Henry George K, Heilbronner Robert L, Mittenberg Wiley, Enders Craig, Stanczak Shianna R
Los Angeles Neuropsychology Group, Los Angeles, CA 90025, USA.
Clin Neuropsychol. 2008 Sep;22(5):919-29. doi: 10.1080/13854040701625853.
A known groups design investigated the comparative predictive validity of the 27-item MMPI-2 Restructured Scale 1 (RC1), the 43-item Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale (FBS), and the 15-item Henry-Heilbronner Index (HHI) to identify noncredible symptom response sets in 63 personal injury litigants and disability claimants compared to 77 non-litigating head-injured controls. Logistic regression analyses revealed that the HHI and FBS were better predictors of group membership than the RC1. Results suggest that the FBS, HHI, and RC1 may be measuring different constructs. The HHI and FBS reflect an exaggeration of disability or illness-related behavior. Differences in scale construction are discussed. The RC1 may have greater relevance under external incentive conditions involving chronic pain patients, or clinical patients with no external incentive to exaggerate their symptom presentation.
一项已知组设计研究了27项明尼苏达多相人格调查表-2重构量表1（RC1）、43项利斯-黑利假性坏量表（FBS）和15项亨利-海尔布隆纳指数（HHI）在识别63名人身伤害诉讼当事人和残疾索赔人中不可信症状反应集方面的比较预测效度，并与77名非诉讼性头部受伤对照者进行了比较。逻辑回归分析显示，与RC1相比，HHI和FBS是更好的组成员预测指标。结果表明，FBS、HHI和RC1可能测量的是不同的结构。HHI和FBS反映了残疾或疾病相关行为的夸大。讨论了量表构建的差异。在涉及慢性疼痛患者或没有外部夸大症状表现动机的临床患者的外部激励条件下，RC1可能具有更大的相关性。
