Efendov Adele A, Sellbom Martin, Bagby R Michael
Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Psychol Assess. 2008 Dec;20(4):317-26. doi: 10.1037/a0013870.
The authors examined the comparative predictive capacity of the Trauma Symptom Inventory (TSI) Atypical Response Scale (ATR) and the standard set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) fake-bad validity scales (i.e., F, F-sub(B), F-sub(p), FBS) to detect feigned posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Remitted trauma victims (n = 60) completed the TSI and MMPI-2 under standard (honest) instructions and then were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 experimental conditions (noncoached/validity scale coached) in which they were administered these instruments again with instruction to fake PTSD. These test protocols were compared with TSI and MMPI-2 results from workplace injury claimants with PTSD (n = 84). The ATR and FBS were able to distinguish only the noncoached participants instructed to fake from the PTSD claimants; in contrast, the F, F-sub(B), and F-sub(p) scales were able to distinguish both the noncoached and the validity-scale-coached participants from the PTSD claimants. F, F-sub(B), and F-sub(p) always outperformed the ATR and FBS; neither the ATR nor the FBS was able to add incremental predictive variance to that of F, F-sub(B), or F-sub(p).
作者检验了创伤症状量表（TSI）非典型反应量表（ATR）以及明尼苏达多相人格调查表第二版（MMPI - 2）标准的伪装不良效度量表（即F、Fb、Fp、FBS）对检测伪装创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）的比较预测能力。康复的创伤受害者（n = 60）在标准（如实）指导下完成了TSI和MMPI - 2测试，然后被随机分配到2种实验条件之一（未指导/效度量表指导），在该条件下，他们再次接受这些测试，并被指导伪装PTSD。将这些测试方案与患有PTSD的工伤索赔者（n = 84）的TSI和MMPI - 2结果进行比较。ATR和FBS只能区分未接受指导且被要求伪装的参与者与患有PTSD的索赔者；相比之下，F、Fb和Fp量表能够区分未接受指导和接受效度量表指导的参与者与患有PTSD的索赔者。F、Fb和Fp的表现始终优于ATR和FBS；ATR和FBS都无法在F、Fb或Fp的预测方差基础上增加额外的预测方差。
