This study is a comparison of the verification sales of a self-rating sentence completion method for evaluating marital difficulties and the MMPI validity scales.

The MMPI-2 is the most commonly used self-report measure for the assessment of psychopathology in forensic and psychiatric disability assessments (Bacchiochi & Bagby, 2006; Bagby, Marshall, & Bacchiochi, 2005). The MMPI-2 includes a variety of validity scales designed to detect content responsive faking (e.g., faking good or faking bad) as well as content nonresponsivity (randomly responding). The present study was conducted to determine whether a combination of validity scales to detect malingering of a psychotic disorder in a non-compensatory model would be more or less effective than using only a select few of the validity scales in a compensatory model. The results supported the use of the specified validity scales (F, Fb, Fp, F – K, and FBS) in a non-compensatory model to identify correctly whether test takers faked their profiles. The results also supported the use of a smaller subset of the validity scales (Fp, F – K, and FBS) in a non-compensatory model to identify correctly whether test takers faked their profiles. The results, limitations of the current study, and future research considerations are then discussed.

No description available.

No description available.

The fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM 5) presents an alternate model for personality disorders, blending categorical and dimensional assessment into a hybrid diagnostic procedure. Released concurrently, the Personality Inventory for DSM 5 (PID 5) measures the five domains and 25 facets that comprise the trait components of this hybrid model. However, the PID 5 currently lacks validity indicators to capture intentionally distorted responding. The current study investigated the susceptibility of the PID 5 to defensiveness and feigning among a large sample of undergraduate students. First, a detailed desirability analysis (N = 465) was conducted of the PID 5 items and response options. Responses from the study were used to create three desirability based validity scales. Next, in a between-subjects simulation design (N = 128), the effects of faking were explored at domain and facet levels. As a result, two symptom based validity scales were created. In a separate validation sample (N = 134), the five newly created validity scales were compared with the Paulhus Deception Scales for capturing both defensiveness and feigning. All five scales were evaluated for ruling out faking (i.e., identifying likely genuine respondents) and ruling in either defensiveness or feigning. In most areas, the symptom based scales were more successful than the desirability based scales, though all scales had difficulty identifying defensiveness. These initial results offer fertile ground for additional testing and development of PID 5 validity scales.

No description available.

Accurate self-report assessment of psychopathology depends on individuals responding honestly and accurately. Some respondents, however, may respond in a manner not representative of their traits/symptoms. The MMPI-2-RF contains “validity” scales to detect elevations on over-reporting (OR) or under-reporting (UR) scales which typically correspond to elevations on MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and on instruments administered alongside the MMPI-2-RF. We examined effects of OR and UR on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5); a self-report instrument that assesses 25 pathological traits used with other diagnostic criteria to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) in Section III of the DSM-5. Using MMPI-2-RF validity scale scores, 908 students and 255 psychiatric outpatients were classified into OR, UR or within normal limit response groups. Significant group differences were found such that differences in the frequency of PD diagnosis emerged across response groups. We believe the PID-5 is vulnerable to OR and UR responding, which potentially compromises its validity.

Accurate self-report assessment of psychopathology depends on individuals responding honestly and accurately. Some respondents, however, may respond in a manner not representative of their traits/symptoms. The MMPI-2-RF contains “validity” scales to detect elevations on over-reporting (OR) or under-reporting (UR) scales which typically correspond to elevations on MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and on instruments administered alongside the MMPI-2-RF. We examined effects of OR and UR on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5); a self-report instrument that assesses 25 pathological traits used with other diagnostic criteria to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) in Section III of the DSM-5. Using MMPI-2-RF validity scale scores, 908 students and 255 psychiatric outpatients were classified into OR, UR or within normal limit response groups. Significant group differences were found such that differences in the frequency of PD diagnosis emerged across response groups. We believe the PID-5 is vulnerable to OR and UR responding, which potentially compromises its validity.