Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859, USA.
Psychol Assess. 2010 Sep;22(3):504-19. doi: 10.1037/a0019511.
In response to the concern that Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; J. N. Butcher, W. Dahlstrom, J. R. Graham, A. Tellegen, & B. Kaemmer, 1989; J. N. Butcher et al., 2001) Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN) score invalidity criteria recommended for use with American samples results in an excessive number of exclusions in Asian samples (F. M. Cheung, W. Z. Song, & J. X. Zhang, 1996), we examined the cross cultural equivalence of the original VRIN and TRIN scales, and developed and validated Korean-specific VRIN and TRIN scales with Korean adult normative, clinical, and college samples. Although the results from item pair correlation analyses suggested the superiority of the Korean VRIN and TRIN over the original VRIN and TRIN, the mean comparison results and classification accuracy statistics using data with varying degrees of randomly inserted true and/or false responses did not reveal a strong advantage of one version over the other. We present and discuss plausible causes of the findings.
针对明尼苏达多相人格测验-2（MMPI-2；J. N. Butcher、W. Dahlstrom、J. R. Graham、A. Tellegen 和 B. Kaemmer，1989；J. N. Butcher 等人，2001）推荐用于美国样本的变量反应不一致性（VRIN）和真实反应不一致性（TRIN）得分无效标准导致亚洲样本中排除过多（F. M. Cheung、W. Z. Song 和 J. X. Zhang，1996），我们检验了原始 VRIN 和 TRIN 量表的跨文化等效性，并使用韩国成人常模、临床和大学生样本开发和验证了韩国特有的 VRIN 和 TRIN 量表。尽管项目对关联分析的结果表明韩国 VRIN 和 TRIN 优于原始 VRIN 和 TRIN，但使用具有不同程度随机插入真实和/或虚假反应的数据进行均值比较结果和分类准确性统计并未显示一个版本比另一个版本具有明显优势。我们提出并讨论了这些发现的可能原因。
