A meta-analytical review of the responses in the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF clinical and restructured scales of parents in child custody dispute
Abstract
Parental attribute evaluation in relation to child custody comprises psychological and psychopathology. Additionally, defensiveness must be suspected on this setting. The worldwide reference psychometric measurement instrument for this purpose is the MMPI. With the aim of knowing the responses of parents litigating by child custody, a meta-analytic review of the responses to clinical and restructured scales was performed. A total of 21 primary studies (studies with a simulation design i.e., participants were instructed to answer as parents litigating by child custody were found were disregarded) were found, obtaining 291 effect sizes for clinical scales and 1 for restructured scales. The results showed positive, significant and generalizable mean true effect size in the Hy, Pd and Pa scales; a negative, significant and generalizable in the Ma and Si scales, and non-generalizable in the Pt y Sc scales; and a trivial mean true effect size in the Hs and D scales. Parent gender was studied as a moderator having no found differences between the responses of mothers and fathers. The implications of the results for forensic evaluation practices are discussed.
Downloads
References
Ackerman, J. J., y Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evaluation practices: A 20-year follow-up. Family Court Review, 49, 618-628. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01397.x
Afifi, T. O., Cox, B. J., y Enns, M. W. (2006). Mental health profiles among married, never-married, and separated/divorced mothers in a nationally representative sample. Social Psychiatry and Epidemiology, 41 122-129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00127-005-0005-3
Alonso, P., Moscoso, S., y Salgado, J. F. (2017). Structured behavioral interview as a legal guarantee for ensuring equal employment opportunities for women: A meta-analysis. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 9(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2016.03.002
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Vilariño, M. (2016). CBCA reality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 16(2), 201-210. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
Amado, B. G., Arce, R., y Herraiz, A. (2015). Psychological injury in victims of child sexual abuse: A meta-analytic review. Psychosocial Intervention, 24, 49-62. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.psi.2015.03.002
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child custody evaluations in family proceedings. American Psychologist, 49, 677-680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021250
Arce, R., Arch, M., Fariña, F., Muñoz, J. M., y Seijo, D. (2016). Estándares de evaluación psicológica forense en procesos de familia. En Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense y Asociación Española de Abogados de Familia (Eds.), Guía práctica sobre la prueba de especialistas en el marco del proceso de familia (pp. 31-41). Madrid: Sepin.
Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Seijo, D. (2005). Razonamientos judiciales en procesos de separación: Análisis cognitivo y de contenido de las motivaciones [Judicial reasoning in parental separation and divorce proceedings: Content and cognitive analysis of judicial reasoning]. Psicothema, 17, 57-63. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3064.pdf
*Arce, R., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., y Novo, M. (2015). Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22(6), 769-777. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191114558111
Arce, R., Fariña, F., y Vilariño, M. (2015). Daño psicológico en casos de víctimas de violencia de género: Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forenses [Psychological injury in intimate partner violence cases: A contrastive analysis of forensic measures]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 6(2), 72-80. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002
Archer, E. M., Hagan, L. D., Mason J., Handel, R., y Archer, R. P. (2012). MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evaluation litigants. Assessment, 19(1), 14-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191110397469
Baer, R. A., y Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A Meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 24, 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.16
*Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanic, H., y Fidler, B. J. (1999). Defensive responding on MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11, 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.1.24
*Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., y Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.205
Ben-Porath, Y. S., y Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Blanco, V., Otero, P., López, L., Torres, Á., y Vázquez, F. L. (2017). Predictores del cambio clínicamente significativo en una intervención de prevención de la depresión [Clinically significant predictors of change in an intervention for the prevention of depression]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 8(1), 9-40. https://doi.org/10.23923/j.rips.2017.08.002
Bourassa, K. J., Allen, J. J., Mehl, M. R., y Sbarra, D. A. (2017). Impact of narrative expressive writing on heart rate, heart rate variability, and blood pressure after marital separation. Psychosomatic Medicine, 79, 697-705. http://doi.org/10.1097/PSY.0000000000000475
*Butcher, J. N. (1997). Frequency of MMPI-2 scores in forensic evaluations. MMPI-2 News and Profiles, 8, 2-4. Recuperado de http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.501.8539&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., y Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
*Caldwell, A. B. (2004). [MMPI-2 child-custody dataset]. Inédito.
