An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

an examination of the impact of mixed variable fixed non

Nov 18, 2023 101 likes •273 views

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales Maddie Cardellio 1 , Amanda N. Hansen 1 , Akshata Melanahalli 1 , Danielle Burchett 1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath 2 1

SLIDE 1

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

SLIDE 2

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding Unscorable Responding Fixed True Responding Fixed False Responding Variable Responding Content-Based Invalid Responding Overreporting Underreporting CNS VRIN TRIN F, Fp, Fs, FBS, RBS L, K

Ben-Porath (2013)

SLIDE 3

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding Unscorable Responding Fixed True Responding Fixed False Responding Variable Responding Content-Based Invalid Responding Overreporting Underreporting CNS VRIN TRIN F, Fp, Fs, FBS, RBS L, K CRIN

Ben-Porath (2013) Ben-Porath & Tellegen (2020)

Mixed Inconsistent Responding

SLIDE 4

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Burchett et al. (2016); Dragon, Ben-Porath, & Handel (2012); Handel, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, & Archer (2010); Lemaster, Whitney, Burchett, & Lee (2019); Whitney et al. (2018a, 2018b)

SLIDE 5

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Research Questions:

1. How does mixed inconsistent responding affect MMPI-3

Validity Scales?

2. Do VRIN, TRIN, and CRIN reduce the likelihood of

misinterpreting overreporting and underreporting Validity Scale elevations caused by mixed inconsistent responding (“false feigning”)?

SLIDE 6

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

n = 166

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACR 0%

ACR 10 ACR 20 ACR 30 ACR 40 ACR 50 ACR 60 ACR 70 ACR 80 ACR 90 ACR 100

ARC

ARC 10 ARC 20 ARC 30 ARC 40 ARC 50 ARC 60 ARC 70 ARC 80 ARC 90 ARC 100

CAR

CAR 10 CAR 20 CAR 30 CAR 40 CAR 50 CAR 60 CAR 70 CAR 80 CAR 90 CAR 100

CRA

CRA 10 CRA 20 CRA 30 CRA 40 CRA 50 CRA 60 CRA 70 CRA 80 CRA 90 CRA 100

RAC

RAC 10 RAC 20 RAC 30 RAC 40 RAC 50 RAC 60 RAC 70 RAC 80 RAC 90 RAC 100

RCA

RCA 10 RCA 20 RCA 30 RCA 40 RCA 50 RCA 60 RCA 70 RCA 80 RCA 90 RCA 100

SLIDE 7

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

n = 166

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACR 0%

ACR 10 ACR 20 ACR 30 ACR 40 ACR 50 ACR 60 ACR 70 ACR 80 ACR 90 ACR 100

ARC

ARC 10 ARC 20 ARC 30 ARC 40 ARC 50 ARC 60 ARC 70 ARC 80 ARC 90 ARC 100

CAR

CAR 10 CAR 20 CAR 30 CAR 40 CAR 50 CAR 60 CAR 70 CAR 80 CAR 90 CAR 100

CRA

CRA 10 CRA 20 CRA 30 CRA 40 CRA 50 CRA 60 CRA 70 CRA 80 CRA 90 CRA 100

RAC

RAC 10 RAC 20 RAC 30 RAC 40 RAC 50 RAC 60 RAC 70 RAC 80 RAC 90 RAC 100

RCA

RCA 10 RCA 20 RCA 30 RCA 40 RCA 50 RCA 60 RCA 70 RCA 80 RCA 90 RCA 100

ACR10: A (Acquiescent): 10% of Items #1-112 replaced with TRUE responses C (Counter-Acquiescent): 10% of Items # 113-224 replaced with FALSE responses R (Random): 10% of Items # 225-335 replaced with either TRUE or FALSE responses

SLIDE 8

Mean Scores with 0 to 100% Mixed Inconsistent Responding

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

CRIN VRIN TRIN

120T 40T

0% 100%

SLIDE 9

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

F ≥ 100 Fs ≥ 100 RBS ≥ 90 Fp ≥ 100

SLIDE 10

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

F ≥ 100 Fs ≥ 100 RBS ≥ 90 Fp ≥ 100

SLIDE 11

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Fp ≥ 100

SLIDE 12

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Fp ≥ 100

SLIDE 13

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Fp ≥ 100

SLIDE 14

Discussion

Importance of screening

for non-content-based invalid responding

Fp particularly susceptible

○ Use caution; interpret in the context of extra-test information

Acknowledgements & Disclosures

This research was made possible by support from a grant from the University of Minnesota Press, Test Division—which supported data collection—and the California State University, Monterey Bay Undergraduate Research Opportunity Center (UROC)—which provided additional financial, logistical, and mentorship support (HSI grant, U.S. Department of Education Hispanic Serving Institution Grant #P031C160221). This research was approved by the Kent State University Institutional Review Board.

References

Archer, R. P., Handel, R. W., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2016). MMPI-A-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory-Adolescent Restructured From) Administration, Scoring, Interpretation, and Technical

Manual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2013). Self-report inventories: Assessing personality and psychopathology. In J. R. Graham,
J. A. Naglieri, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (p. 622-644). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Ben-Porath, Y. S. & Tellegen, A. (2020). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3. Minneapolis:

University of Minnesota Press.

Burchett, D., Dragon, W. R., Holbert, A. M. S., Tarescavage, A. M., Mattson, C. A., Handel, R. W., &

Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2016). “False feigners”: Examining the impact of non-content-based invalid responding on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form content-based invalid responding

indicators. Psychological Assessment, 28(5), 458–470. doi: 10.1037/pas0000205
Dragon, W. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Handel, R. W. (2011). Examining the impact of unscorable item

responses on the validity and interpretability of MMPI-2/ MMPI-2-RF Restructured Clinical (RC) Scale scores. Assessment, 19(1), 101-113. doi: 10.1177/1073191111415362

Lemaster, N. M., Whitney, K., Burchett, D., & Lee, T. T. C. (2019, March). Examining the sensitivity and

incremental validity of an MMPI-2-RF Combined Response Inconsistency (CRIN) scale for detecting mixed

responding. Paper presented at the Society for Personality Assessment, New Orleans, LA.
Whitney, K., Chille, T., Burchett, D., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Glassmire, D. M. (2018a, March). Combined

Response Inconsistency (CRIN) basic properties in normative and forensic samples. Poster presented at the American Psychology-Law Society, Memphis, TN.

Whitney, K., Chille, T., Burchett, D., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Glassmire, D. M. (2018b, April). Sensitivity of an

MMPI-2-RF Combined Response Inconsistency (CRIN) Scale to mixed responding. Paper presented at the MMPI Workshops & 53rd Annual Symposium, Hollywood, FL.

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales

Maddie Cardellio1, Amanda N. Hansen1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

SLIDE 15

Summary of Hypotheses & Impact of Mixed Inconsistent Responding

Scale Hypothesized to be Impacted? “Points” Earned > Items to Elevation % Items Required for Elevation Normative Item Endorsement Index Result F YES In 2/6 Conditions 54% 0.08 Impact Mitigated Fp YES In 6/6 Conditions 33% 0.05 Major Impact Fs YES In 1/6 Conditions 69% 0.10 Impact Mitigated FBS No In 0/6 Conditions 80% 0.29 No Impact RBS No In 0/6 Conditions 61% 0.21 Impact Mitigated L No In 0/6 Conditions 79% 0.24 No Impact K No In 0/6 Conditions 93% 0.43 No Impact