Guadalupe Sánchez , Amada Ampudia , Fernando Jiménez , Bárbara G. Amado
{"title":"Contrasting the efficacy of the MMPI-2-RF overreporting scales in the detection of malingering","authors":"Guadalupe Sánchez , Amada Ampudia , Fernando Jiménez , Bárbara G. Amado","doi":"10.1016/j.ejpal.2017.03.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Though it has been the most extensively used instrument for forensic evaluation, the MMPI-2 is being gradually replaced by the MMPI-2-RF version, requiring evidence research to support it. A malingering design was implemented to assess the efficacy of the overreporting validity scales in discriminating between a group of malingerers and the general and clinical populations in a forensic context. Of a total of 878 subjects, 309 were from the general population, 308 from the clinical population, and 261 were instructed to malinger a psychological injury. The results showed that malingerers scored significantly higher than the clinical and general population on the <em>F-r</em>, <em>Fp-r</em>, <em>FBS-r</em>, <em>Fs</em> and <em>RBS</em> scales. As for the classification of cases, the <em>F-r</em>, <em>Fp-r</em>, <em>FBS-r</em>, <em>Fs</em>, and <em>RBS</em> scales classified correctly and significantly between malingerers and honest respondents from the general population, and the <em>F-r</em> and <em>Fp-r</em> scales between malingerers and clinical population. Additionally, the results showed <em>F-r</em> incremental validity over <em>Fp-r</em>, and vice versa. Thus, <em>F-r</em> and <em>Fp-r</em> scales are independent and may be accumulated to detect malingering. Forensic practical implications from the results were derived and discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":"9 2","pages":"Pages 51-56"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.ejpal.2017.03.002","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1889186117300276","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Though it has been the most extensively used instrument for forensic evaluation, the MMPI-2 is being gradually replaced by the MMPI-2-RF version, requiring evidence research to support it. A malingering design was implemented to assess the efficacy of the overreporting validity scales in discriminating between a group of malingerers and the general and clinical populations in a forensic context. Of a total of 878 subjects, 309 were from the general population, 308 from the clinical population, and 261 were instructed to malinger a psychological injury. The results showed that malingerers scored significantly higher than the clinical and general population on the F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, Fs and RBS scales. As for the classification of cases, the F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, Fs, and RBS scales classified correctly and significantly between malingerers and honest respondents from the general population, and the F-r and Fp-r scales between malingerers and clinical population. Additionally, the results showed F-r incremental validity over Fp-r, and vice versa. Thus, F-r and Fp-r scales are independent and may be accumulated to detect malingering. Forensic practical implications from the results were derived and discussed.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness).
The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.