Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Assessing Symptom Validity in Psychological Injury Evaluations Using the MMPI-2-RF and the PAI: an Updated Review

  • Published:
Psychological Injury and Law Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Among the most pressing considerations in psychological injury litigation is potential overreporting of symptoms or impairments by the plaintiff. It is thus imperative for psychological injury evaluators to possess a working understanding of the conceptual and empirical foundations of symptom validity tests (SVTs). This literature review first covers foundational knowledge to guide evaluators in the careful interpretation of SVTs. It then focuses on two of the most well-established SVTs, i.e., the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Each instrument is reviewed for its overreporting scales, including scale development strategies, standard cutoff values, and research support, with particular attention afforded to psychological injury litigation considerations. Findings from this narrative review suggest that both the MMPI-2-RF and the PAI are sound SVTs with growing bodies of empirical support. However, they must be interpreted with special caution in the unique context of psychological injury evaluations, where there runs a greater risk of false-positive identification of overreporting. The strengths of each measure are contrasted, revealing general themes. Notably, the MMPI-2-RF excels in its accumulation of research support and civil litigant-specific norms, whereas the PAI leads SVT research in innovation and advanced detection techniques. Both measures are better equipped to detect feigned psychopathology than cognitive or medical impairments. Recommendations for forensic evaluators and areas for future research are presented accordingly.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aguerrevere, L. E., Calamia, M. R., Greve, K. W., Bianchini, K. J., Curtis, K. L., & Ramirez, V. (2018). Clusters of financially incentivized chronic pain patients using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Psychological Assessment, 30(5), 634–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000509.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Arbisi, P. A. (2017). Form vs function, fighting the last war: a reflection on the exchange between Larrabee, Bianchini, Boone, and Rohling (2017) and Nichols (2017) over Nichols and Gass (2015). The Fake Bad Scale (FBS): Malingering or ligation response syndrome—which is it? The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(8), 1406–1411. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1365933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87(1), 84–94. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701_07.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press (Original manual published in 2008).

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, K. J., Aguerrevere, L. E., Curtis, K. L., Roebuck-Spencer, T. M., Frey, F. C., Greve, K. W., & Calamia, M. (2018). Classification accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2)-Restructured form validity scales in detecting malingered pain-related disability. Psychological Assessment, 30(7), 857–869. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bianchini, K. J., Greve, K. W., & Glynn, G. (2005). On the diagnosis of malingered pain-related disability: Lessons from cognitive malingering research. The Spine Journal, 5(4), 404–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spinee.2004.11.016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Boccaccini, M. T., & Brodsky, S. L. (1999). Diagnostic test usage by forensic psychologists in emotional injury cases. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 30(3), 253–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.30.3.253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boccaccini, M. T., & Hart, J. R. (2018). Response style on the Personality Assessment Inventory and other multiscale inventories. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 280–300). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Briere, J. (2001). Detailed Assessment of Posttraumatic Stress: DAPS: Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, A. A. (2018). Beyond borders: Cultural and transnational perspectives of feigning and other response styles. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 61–80). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Correa, A. A., Rogers, R., & Williams, M. M. (2018). Malingering and defensiveness on the Spanish Personality Assessment Inventory: An initial investigation with mostly Spanish-speaking outpatients. Assessment. Advance online publication.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118778895.

  • Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M., Gervais, R. O., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2017). The generalizability of overreporting across self-report measures: An investigation with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form and the Personality Assessment Inventory in a civil disability sample. Assessment, 24(5), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621791.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. (1993). 509 U.S. 579.

