50) .66 (.67) 11. AXY .52 (.30) .45 (.40) .33 (.41) .50 (.37) .63 (.56) 12. ANP .23 (.30) .20 (.20) .25 (.29) .46 (.51) .51 (.57) 13. BRF .25 (.15) .37 (.14) .41 (.23) .47 (.35) .34 (.48) 14. MSF .24 (.27) .29 (.21) .38 (.34) .30 (.30) .19 (.21) 15. JCP .15 (.18) .07 (.15) .09 (.19) .14 (.28) .27 (.36) 16. SUB .29 (.14) .14 (.29) .12 (.21) .21 (.29) .40 (.24) 17. AGG .06 (.23) .10 (.16) .11 (.23) .20 (.28) .36 (.40) 18. ACT .04 (.23) .23 (.25) .19 (.31) .38 (.44) .40 (.51) 19. FML .27 (.31) .19 (.26) .15 (.43)* .32 (.39) .35 (.49) 20. IPP .30(−.07)** −.10 (.08) −.12(−03) −.15(−11) .09 (−13) 21. SAV .51 (.21)* .12 (.14) .18 (.17) .23 (.17) .49 (.08)** 22. SHY .55 (.30)* .24 (.20) .30 (.20) .43 (.43) .54 (.59) 23. DSF .13 (.09) .01 (−01) .10 (.15) .17 (.36) .18 (.26)

1

Table 6.  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Versus MMPI-2 (in Parentheses) Specific Problems Scales Intercorrelations (N = 96 [83]).

196

Assessment 22(2)

Table 7.  Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Versus MMPI-2 (in Parentheses) Personality-Psychopathology-5 Scale Intercorrelations (N = 96 [83]). 1 1. AGGR-r 2. PSYC-r 3. DISC-r 4. NEGE-r 5. INTR-r

— .11 (.22) .39 (.39) −.07 (.24)* −.47 (−.35)

2 — — .20 (.27) .41 (.60) .15 (−.04)

3

4

5

— — — .24 (.37) −.13 (−.30)

— — — — .37 (.01)*

— — — — —

Note. Bold: Medium effect size for the difference among correlations; Cohen’s q ≥ .30; no large differences were observed; MMPI-2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; MMPI-2-RF = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; AGGR-r = AggressivenessRevised; PSYC-r = Psychoticism-Revised; DISC-r = Disconstraint-Revised; NEGE-r = Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised; INTR-r = Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised. *Correlation difference significant (p < .05); **Correlation difference significant (p < .01); no differences significant at p < .001.

essentially interchangeable (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011; van der Heijden et al., 2010). The current investigation focused on a sample from a forensic population with meaningful rates of psychopathology and incentive to feign symptoms; in addition, this study included protocol validity and intercorrelational comparisons. Establishing comparability in a forensic sample is of particular importance because it addresses possible concerns about whether college student findings generalize to a forensic population and, more broadly, to a population of individuals with higher rates of psychopathology. As noted in this article, the literature on use of the MMPI-2-RF in forensic settings is growing, and although some of the newer studies are based on administration of the shorter MMPI-2-RF booklet, many of these investigations relied on MMPI-2-RF scores derived from the MMPI2. Our findings indicate that results of validation studies based on the MMPI-2 booklet generalize to administration of the MMPI-2-RF, and investigators can continue to rely on existing MMPI-2 data sets to study the MMPI-2-RF. The current study is not without limitations. One limitation of this study is that although the MMPI booklet groups did not evidence statistically significant differences on demographics or referral question, other clinical differences among the participants may have presented as possible confounds (e.g., differing rates of psychopathology, reading ability, etc.). The study is also limited by a relatively small sample size, which affects statistical power. Although the initial sample included 320 criminal defendants, almost half (44.1%) were excluded because they had invalid MMPI-2-RF protocols. This level of invalidity is consistent with prior studies and with what would be expected in a setting with high base rates of malingering and decreased reading and cognitive abilities. Because of power limitations, we considered differences in terms both of statistical significance and effect size. Finally, this study was limited in that extratest criteria were not available to examine differences in construct validity. Future studies should examine the comparability of correlations with

other self-report instruments, chart review information, and outcomes to answer this question. These limitations notwithstanding, the current investigation converges with prior, better powered studies in demonstrating the comparability of MMPI-2-RF scores obtained from administration of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. This research supports the practice of using MMPI-2 data sets to study MMPI-2-RF scales and the ability of MMPI-2-RF users to rely on the findings of such research when interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Declaration of Conflicting Interests The authors declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI-2-RF publisher, the University of Minnesota Press, and its distributor, Pearson Assessments. He receives royalties on sales of MMPI2-RF materials and research grants from the MMPI-2-RF publisher.

