Cross validation of the response bias scale and the response bias scale-19 in active-duty personnel: use on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3.

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-17 DOI:10.1080/13803395.2024.2330727
Paul B Ingram, Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Lucas G Childers, Tristan T Herring
{"title":"Cross validation of the response bias scale and the response bias scale-19 in active-duty personnel: use on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3.","authors":"Paul B Ingram, Patrick Armistead-Jehle, Lucas G Childers, Tristan T Herring","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2330727","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The Response Bias Scale (RBS) is the central measure of cognitive over-reporting in the MMPI-family of instruments. Relative to other clinical populations, the research evaluating the detection of over-reporting is more limited in Veteran and Active-Duty personnel, which has produced some psychometric variability across studies. Some have suggested that the original scale construction methods resulted in items which negatively impact classification accuracy and in response crafted an abbreviated version of the RBS (RBS-19; Ratcliffe et al., 2022; Spencer et al., 2022). In addition, the most recent edition of the MMPI is based on new normative data, which impacts the ability to use existing literature to determine effective cut-scores for the RBS (despite all items having been retained across MMPI versions). To date, no published research exists for the MMPI-3 RBS. The current study examined the utility of the RBS and the RBS-19 in a sample of Active-Duty personnel (<i>n</i> = 186) referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Using performance validity tests as the study criterion, we found that the RBS-19 was generally equitably to RBS in classification. Correlations with other MMPI-2-RF over- and under-reporting symptom validity tests were slightly stronger for RBS-19. Implications and directions for research and practice with RBS/RBS-19 are discussed, along with implications for neuropsychological assessment and response validity theory.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":" ","pages":"141-151"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2330727","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) is the central measure of cognitive over-reporting in the MMPI-family of instruments. Relative to other clinical populations, the research evaluating the detection of over-reporting is more limited in Veteran and Active-Duty personnel, which has produced some psychometric variability across studies. Some have suggested that the original scale construction methods resulted in items which negatively impact classification accuracy and in response crafted an abbreviated version of the RBS (RBS-19; Ratcliffe et al., 2022; Spencer et al., 2022). In addition, the most recent edition of the MMPI is based on new normative data, which impacts the ability to use existing literature to determine effective cut-scores for the RBS (despite all items having been retained across MMPI versions). To date, no published research exists for the MMPI-3 RBS. The current study examined the utility of the RBS and the RBS-19 in a sample of Active-Duty personnel (n = 186) referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Using performance validity tests as the study criterion, we found that the RBS-19 was generally equitably to RBS in classification. Correlations with other MMPI-2-RF over- and under-reporting symptom validity tests were slightly stronger for RBS-19. Implications and directions for research and practice with RBS/RBS-19 are discussed, along with implications for neuropsychological assessment and response validity theory.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
现役军人反应偏差量表和反应偏差量表-19 的交叉验证:在 MMPI-2-RF 和 MMPI-3 上的使用。
反应偏差量表(RBS)是 MMPI 系列工具中认知过度报告的核心测量指标。与其他临床人群相比,对退伍军人和现役军人过度报告检测的评估研究较为有限,这导致了不同研究在心理测量学上的差异。有些人认为,最初的量表构建方法导致了对分类准确性有负面影响的项目,并为此精心设计了一个缩略版的 RBS(RBS-19;Ratcliffe 等人,2022 年;Spencer 等人,2022 年)。此外,最新版的 MMPI 基于新的常模数据,这影响了使用现有文献来确定 RBS 有效切分分数的能力(尽管所有项目在不同版本的 MMPI 中都得到了保留)。迄今为止,还没有关于 MMPI-3 RBS 的公开研究。本研究对转诊进行神经心理评估的现役军人样本(n = 186)中的 RBS 和 RBS-19 的实用性进行了检验。以表现效度测试作为研究标准,我们发现 RBS-19 在分类方面与 RBS 大致相当。RBS-19 与其他 MMPI-2-RF 多报和少报症状有效性测试的相关性稍强。我们讨论了 RBS/RBS-19 的研究和实践意义和方向,以及对神经心理评估和反应效度理论的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
期刊最新文献
The impact of noise exposure, time pressure, and cognitive load on objective task performance and subjective sensory overload and fatigue. Detecting noncredible symptomology in ADHD evaluations using machine learning. The time has come: discussing the clinical neuropsychology provider's role in cultural respect and inclusion. Analysis of skew, examination of intercorrelations, and determining the optimal threshold for performance invalidity when 10 performance validity tests are administered during a neuropsychological evaluation. The relationship between self-monitoring and cognitive strategy use in midlife and older adults.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1