  • Frederick, R. I., & Crosby, R. D. (2000). Development and validation of the Validity Indicator Profile. Law and Human Behavior, 24(1), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005426803586.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaasedelen, O. J., Whiteside, D. M., Altmaier, E., Welch, C., & Basso, M. R. (2019). The construction and the initial validation of the Cognitive Bias Scale for the Personality Assessment Inventory. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 33(8), 1467–1484. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2019.1612947.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaasedelen, O. J., Whiteside, D. M., & Basso, M. (2017). Exploring the sensitivity of the Personality Assessment Inventory symptom validity tests in detecting response bias in a mixed neuropsychological outpatient sample. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(5), 844–856. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1312700.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gaines, M. V., Giles, C. L., & Morgan, R. D. (2012). The detection of feigning using multiple PAI scale elevations: A new index. Assessment, 20(4), 437–447. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191112458146.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Wygant, D. B., & Sellbom, M. (2010). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting scales and RBS in assessing the veracity of memory complaints. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 25(4), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acq018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Green, P., Allen, L., & Astner, K. (1996). Manual for Computerized Word Memory Test. Duran, NC: CogniSyst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory manual. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hawes, S. W., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2009). Detection of overreporting of psychopathology on the Personality Assessment Inventory: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 112–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015036.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hong, S. H., & Kim, Y. H. (2001). Detection of random response and impression management in the PAI: II. Detection indices. Korean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 20, 751–761.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P. B., Golden, B. L., & Armistead-Jehle, P. J. (2020). Evaluating the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) over-reporting scales in a military neuropsychology clinic. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 42(3), 263–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1708271.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ingram, P. B., & Ternes, M. S. (2016). The detection of content-based invalid responding: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form’s (MMPI-2-RF) over-reporting validity scales. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 30(4), 473–496. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2016.1187769.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J., Bianchini, K. J., Boone, K. B., & Rohling, M. L. (2017a). The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is not a measure of ‘litigation response syndrome’: Commentary on Nichols and Gass (2015). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(8), 1387–1395. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1364423.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J., Bianchini, K. J., Boone, K. B., & Rohling, M. L. (2017b). The validity of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scale (FBS/FBS-r) is established: Reply to Nichols (2017). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(8), 1401–1405. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1363293.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malm, S. P., Pierson, E. E., Finch, W. H., Spengler, P. M., Johnson, J., & Morey, L. C. (2019). Detecting feigning in adolescents on the Personality Assessment Inventory—Adolescent form. Journal of Personality Assessment. Advance online publication, 102, 751–757. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1693389.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mazza, C., Orrù, G., Burla, F., Monaro, M., Ferracuti, S., Colasanti, M., & Roma, P. (2019). Indicators to distinguish symptom accentuators from symptom producers in individuals with a diagnosed adjustment disorder: A pilot study on inconsistency subtypes using SIMS and MMPI-2-RF. PLoS One, 14(12), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCredie, M. N., & Morey, L. C. (2018). Evaluating new supplemental indicators for the Personality Assessment Inventory: Standardization and cross-validation. Psychological Assessment, 30(10), 1292–1299. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000574.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meyer, J. K., Hong, S. H., & Morey, L. C. (2015). Evaluating the validity indices of the Personality Assessment Inventory–Adolescent version. Assessment, 22(4), 490–496. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114550478.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mogge, N. L., Lepage, J. S., Bell, T., & Ragatz, L. (2010). The negative distortion scale: A new PAI validity scale. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 21(1), 77–90. https://doi.org/10.1080/14789940903174253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooney, S. R., Stafford, J., & Seats, E. (2018). Medical evaluation board involvement, non-credible cognitive testing, and emotional response bias in concussed service members. Military Medicine, 183(11–12), e546–e554. https://doi.org/10.1093/milmed/usy038.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (2007a). Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual (2nd ed.). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources (Original manual published in 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (2007b). Personality Assessment Inventory—Adolescent: Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, D. S. (2017). Fake bad scale: The case of the missing construct, a response to Larrabee, Bianchini, Boone, and Rohling (2017). The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 31(8), 1396–1400. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1365934.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, D. S., & Gass, C. S. (2015). The Fake Bad Scale: Malingering or litigation response syndrome—Which is it? Archives of Assessment Psychology, 5(1), 5–10.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, A. M., & Veltri, C. O. (2019). The moderating influence of disorder on coached overreporting using the MMPI-2-RF. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(3), 264–273. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1472099.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2018a). An introduction to response styles. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 3–17). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2018b). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 18–41). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., & Gillard, N. D. (2010). SIRS-2: Structured interview of reported symptoms, 2nd edition: Professional manual. Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Morey, L. C., & Ulstad, K. L. (1996). Detection of feigned mental disorders on the personality assessment inventory: A discriminant analysis. Journal of Personality Assessment, 67(3), 629–640. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa6703_15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D. N., & Morey, L. C. (2019). Use of validity indicators on the Personality Assessment Inventory to detect feigning of post-traumatic stress disorder. Psychological Injury and Law, 12(3–4), 204–211. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09349-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharf, A. J., Rogers, R., Williams, M. M., & Henry, S. A. (2017). The effectiveness of the MMPI-2-RF in detecting feigned mental disorders and cognitive deficits: A meta-analysis. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 39(3), 441–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-017-9590-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sleep, C. E., Petty, J. A., & Wygant, D. B. (2015). Framing the results: Assessment of response bias through select self-report measures in psychological injury evaluations. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(1), 27–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9219-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of memory malingering: TOMM. North Tonawanda: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside, D. M., Hunt, I., Choate, A., Caraher, K., & Basso, M. R. (2020). Stratified performance on the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) is associated with differential responding on the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 42(2), 131–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2019.1695749.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wygant, D. B., Walls, B. D., Brothers, S. L., & Berry, D. T. (2018). Assessment of malingering and defensiveness on the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 257–279). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2015). Malingering in forensic disability-related assessments: Prevalence 15±15%. Psychological Injury and Law, 8(3), 188–199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-015-9232-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, G. (2019). The cry for help in psychological injury and law: Concepts and review. Psychological Injury and Law, 12(3–4), 225–237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09360-y.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yoxall, J., Bahr, M., & O’Neill, T. (2017). Faking bad in workers compensation psychological assessments: Elevation rates of negative distortion scales on the Personality Assessment Inventory in an Australian sample. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 24(5), 682–693. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2017.1291295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, 215 Gold Ave. SW, Suite 202, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Kathryn F. Fokas & Julie M. Brovko

  2. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, University of New Mexico, 215 Gold Ave. SW, Suite 202, Albuquerque, NM, 87131, USA

    Julie M. Brovko

Authors
  1. Kathryn F. Fokas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julie M. Brovko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Julie M. Brovko.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fokas, K.F., Brovko, J.M. Assessing Symptom Validity in Psychological Injury Evaluations Using the MMPI-2-RF and the PAI: an Updated Review. Psychol. Inj. and Law 13, 370–382 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09393-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-020-09393-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation