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)
- 81 Downloads
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.
KeywordsIOP-29 MMPI-2 Malingering Depression Validity
We thank Lucrezia Frinco for her help in the data collection.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
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.
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 was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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.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
- 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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle 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.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
- 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Pancheri, P., & Sirigatti, S. (1995). MMPI-2: Adattamento italiano – Manuale. Firenze: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.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
- 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.Google Scholar
- Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). New York: Multi Health Systems.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.
- Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS-Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar