Skip to main content
Log in

Beyond Rare-Symptoms Endorsement: a Clinical Comparison Simulation Study Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29)

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

Abstract

To date, the MMPI-based, rare-symptom detection strategy is considered one of the most effective ones in symptom validity assessment. Because many of the items of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29) were designed specifically to provide incremental validity over the MMPI F scales, this study tested whether using the IOP-29 in combination with the MMPI-2 would provide higher classification accuracy compared to using either instrument alone. A total of 155 Italian adult individuals contributed to this study. About half (n = 93) were experimental malingerers (expMAL) instructed to simulate depression without being detected as feigners. The others were either (a) depressed patients in treatment (n = 36) or (b) individuals evaluated for possible malingering associated with work-related stress and considered to be genuinely affected by depression (n = 26). All were administered the Italian versions of both the MMPI-2 and the IOP-29. As expected, both instruments were highly effective in discriminating feigned from bona fide depression, with AUC values ranging from .77 to .90. More importantly, when entering the IOP-29 after each of the MMPI-2 scales under consideration (i.e., F, Fb, and Fp), the logistic regression models predicting group membership (0 = patient; 1 = expMAL) improved significantly. Likewise, each of the three MMPI-2 scales under consideration also significantly improved the prediction of group membership, when entered after the IOP-29. These findings thus indicate that using the MMPI-2 together with the IOP-29 could provide incremental validity over using either instrument alone, when testing depression-related complaints.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Arbisi, P. A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995a). Identifying changes in infrequent responding to the MMPI-2. Paper presented at the 30th Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in the Use of the MMPI-2, St. Petersburg, FL.

  • Arbisi, P. A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995b). An MMPI-2 infrequent response scale for use with psychopathological populations. The Infrequency-Psychopathology scale, F(p). Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 7, 424–431.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., & Bacchiochi, J. R. (2000). Can the MMPI-2 Validity scales detect depression feigned by experts? Assessment, 7, 55–62.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boone, K. B. (2009). The need for continuous and comprehensive sampling of effort/response bias during neuropsychological examinations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23(4), 729–741.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, S., Ruff, R., Troster, A., Barth, J., Koffler, S., Pliskin, N., et al. (2005). Symptom validity assessment: Practice issues and medical necessity. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 20(4), 419–426.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bush, S. S., Heilbronner, R. L., & Ruff, R. M. (2014). Psychological assessment of symptom and performance validity, response bias, and malingering: Official position of the Association for Scientific Advancement in Psychological Injury and Law. Psychological Injury and Law, 7, 197–205.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2: Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation (rev ed.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chafetz, M. D., Williams, M. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Bianchini, K. J., Boone, K. B., Kirkwood, M. W., Larrabee, G. J., & Ord, J. S. (2015). Official position of the American Academy of clinical neuropsychology Social Security Administration policy on validity testing: Guidance and recommendations for change. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 723–740.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dandachi-FitzGerald, B., Ponds, R. W. H. M., & Merten, T. (2013). Symptom validity and neuropsychological assessment: A survey of practices and beliefs of neuropsychologists in six European countries. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 28(8), 771–783.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Druss, B. G., Rosenheck, R. A., & Sledge, W. H. (2000). Health and disability costs of depression in a major U.S. Corporation. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 1274–1278.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Erdodi, L. A., & Lajiness-O'Neill, R. (2014). Time-related changes in Conners’ CPT-II Scores: A replication study. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, 21(1), 43–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, A. F., Bolinskey, P. K., Levak, R. W., & Nichols, D. S. (2015). Psychological assessment with the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

  • Frueh, B. C., Smith, D. W., & Barker, S. E. (1996). Compensation seeking status and psychometric assessment of combat veterans seeking treatment for PTSD. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 9(3), 427–439.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Giromini, L., Viglione, D. J., Pignolo, C., & Zennaro, A. (2018). A clinical comparison, simulation study testing the validity of SIMS and IOP-29 with an Italian sample. Psychological Injury and Law, 11(4), 340–350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-018-9314-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giromini, L., Barbosa, F., Coga, G., Azeredo, A., Viglione, D. J., & Zennaro, A. (2019a). Using the inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) with the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM) in symptom validity assessment: A study with a Portuguese sample of experimental feigners. Applied Neuropsychology: Adult, [Epub ahead of print, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/23279095.2019.1570929.

  • Giromini, L., Viglione, D. J., Pignolo, C., & Zennaro, A. (2019b). An inventory of problems – 29 (IOP-29) sensitivity study investigating feigning of four different symptom presentations via malingering experimental paradigm. Journal of Personality Assessment, [Epub ahead of print, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2019.1566914.

