The 567-item MMPI-2 is the most widely used personality measure; it requires a sixth-grade reading level, takes 60-90 minutes to administer, and reports robust psychometrics. However, traumatic brain injury (TBI) sequelae can cause cognitive deficits that affect test-taking abilities and item endorsement during differential diagnoses of neurological and personality factors. Therefore, this study examined the clinical utility of the shortened 338-item MMPI-2-RF inventory with a post-acute TBI population as a practical alternative. The MMPI-2-RF requires a fifth-grade reading level and takes 35-50 minutes to administer. The MMPI-2-RF also includes revised versions of the MMPI-2 Validity Scales and new substantive scales that may better psychometrically account for personality in TBI sequelae, such the Somatic/Cognitive Scales. This study conducted an incremental validity analysis of the MMPI-2-RF with a non-litigating, post-acute care TBI population in Central Texas. The goal of the study was to explore the measure’s performance, or its ability to capture functional dimensions in a TBI sample. More specifically, the study examined the construct validity of MMPI-2 to MMPI-2-RF Validity and Restructured Clinical Scales, and criterion validity for the Somatic/Cognitive Scales with neuropsychological and neurobehavioral functioning measures. An archival neuropsychological database (N = 60) was analyzed of patients who participated in TBI rehabilitation treatment at a Central Texas hospital. MMPI-2-RF profiles were retrospectively scored with MMPI-2 archival data. Statistical analysis between MMPI-2 to MMPI-2-RF Validity and Restructured Clinical Scales was conducted. MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive Scales and criterion measures of Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale, 4th Edition (WAIS-IV), The Weschler Memory Scales, 4th Edition (WMS-IV), The Booklet Category Test, 2nd Edition (BCT), and the Neurobehavioral Functioning Inventory (NFI) were examined. Patient demographics and measurement qualities were reported with the sample. / text

Associations among personality, coping, and psychopathology have long been established (e.g., Folkman, Lazarus, Gruen, & DeLongis, 1986; Kobasa, 1979; Wheaton, 1983). This study assessed reported distress on the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008), coping and appraisal styles via the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ; Garnefski, Kraaij, & Spinhoven, 2001, 2002) and Proactive Coping Inventory (PCI; Greenglass, Schwarzer, & Taubert, 1999), personality traits on the International Personality Item Pool (IPIP; Goldberg, 1999), and exposure to and perception of stressors on the Adolescent Perceived Events Scale (APES; Compas, Davis, Forsythe, & Wagner, 1987). In the current study mediational analysis was employed to assess whether coping helped explain how and why the relationship between personality and psychopathology exists. Additionally, exposure to and perception of stressors was measured and compared to psychopathology and coping styles. Although coping did not mediate the relationship between personality and psychopathology as conceptualized in this study, implications are discussed regarding the associations among constructs.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

À l’aide du modèle de recherche de la simulation connu sous le nom de « comparaison de groupes connus » (known-groups studies / criterion- groups validation studies), la présente étude visait à vérifier l’efficacité de quatre échelles de validité du MMPI-2-RF (Fs, FBS-r, RBS et HHI-r) à détecter la simulation de l’invalidité découlant de la douleur (SIDD) auprès d’une population rapportant de la douleur chronique ayant subi une évaluation psychologique. Les données provenant de patients rapportant une condition de douleur chronique (n=111) ont été recueillies à partir de dossiers archivés d’une clinique indépendante spécialisée dans l’évaluation et le traitement de cas de douleur chronique et de troubles somatoformes. Une fois sélectionnés, les sujets ont été répartis dans l’un des deux groupes connus à l’aide de critères externes prédisant la simulation de l’invalidité découlant de la douleur : les simulateurs (SIDD Probable et Certaine) et les non-simulateurs (Non SIDD). Tel que stipulé dans la littérature actuelle existant sur l’évaluation de la simulation de l’invalidité de la douleur, les résultats indiquent que les quatre échelles à l’étude sont efficaces lorsqu’on cherche à différentier les sujets simulateurs des non- simulateurs. Dans la présente étude, l’échelle RBS a été la plus efficace à différencier les deux groupes, suivie de près par l’échelle HHI-r. Les implications de ces résultats sont discutées dans la perceptive de leur utilité clinique et psycho-légale.