instructions. Means on the four MMPI-2-RF Fscales were highest in the uncoached group of students instructed
to fake bad. The coached group also responded in such a way as to have significantly higher mean scores than
the patient group. Effect sizes tend to be the smallest for the FBS-r scale and highest for the Fp-r scale, which is
consistent with the derivation of these two scales. Overall correct classification rates were higher for the Fp-r scale
than for the F-rscale. Wygant et al. (2010) included the four MMPI-2-RF Fscales in their comparison of indivi-
duals from disability and forensic settings who had and had not failed symptom validity tests. Once again, the
F-rscale and Fp-r scale had the largest effect sizes, although all four scales were statistically significantly different
between the groups who passed and failed the symptom validity tests in the forensic sample. In the disability
sample, the largest effect sizes were seen with the Fsand FBS-r scales. This again is consistent with the derivation
of the scales and with their intended applications. Similar findings were reported by Wygant et al. (2009) for
head injury and medical simulation groups.
Although Rogers, Gillard, Berry, and Granacher (2011) reported that the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting Fscales
did perform well in differentiating a group deemed to be feigning a mental disorder, performance was not as
good in differentiating a group feigning cognitive impairment. Rogers et al. also noted that Fp-r was particularly
useful in differentiating over-reporting from genuine depression in their samples. When less traditional psychiat-
ric disorders are the focus of the intended distortion, it may be that the traditional over-reporting indices are less
effective. For example, Harp, Jasinski, Shandera-Ochsner, Mason, and Berry (2011) reported the Fscales as less
effective in differentiating coached faking symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Similarly, Jones
and Ingram (2011) reported that the FBS-r scale was better than the older Fscales in predicting effort in a sample
of military personnel.
Construct/Factor Analytic
To date, no studies appear to have explored the factor structure of the various faking measures on the MMPI-
2-RF. Having such a strong empirical-keying selection history, the concept of construct validity does not really
apply to the various Fscales.
Location
Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2-RF: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured
Form. Manual for administration, scoring, and administration . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured
Form. Technical manual . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Results and Comments
One of the significant strengths of the MMPI-2-RF is its validity measures and the latest version of the test has
expanded the number of Fscales. Significantly, this is one of the few occasions in which a scale not developed at
the University of Minnesota, the FBS, has been incorporated into the official scoring keys. Further study of these
various scales should reveal whether one or more is effectively redundant with the others or if each has its own
specialized niche of applicability or focus of demonstrated utility and validity.
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): Infrequency (INF), Inconsistency (ICN), Negative
Impression Management (NIM), and Positive Impression Management (PIM) Scales
(Morey, 2007 ).
The PAI contains four validity scales: Infrequency (INF), Inconsistency (ICN), Negative Impression
Management (NIM), and Positive Impression Management (PIM). Only the latter two scales will be dealt with in
this section. The PAI manual ( Morey, 2007 ) also details various discriminant functions that have been used to
supplement the regular validity scales of the PAI. These include functions for faking bad or malingering and
defensiveness or faking good. Facilities for calculating several of these functions are provided on the PAI hand
scored answer sheet and are, of course, available with the computer scoring software.
Variable
Morey (2007) describes negative impression maneuvers as suggesting ‘an exaggerated unfavorable impression
or represent extremely bizarre and unlikely symptoms’ (p. 29). The items possess comparatively low rates of
endorsement among non-clinical clients. High rates of item endorsement can reflect both an exaggeration of32 2. RESPONSE BIAS, MALINGERING, AND IMPRESSION MANAGEMENT
I. INTRODUCTION: CORE ISSUES IN ASSESSMENT