*Daskalakis, K. (2004). The use of the MMPI-2 in complex issues of high conflict child-custody disputes (Tesis doctoral, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada). Recuperado de http://search.proquest.com/docview/305082915/6411BF7FAC0B44F0PQ/5?accountid=17253
Ellis, E. (2000). Divorce wars: Interventions with families in conflict. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Ellis, E. M. (2012). Are MMPI–2 Scale 4 elevations common among child custody litigants? Journal of Child Custody, 9(3), 179-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2012.715547
*Ezzo, F., Pinsoneault, T. B., y Evans, T. M. (2007). A comparison of MMPI-2 profiles between child maltreatment cases and two types of custody cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7(2), 29-43. https://doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.674469
Fariña, F., Arce, R., y Novo, M. (2002). Heurístico de anclaje en las decisiones judiciales [Anchorage in judicial decision making]. Psicothema, 14, 39-46. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/684.pdf
Fariña, F., Arce, R., y Real, S. (1994). Ruedas de identificación: De la simulación y la realidad [Lineups: A comparison of high fidelity research and research in a real context]. Psicothema, 6(3), 395-402. Recuperado de http://www.psicothema.com/pdf/935.pdf
Fariña, F., Arce, R., y Sotelo, A. (2010). ¿Es efectivo el estudio psicométrico estándar del peritaje del estado clínico y de la disimulación en progenitores en litigio por la guarda y custodia de menores? [Is effective the standard psychometric forensic evaluation of the mental health and faking good of the partners litigating by the child custody?]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 1, 65-79.
Fariña, F., Redondo, L., Seijo, D., Novo, M., y Arce, R. (2017). A meta-analytic review of the MMPI validity scales and indexes to detect defensiveness in custody evaluations. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 17(2), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2017.02.002
First, M. B., Williams, J. B. W., Karg, R. S., y Spitzer, R. L. (2015). Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-5 Disorders, Clinician Version (SCID-5-CV). Arlington, VA, American Psychiatric Association.
Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3-8.
Glass, G. V., McGraw, B., y Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
*Gordon, R. M., Stoffey, R., y Bottinelli, J. (2008). MMPI-2 findings of primitive defenses in alienating parents. The American Journal of Family Therapy, 36, 221-228. https://doi.org/10.1080/01926180701643313
Graham, J. R. (2011). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5a. ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., y McNulty, J. L. (1999). MMPI-2 correlates for outpatient community health settings. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
*Gready, P. A. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in child custody evaluations and child protection evaluations: An examination of defensive responding and psychopathology (Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Hartford). Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/docview/304958565/fulltextPDF/D9A6A25E7F2C4C8EPQ/1?accountid=17253
Greene, R. L. (2011). The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF: An interpretive manual (3a. ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Hathaway, S. R., y McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-254. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1940.9917000
*Hopkins, L. (1999). The role of the K scale as a validity measure in court-ordered child custody MMPI´s (Tesis doctoral, Kent State University). Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/docview/619446221/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/11?accountid=17253
Hunter, J. E., y Schmidt, F. L. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting errors and bias in research findings (3a. ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hunsley, J., Hanson, R. K., y Parkeret, K. C. H. (1988). A summary of the reliability and stability of MMPI scales. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 44-46.
*Kauffman, C. M., Stolberg, R., y Madero, J. (2015). An examination of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) with the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III of child custody litigants. Journal of Child Custody, 12(2), 129-151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1057354
Konecni, V. J., y Ebbesen, E. B. (1992). Methodological issues on legal decision-making, with special reference to experimental simulations. En F. Lösel, D. Bender, y T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychology and law: International perspectives (pp. 413-423). Berlín, Alemania: Walter de Gruyter.