  • Green, P., Allen, L. M., & Astner, K. (1996). The Word Memory Test: A user’s guide to the oral and computer administered forms, US version 1.1. Durham, NC: CogniSyst.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI-2: An interpretive manual. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heaton, R. K., Smith, H. H., Lehman, R. A. W., & Vogt, A. T. (1978). Prospects for faking believable deficits on neuropsychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(5), 892–900.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Heilbronner, R. L., Sweet, J. J., Morgan, J. E., Larrabee, G. J., Millis, S. R., & conference, p. (2009). American Academy of Clinical Neuropsychology consensus conference statement on the neuropsychological assessment of effort, response bias, and malingering. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 23, 1093–1129.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iverson, G. L. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(2), 77–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Larrabee, G. J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lees-Haley, P. (1997). MMPI-2 base rates for 492 personal injury plaintiffs: Implications and challenges for forensic assessment. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 53(7), 745–755.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lees-Haley, P. R., & Dunn, J. T. (1994). The ability of naive subjects to report symptoms of mild brain injury, post-traumatic stress disorder, major depression and generalized anxiety disorder. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 50(2), 252–256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, P. K., Schroeder, R. W., & Odland, A. P. (2015). Neuropsychologists’ validity testing beliefs and practices: A survey on North American professionals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 29(6), 741–776.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Merten, T., Merckelbach, H., Giger, P., & Stevens, A. (2016). The Self-Report Symptom Inventory (SRSI): A new instrument for the assessment of distorted symptom endorsement. Psychological Injury and Law, 9, 102–111.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mittenberg, W., Patton, C., Canyock, E. M., & Condit, D. C. (2002). Base rates of malingering and symptom exaggeration. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24, 1094–1102.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality assessment inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, K., & Martelli, M. (2006). The confounding effects of pain, psychoemotional problems or psychiatric disorder, premorbid ability structure, and motivational or other factors on neuropsychological test performance. In G. Young, A. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Psychological Knowledge for Court: PTSD, Chronic Pain and TBI (pp. 335–351). New York: Springer Science+Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, K., & Martelli, M. F. (2007). Malingering: Traumatic brain injury. In G. Young, A. W. Kane, & K. Nicholson (Eds.), Causality of psychological injury (pp. 427–475). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pancheri, P., & Sirigatti, S. (1995). MMPI-2: Adattamento italiano – Manuale. Firenze: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.

    Google Scholar 

  • Repko, G. R., & Cooper, R. (1983). A study of the average workers’ compensation case. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 287–295.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R. (2008). Detection strategies for malingering and defensiveness. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 14–35). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., & Bender, D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J. (2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10(2), 160–177.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, J. J., Glass, L. A., Hinds, R. M., & Brown, C. N. (2010). Administration order effects on the test of memory malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 17, 246–250.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2010). Detection of overreported psychopathology with the MMPI-2 RF form validity scales. Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 757–767. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020825.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sellbom, M., Toomey, A., Wygant, D., Kucharski, L. T., & Duncan, S. (2010). Utility of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) Validity Scales in detecting malingering in a criminal forensic setting: A known groups design. Psychological Assessment, 22, 22–31.

    PubMed  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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, G. P., & Burger, G. K. (1997). Detection of malingering: Validation of the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS). Journal of the American Academy on Psychiatry and Law, 25, 180–183.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. W., & Frueh, B. C. (1996). Compensation seeking, comorbidity, and apparent exaggeration of PTSD symptoms among Vietnam combat veterans. Psychological Assessment, 8,3-6.

  • Steffan, J. S., Clopton, J. R., & Morgan, R. D. (2003). An MMPI-2 scale to detect malingered depression (Md Scale). Assessment, 10(4), 382–392.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). New York: Multi Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tombaugh, T. N. (1997). The Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM): Normative data from cognitively intact and cognitively impaired individuals. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 260–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viglione, D. J., Giromini, L., & Landis, P. (2017). The development of the Inventory of Problems–29: A brief self-administered measure for discriminating bona fide from feigned psychiatric and cognitive complaints. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(5), 534–544.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Viglione, D. J., Giromini, L., Landis, P., McCullaugh, J. M., Pizitz, T. D., O’Brien, S., et al. (2018). Development and validation of the false disorder score: The focal scale of the inventory of problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, [Epub ahead of print], 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1492413.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS-Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuccato, B. G., Tyson, T. T., & Erdodi, L. A. (2018). Early bird fails the PVT? The effects of timing artifacts on performance validity tests. Psychological Assessment, 30(11), 1491–1498.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank Lucrezia Frinco for her help in the data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luciano Giromini.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Luciano Giromini and Donald J. Viglione declare that they own a share in the corporate (LLC) that possesses the rights to Inventory of Problems. The other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Appendices