Funding The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Data collection was supported by a grant from the University of Minnesota Press.

References Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Vauter Stredny, R., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 84–94. Archer, E. M., Hagan, L. D., Mason, J., Handel, R., & Archer, R. P. (2012). MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evaluation litigants. Assessment, 19, 14–20. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2011). MMPI–2–RF interpretive manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 2008) Borum, R., & Grisso, T. (1995). Psychological test use in criminal forensic evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 465–473.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015

197

Tarescavage et al. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G* Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Wygant, D. B. (2009). Empirical correlates and interpretation of the MMPI2-RF Cognitive Complaints (COG) scale. Clinical Neuropsychology, 23, 996–1015. Graham, J. R. (2012). The MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. New York, NY: Wiley. Knowles, E. S. (1988). Item context effects on personality scales: Measuring changes the measure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55(2), 312–320. Knowles, E. S., & Byers, B. (1996). Reliability shifts in measurement reactivity: Driven by content engagement or selfengagement? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(5), 1080–1090. Lally, S. J. (2003). What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 491–498. Mattson, C. A., Powers, B. K., Halfaker, D., Akenson, S. T., & BenPorath, Y. S. (2012). Predicting drug court completion with the MMPI-2-RF. Psychological Assessment, 24, 937–943. Phillips, T. R., Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Patrick, C. J. (2014). Further development and construct validation of MMPI-2-RF indices of global psychopathy, fearless-dominance, and impulsive-antisociality in a sample of incarcerated women. Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 34-46. Pinsoneault, T. B., & Ezzo, F. R. (2012). A comparison of MMPI2-RF profiles between child maltreatment and non-maltreatment custody cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 12, 227–237. Resendes, J., & Lecci, L. (2012). Comparing the MMPI-2 scale scores of parents involved in parental competency and child custody assessments. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1054–1059. Rock, R. C., Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Salekin, R. T. (2013). Concurrent and predictive validity of psychopathy in a batterers’ intervention sample. Law and Human Behavior, 37(3), 145–154. Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350–353. Schroeder, R. W., Baade, L. E., Peck, C. P., VonDran, E. J., Brockman, C. J., Webster, B. K., & Heinrichs, R. J. (2012).

Validation of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales in criterion group neuropsychological samples. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 26, 129–146. Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). Validity of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) L-r and K-r scales in detecting underreporting in clinical and nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 20, 370–376. Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2009). Identifying PTSD personality subtypes in a workplace trauma sample. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 22, 471–475. Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2010). Detection of overreported psychopathology with the MMPI-2 RF validity scales. Psychological Assessment, 22, 757–767. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Patrick, C., Wygant, D. B., Gartland, D. M., & Stafford, K. P. (2012). Development and construct validation of MMPI-2-RF indices of global psychopathy, fearless-dominance, and impulsive-antisociality. Personality Disorders, 3, 17–38. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Stafford, K. P. (2007). A comparison of MMPI-2 measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting. Psychological Assessment, 19, 430–436. Sellbom, M., Lee, T. T. C., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Arbisi, P. A., & Gervais, R. O. (2012). Differentiating PTSD symptomatology with the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) in a forensic disability sample. Psychiatry Research, 197, 172–179. Stredny, R. V., Archer, R. P., & Mason, J. A. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of parental competency examinees. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 113–115. Tarescavage, A. M., Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. I., & BenPorath, Y. S. (2013). Reliability, validity, and utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in assessments of bariatric surgery candidates. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1179–1194. Tarescavage, A. M., Wygant, D., Gervais, O., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2013). The MMPI-2-RF overreporting scales: Association with malingered neurocognitive dysfunction among disability claimants. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27, 313–335. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2011). MMPI–2–RF technical manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. (Original work published in 2008) Van der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I., & Derksen, J. J. (2010). Comparability of scores on the MMPI-2-RF scales generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Journal of Personality Assessment, 92, 254–259. Wygant, D. B., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Arbisi, P. A., Berry, D., Freeman, D. B., & Hellbronner, R. L. (2009). Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity scales in civil forensic settings: Findings from simulation and known group samples. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 671–680. Youngjohn, J. R., Weshba, R., Stevenson, M., Sturgeon, J., & Thomas, M. L. (2011). Independent validation of the MMPI2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Validity scales in TBI litigants tested for effort. Clinical Neuropsychologist, 25, 463–476.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at University Library Utrecht on April 23, 2015