比较MMPI-2-RF过报量表在诊断诈病中的效果

Guadalupe Sánchez , Amada Ampudia , Fernando Jiménez , Bárbara G. Amado
{"title":"比较MMPI-2-RF过报量表在诊断诈病中的效果","authors":"Guadalupe Sánchez ,&nbsp;Amada Ampudia ,&nbsp;Fernando Jiménez ,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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":"{\"title\":\"Contrasting the efficacy of the MMPI-2-RF overreporting scales in the detection of malingering\",\"authors\":\"Guadalupe Sánchez ,&nbsp;Amada Ampudia ,&nbsp;Fernando Jiménez ,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}","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

摘要

尽管MMPI-2一直是法医学评估中使用最广泛的工具,但它正逐渐被MMPI-2-RF版本所取代,需要证据研究来支持它。实施了一种装病设计,以评估在法医学背景下,高估有效性量表在区分一组装病者与普通人群和临床人群方面的有效性。在总共878名受试者中,309人来自普通人群,308人来自临床人群,261人被指示假装心理伤害。结果显示,装病者在F-r、Fp-r、FBS-r、Fs和RBS量表上的得分显著高于临床和普通人群。关于病例的分类,F-r、Fp-r、FBS-r、Fs和RBS量表在装病者和普通人群的诚实受访者之间进行了正确和显著的分类,而F-r和Fp-r量表在装病者和临床人群之间进行了分类。此外,结果显示F-r的有效性高于Fp-r,反之亦然。因此,F-r和Fp-r标度是独立的,并且可以累积以检测装病。从结果中得出并讨论了法医学的实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Contrasting the efficacy of the MMPI-2-RF overreporting scales in the detection of malingering

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
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.
期刊最新文献
Reality Monitoring: una revisión meta-analítica para la práctica forense Psychosocial Prevention Programs against Radicalization and Extremism: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations Attitudes towards School Violence Questionnaire, Revised Version: CAHV-28 Longitudinal Patterns of Antisocial Behaviors in Early Adolescence: A Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis Which Tactics of Sexual Violence Predict Leaving the Relationship? The Role of Dependence towards Partner
×
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