Appendix 1. Instructions for Experimental Malingerers (ExpMAL)

Instructions and Vignette to Feign Depression

In this study, you will be asked to complete a series of tests that may measure a variety of changes that people experience following a diagnosis of Major Depression Disorder. When you are answering the questions on the tests, I would like you to put yourself in the shoes of a person who has had an accident at work and is now suffering from mental health problems—namely, depression—related to that accident and for which he has requested to be put on disability. That is, try to answer the questions of these tests like you think that a person that really suffers from depression might do. To help you provide a credible presentation, please read the following text, and try to pretend that you are the person depicted in this scenario.

“You are an administrator at a small, well-established firm. Your boss has been trying to cut expenses by having the cleaning crew work before regular work hours are over, thus getting the job done at a cut rate. You have repeatedly informed him that this is not a safe working condition for the employees, but he has not changed the procedure. One day, near the end of the day, you are leaving to do a special errand for your boss. As you cross a freshly mopped floor, you slip and fall, landing hard on your tailbone. As a result, you have been out of work for 2 weeks on disability and continue to experience a fair amount of pain, particularly when you sit for any length of time. The workers compensation physician insists that he can find nothing to explain the pain and refuses to authorize any more time off or disability payments, stating that you are able to return to work, a job that requires long periods of time sitting at your computer. You are angry with your boss for the injury you have and frustrated at the physician’s apparent collusion with your boss to unreasonably limit your recovery time (thereby cutting off his disability payments). Before terminating your case, the physician refers you to the staff psychologist for a routine evaluation. You correctly realize that this evaluation is your only opportunity to remain on disability under your employer’s obligation. You have no additional coverage and need an income until you are fully recovered. You also feel that your boss is responsible, and that money should come from the company through workers compensation. You know well that workers compensation will continue providing benefits to patients who are psychologically disturbed as a result of a work-related accident. This would not be too unusual because you have tried to take measures to avoid the problem, and now are suffering as a result of your boss’s negligence. So, your only choice is to present yourself as having significant depression on the tests that the psychologist is going to give you. You therefore decide to attempt to present yourself as having a major depression as the result of your accident, to remain on disability.”

Description of Symptoms of Depression and Cautionary Statement

Now, please take a look at the symptoms that characterize a Major Depression Disorder. Keep in mind that depressed patients typically have 5 or more of the following symptoms, but most likely not all of them.

  1. 1.

    Depressed mood most of the day, nearly every day (e.g., feeling sad, empty, hopeless)

  2. 2.

    Markedly diminished interest or pleasure in all, or almost all, activities most of the day, nearly every day

  3. 3.

    Significant weight loss when not dieting or weight gain, or decrease or increase in appetite nearly every day

  4. 4.

    Insomnia or hypersomnia nearly every day

  5. 5.

    Psychomotor agitation or retardation nearly every day

  6. 6.

    Fatigue or loss of energy nearly every day

  7. 7.

    Feelings of worthlessness or excessive or inappropriate guilt nearly every day

  8. 8.

    Diminished ability to think or concentrate, or indecisiveness, nearly every day

  9. 9.

    Recurrent thoughts of death, recurrent suicidal ideation without a specific plan, or a suicide attempt or a specific plan for committing suicide.

When you take the tests and try to pretend you suffer from a Major Depressive Disorder, please keep in mind that if you present your condition in an extremely dramatic way, your performance may not be believable, and the examiner might understand that you do not suffer from depression but are only faking it. So, try to not “over-do it”.

If you will be able to produce test results that are consistent with those produced by people who really suffer from Major Depression Disorder and you will not look like a feigner, you may win a small prize consisting of a 20€ gift card!

Appendix 2. Formula Used to Calculate the Z Average of MMPI-2 F and IOP-29 FDS

$$ Z\ \mathrm{average}=\frac{\left(\frac{\mathrm{MMPI}2\ \mathrm{F}\ \mathrm{raw}-9.0}{5.1}\right)+\left(\frac{\mathrm{IOP}29\ \mathrm{F}\mathrm{DS}-.27}{.22}\right)}{2} $$

Note: For each scale, Z values were calculated using the patients’ data only, so to avoid possible outliers or extreme variability.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Giromini, L., Lettieri, S.C., Zizolfi, S. et al. Beyond Rare-Symptoms Endorsement: a Clinical Comparison Simulation Study Using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) with the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29). Psychol. Inj. and Law 12, 212–224 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09357-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09357-7

Keywords

Navigation