Advertisement

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)

  • Luciano GirominiEmail author
  • Sharon Carfora Lettieri
  • Salvatore Zizolfi
  • Daniele Zizolfi
  • Donald J. Viglione
  • Emanuela Brusadelli
  • Barbara Perfetti
  • Daniela Angiola di Carlo
  • Alessandro Zennaro
Article
  • 81 Downloads

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.

Keywords

IOP-29 MMPI-2 Malingering Depression Validity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

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.

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.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 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
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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
  19. Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI-2: An interpretive manual. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  20. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 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
  23. Hosmer, D. W., & Lemeshow, S. (2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Iverson, G. L. (2006). Ethical issues associated with the assessment of exaggeration, poor effort, and malingering. Applied Neuropsychology, 13(2), 77–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Larrabee, G. J. (2008). Aggregation across multiple indicators improves the detection of malingering: Relationship to likelihood ratios. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22(4), 666–679.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lezak, M. D. (1995). Neuropsychological assessment (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality assessment inventory. Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  33. Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Professional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pancheri, P., & Sirigatti, S. (1995). MMPI-2: Adattamento italiano – Manuale. Firenze: O.S. Organizzazioni Speciali.Google Scholar
  37. Repko, G. R., & Cooper, R. (1983). A study of the average workers’ compensation case. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 39, 287–295.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Rogers, R., & Bender, D. (2018). Clinical assessment of malingering and deception. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 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
  47. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Tombaugh, T. N. (1996). Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM). New York: Multi Health Systems.Google Scholar
  49. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.
  52. Widows, M. R., & Smith, G. P. (2005). SIMS-Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology. Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  53. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luciano Giromini
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sharon Carfora Lettieri
    • 1
  • Salvatore Zizolfi
    • 2
  • Daniele Zizolfi
    • 3
  • Donald J. Viglione
    • 4
  • Emanuela Brusadelli
    • 5
    • 6
  • Barbara Perfetti
    • 6
  • Daniela Angiola di Carlo
    • 6
  • Alessandro Zennaro
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of TurinTurinItaly
  2. 2.Private PracticeComoItaly
  3. 3.Faculty of Medicine and SurgeryUniversity of InsubriaVareseItaly
  4. 4.Alliant International UniversitySan DiegoUSA
  5. 5.University of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  6. 6.UO di Medicina del LavoroASST-RhodenseGarbagnate MilaneseItaly

Personalised recommendations