Detecting underreport in real-world assessment contexts. The utility of multiple-scale indicators
Abstract
Underreport of symptoms and personality characteristics is a relevant problem for psychological assessment. Nevertheless, most of the studies in this field use simulation designs. This study aims at comparing underreport prevalence in real-world samples of different contexts, using single-scale and multiple-scale underreport indicators from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) to identify the best one and assess its implications on the clinical scales scores. Using a Differential Prevalence Group design, 1438 participants were assessed with the MMPI-2, grouped in three samples from two non-clinical contexts (community and organizational) and one clinical context. The organizational sample had the highest prevalence of underreporting. Overall, multiple-scale indicator LKS ≥ T65 performed better at distinguishing these samples. Analysis of variance revealed that LKS ≥ T65 was also the only indicator in which participants doing underreport consistently varied from honest responders in the clinical scales scores, while also having lower probability of producing both type I and II errors. The existence of underreport has clear implication on the clinical scales results. The multiple-scale indicator is the most robust and should be used in the detection of underreporting. This is a relevant implication for psychological assessment in different contexts, mainly in the organizational context.
Downloads
References
Archer, R. P., Handel, R. W., & Couvadelli, B. (2004). An evaluation of the incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Superlative (S) scale in an inpatient psychiatric sample. Assessment, 11(1), 102-108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191103257396
Baer, R. A., & Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 14(1), 16-26. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.16
Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999). Defensive responding on the MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.11.1.24
Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 205-211. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.205
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2013). Self-report inventories: Assessing personality and psychopathology. In I. B. Weiner (Series Ed.), J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of psychology: Vol. 10. Assessment psychology (2nd ed., pp. 622–644). Wiley.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI–2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (Revised ed.). University of Minnesota Press.
Chantler, L., & Lushington, K. (2016). The impact of coaching on faking-good/under-Reporting on the PAI. Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, 23, 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1080/13218719.2015.1026867
De Lorenzo, M. (2013). Employee mental illness: Managing the hidden epidemic. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 25, 219–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10672-013-9226-x
DeVylder, J. E., & Hilimire, M. R. (2015). Screening for psychotic experiences: Social desirability biases in a non-clinical sample. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 9(4), 331–334. https://doi.org/10.1111/eip.12161
Ellison, M. L., Russinova, Z., MacDonald-Wilson, K. L., & Lyass, A. (2003). Patterns and correlates of workplace disclosure among professionals and managers with psychiatric conditions. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 18, 3–13.
Graham, J. R. (2012). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hahn, J. (2005). Faking bad and faking good by college students on the Korean MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 65–73. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8501_06
Mazza, C., Monaro, M., Burla, F. Colasanti, M., Orrù, G., Ferracuti, S. & Roma, P. (2020). Use of mouse-tracking software to detect faking-good behavior on personality questionnaires: An explorative study. Scientific Reports, 10:4835. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61636-5
Roma, P., Mazza, C., Mammarella, S., Mantovani, B., Mandarelli, G., & Ferracuti, S. (2019). Faking-good behavior in self-favorable scales of the MMPI-2: A study with time pressure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 36, 250–258. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000511
Wygant, D. B., Walls, B. D., Brothers, S. L., & Berry, D. T. R. (2018). Assessment of malingering and defensiveness on the MMPI-2 and MMPI 2 RF. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (pp. 257–279). The Guilford Press.
Ziegler, M., MacCann, C., & Roberts, R. (2011). Faking: Knowns, unknowns, and points of contention. In M. Ziegler, C., MacCann, & R. Roberts (Eds.), New perspectives on faking in personality assessment (pp. 3-18). Oxford University Press.
Copyright (c) 2022 Servicio de Publicaciones, University of Murcia (Spain)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
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.
