• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

重新评估接受神经心理评估的退伍军人的明尼苏达多项人格测验反应偏差量表项目的初步发现。

Preliminary findings from reevaluating the MMPI Response Bias Scale items in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.

机构信息

Mental Health Service, VA Ann Arbor Healthcare System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Department of Psychiatry, Michigan Medicine, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

出版信息

Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2024 Sep-Oct;31(5):1016-1023. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571. Epub 2022 Aug 2.

DOI:10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571
PMID:35917583
Abstract

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) was developed to predict non-credible cognitive presentations among disability claimants without head injury. Developers used empirical keying, which is independent of apparent content, to select items from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) item pool that distinguished between individuals passing or failing performance validity tests (PVTs). No study has examined which of these items would have psychometric value when used in clinical neuropsychological evaluations. This study reexamined items comprising RBS with reference to manifest item content, internal consistency, PVTs, and a symptom validity test (SVT) in a sample of 173 predominately White male veterans ( = 50.70, = 13.73) in a VA outpatient neuropsychology clinic. Participants completed the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), PVTs, and an SVT. The 28-item RBS appears to contain three types of items: those that manifestly address cognitive functioning, those that are supported but do not appear to address cognitive functioning, and nine items that were unrelated to cognition and not statistically supported. The 19 empirically supported items, or RBS-19, predicted PVT and SVT failures marginally better than the RBS. Both the RBS and RBS-19 had stronger relationships with SVTs relative to PVTs. Although the removal of the nine problematic items improved the diagnostic accuracy of the scale, it still did not reach the level that is generally considered to be clinically optimal. The RBS-19 offers a measure with improved internal consistency and predictive validity compared to the RBS and warrants additional research.

摘要

反应偏差量表 (RBS) 是为预测无头部损伤的残疾索赔者中不可信的认知表现而开发的。开发人员使用实证关键技术,该技术独立于明显的内容,从明尼苏达多相人格测验-2 (MMPI-2) 项目池中选择区分通过或未通过表现有效性测试 (PVT) 的个体的项目。没有研究检验过这些项目在临床神经心理学评估中使用时会有哪些心理测量价值。本研究重新检查了与明显项目内容、内部一致性、PVT 和症状有效性测试 (SVT) 相关的 RBS 项目,这些项目涉及在退伍军人事务部门诊神经心理学诊所的 173 名主要为白人男性退伍军人中( = 50.70, = 13.73)。参与者完成了明尼苏达多相人格测验-2 重构形式 (MMPI-2-RF)、PVT 和 SVT。28 项 RBS 似乎包含三种类型的项目:明显涉及认知功能的项目、有支持但似乎不涉及认知功能的项目以及与认知无关且没有统计学支持的九个项目。19 项经验支持的项目,或 RBS-19,对 PVT 和 SVT 失败的预测略优于 RBS。RBS 和 RBS-19 与 SVT 的关系均强于 PVT。虽然九个有问题的项目的删除提高了该量表的诊断准确性,但它仍然没有达到通常被认为是临床最佳的水平。与 RBS 相比,RBS-19 提供了一种具有更高内部一致性和预测有效性的衡量标准,值得进一步研究。

相似文献

1
Preliminary findings from reevaluating the MMPI Response Bias Scale items in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.重新评估接受神经心理评估的退伍军人的明尼苏达多项人格测验反应偏差量表项目的初步发现。
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2024 Sep-Oct;31(5):1016-1023. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2022.2106571. Epub 2022 Aug 2.
2
Examining the item composition of the RBS in veterans undergoing neuropsychological evaluation.检查接受神经心理评估的退伍军人 RBS 的项目组成。
Appl Neuropsychol Adult. 2024 Nov-Dec;31(6):1452-1456. doi: 10.1080/23279095.2022.2142123. Epub 2022 Nov 11.
3
Validating the usefulness of the NSI validity-10 with the MMPI-2-RF.验证 NSI 有效性-10 与 MMPI-2-RF 的有用性。
Int J Neurosci. 2020 Sep;130(9):926-932. doi: 10.1080/00207454.2019.1709844. Epub 2020 Jan 12.
4
A comparison of the MMPI-2-RF and PAI overreporting indicators in a civil forensic sample with emphasis on the Response Bias Scale (RBS) and the Cognitive Bias Scale (CBS).在民事法医样本中比较 MMPI-2-RF 和 PAI 的虚报指标,重点关注反应偏差量表(RBS)和认知偏差量表(CBS)。
Psychol Assess. 2021 Jan;33(1):71-83. doi: 10.1037/pas0000968. Epub 2020 Oct 22.
5
Examination of the relationship between symptom and performance validity measures across referral subtypes.考察不同转诊类型中症状与表现有效性测量之间的关系。
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2024 Mar;46(2):162-171. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2023.2261633. Epub 2023 Oct 4.
6
Cross validation of the response bias scale and the response bias scale-19 in active-duty personnel: use on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3.效度量表和反应偏差量表-19 在现役人员中的效标关联效度检验:MMPI-2-RF 和 MMPI-3 的应用。
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2024 Mar;46(2):141-151. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2024.2330727. Epub 2024 Mar 17.
7
Scores on the MMPI-2-RF scales as a function of increasing levels of failure on cognitive symptom validity tests in a military sample.明尼苏达多相人格测验第二版修订本(MMPI-2-RF)量表分数与军事样本中认知症状效度测验失败程度呈正相关。
Clin Neuropsychol. 2012;26(5):790-815. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2012.693202. Epub 2012 Jun 18.
8
Comprehensive Analysis of MMPI-2-RF Symptom Validity Scales and Performance Validity Test Relationships in a Diverse Mixed Neuropsychiatric Setting.在多样化的混合神经精神环境中对明尼苏达多相人格问卷第二版-修订版(MMPI-2-RF)症状效度量表及效绩效度测试关系的综合分析
Psychol Inj Law. 2023;16(1):61-72. doi: 10.1007/s12207-022-09467-9. Epub 2022 Nov 3.
9
Neurobehavioral symptom validity in U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mild traumatic brain injury evaluations.美国退伍军人事务部(VA)轻度创伤性脑损伤评估中的神经行为症状效度。
J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 2019 May;41(4):432-441. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2019.1567693. Epub 2019 Feb 4.
10
Examination of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) validity and substantive scales in patients with electrical injury.对患有电击伤患者的明尼苏达多相人格测验-2 修订本(MMPI-2-RF)效度量表和内容量表的检查。
Clin Neuropsychol. 2019 Nov;33(8):1501-1515. doi: 10.1080/13854046.2019.1616114. Epub 2019 May 20.

引用本文的文献

1
Cross validation of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) Cognitive Bias Scale of Scales (CB-SOS) over-reporting indicators in a military sample.在军事样本中对人格评估量表(PAI)认知偏差量表(CB-SOS)的虚报指标进行交叉验证。
Mil Psychol. 2024 Mar-Apr;36(2):192-202. doi: 10.1080/08995605.2022.2160151. Epub 2023 Jan 5.