Nelson Nathaniel W, Sweet Jerry J, Heilbronner Robert L
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA.
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2007 Jan;29(1):67-72. doi: 10.1080/13803390500488546.
Validity scales were recently developed to improve assessment of symptom validity beyond original MMPI-2 validity scales. In an initial study, the Response Bias Scale (RBS; Gervais, 2005) was developed based upon non-head-injury claimant performances on a cognitive effort measure, the Word Memory Test (WMT). The present study examined relationships of the RBS with numerous MMPI-2 validity scales in a sample of 211 participants with secondary gain (SG) or no secondary gain (NSG). Of the validity scales observed, RBS yielded the largest effect size difference between groups (d = .65), followed closely by FBS (d = .60) and the L-scale (d = .51). Overall, RBS correlated most significantly (r = .74, p < .001) with FBS, but also showed significant correlations with most other validity scales for both groups. RBS further demonstrated significant correlations (p < .001) with all clinical scales except for Mf. Findings suggest that RBS and FBS may represent a similar construct of symptom validity, and may outperform other MMPI-2 validity scales in discriminating SG and NSG groups. Findings provide preliminary support for use of RBS within the forensic context.
最近开发了效度量表,以改进对症状效度的评估,超越了原始的明尼苏达多相人格调查表第二版(MMPI - 2)效度量表。在一项初步研究中,基于非头部受伤索赔者在认知努力测量工具——单词记忆测试(WMT)上的表现,开发了反应偏差量表(RBS;热尔韦,2005年)。本研究在211名有继发获益(SG)或无继发获益(NSG)的参与者样本中,考察了RBS与众多MMPI - 2效度量表之间的关系。在所观察的效度量表中,RBS在两组之间产生的效应量差异最大(d = 0.65),紧随其后的是FBS(d = 0.60)和L量表(d = 0.51)。总体而言,RBS与FBS的相关性最为显著(r = 0.74,p < 0.001),但在两组中与大多数其他效度量表也显示出显著相关性。RBS与除Mf之外的所有临床量表也显示出显著相关性(p < 0.001)。研究结果表明,RBS和FBS可能代表了相似的症状效度结构,并且在区分SG组和NSG组方面可能优于其他MMPI - 2效度量表。研究结果为RBS在法医背景下的应用提供了初步支持。