*Mandappa, P. (2004). MMPI-2: The need for specific norms in child custody evaluations (Tesis doctoral, The Chicago School of Professional Psychology). Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/docview/305057409/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/6?accountid=17253
Martindale, D. A., Martin, L., Autin, W. G., & the Task Force Members (2007). Model standards of practice for child custody evaluations. Family Court Review, 45, 70-91. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2007.129_3.x
Nichols, D. S. (2011). Essentials of MMPI-2 assessment (2a. ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
*Normington, D. (2006). Caregiver competency evaluations: An examination of psychological characteristics of caregivers who neglect their children (Tesis doctoral, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology). Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/docview/304937462/C47F7B0B2ECA4917PQ/1?accountid=17253
*Ollendick, D. G., y Collings, R. P. (1984). MMPI characteristics of parents referred of child custody cases. Journal of Psychology, 117, 227-232. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1984.9923682
*Pérez-Agüero, M. C., y Verduzco Álvarez-Icaza, M. A. (2014). Evaluación psicológica con el MMPI-2 a padres en litigio judicial de materia familiar. Revista Intercontinental de Psicología y Educación, 16(2), 71-91. Recuperado de http://www.redalyc.org/pdf/802/80231541005.pdf
*Peters, K. M. (2012). Marital conflict in child custody disputes and the corresponding psychological variables (Tesis doctoral, Immaculata University). Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/docview/1464395031/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/24?accountid=17253
Pope, H., Butcher, J., y Seelen, J. (2000). The MMPI and MMPI–2 in court: A practical guide for expert witnesses and attorneys (2a. ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Quinnell, F., y Bow, J. (2001). Psychological tests used in child custody evaluations. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 491-501. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bsl.452
*Roma, P., Ricci, F., Kotzalidis, G. D., Abbate, L., Lubrano, A., Versace, G., Pazzelli, F., Malagoli, M., Girardi, P., y Ferracuti, S. (2014). MMPI-2 in child custody litigation: A comparison between genders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 110-116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000192
Sánchez, G., Ampudia, A., Jiménez, F., y Amado, B. G. (2017). Contrasting the efficacy of the MMPI-2-RF overreporting scales in the detection of malingering. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 9(2), 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2017.03.002
*Schenk, P. W. (1996). MMPI-2 norms for child custody litigants. The Georgia Psychologist, 50(2), 51-54.
Schmidt, F. L., y Hunter, J. E. (1981). Employment testing: Old theories and new research findings. American Psychologist, 36, 1128-1137. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.36.10.1128
Seijo, D., Fariña, F., Corras, T., Novo, M., y Arce, R. (2016). Estimating the epidemiology and quantifying the damages of parental separation in children and adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1611. http://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01611
Senín-Calderón, C., Rodríguez-Testal, J. F., y Perona-Garcelán, S. (2016). Las ideas de referencia y la preocupación por su presencia: estudio sobre su relevancia para la caracterización de las psicosis [The ideas of reference and worry for their presence: Study on their relevance to the characterization of psychosis]. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 7(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rips.2015.10.004
Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., y Doebbeling, B. N. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2. Psychological assessment, 17(3), 345. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.345
*Strong, D. R., Greene, R. L., Hoppe, C., Johnston, T., y Olesen, T. (1999). Taxometric analysis of impression management and self-deception on the MMPI-2 in child-custody litigants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 1-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730101
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., y Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI–2 restructured clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Vilariño, M., Arce, R., y Fariña, F. (2013). Forensic-clinical interview: Reliability and validity for the evaluation of psychological injury. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5(1), 1-21. Recuperado de http://scielo.isciii.es/pdf/ejpalc/v5n1/original1.pdf
*Wakefield, H., y Underwager, R. (1990). Sexual abuse allegations in divorce and custody disputes. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 9(4), 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2370090408
Wicker, A. W. (1975). An application of the multitrait-multimethod logic to the reliability of observational records. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 575-579. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014616727500100405
*Wisneski, J. L. (2006). The MMPI-2 in contested child custody cases: Differences for parents in entrenched disputes (Tesis doctoral, Hofstra University). Recuperado de https://search.proquest.com/docview/305324459/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/7?accountid=17253
Zella, S. (2017). Marital status transitions and self-reported health among Canadians: A life course perspective. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 12, 303–325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-016-9462-y
The works published in this journal are subject to the following terms:
1. The Publications Service of the University of Murcia (the publisher) retains the property rights (copyright) of published works, and encourages and enables the reuse of the same under the license specified in paragraph 2.
© Servicio de Publicaciones, Universidad de Murcia, 2022
2. The works are published in the online edition of the journal under a Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 (legal text). You can copy, use, distribute, transmit and publicly display, provided that: i) you cite the author and the original source of publication (journal, editorial and URL of the work), ii) are not used for commercial purposes, iii ) mentions the existence and specifications of this license.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
3. Conditions of self-archiving. Is allowed and encouraged the authors to disseminate electronically pre-print versions (version before being evaluated and sent to the journal) and / or post-print (version reviewed and accepted for publication) of their works before publication, as it encourages its earliest circulation and diffusion and thus a possible increase in its citation and scope between the academic community. RoMEO Color: Green.
