Money matters: A meta-analytic review of the effects of financial incentives on recovery after closed-head injury. Psychological Assessment, 7, 517–523.īinder, L. Over reporting of closed-head injury symptoms on the MMPI-2.
Larrabee (Ed.), Assessment of Malingered Neuropsychological Deficits (pp. Detection of feigned psychiatric symptoms during forensic neuropsychological examinations. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.īen-Porath, Y. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioner’s handbook (pp. Assessing underreporting and over reporting styles on the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 7, 84–92.īagby, R. Relative effectiveness of the standard validity scales in detecting fake-bad and fake-good responding: Replication and extension. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 19, 341–345.īagby, R. Failure of the FBS to predict malingering of somatic symptoms: Response to critiques by Greve and Bianchini and Lees-Haley and Fox. Psychological Services, 3, 249–261.Īrbisi, P. The ability of the MMPI-2 to detect feigned PTSD within the context of compensation seeking. Psychological Assessment, 9, 102–105.Īrbisi, P. Characteristics of the MMPI-2 F(p) Scale as a function of diagnosis in an inpatient sample of veterans. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.Īrbisi, P. Use of the MMPI-2 in personal injury and disability evaluations.
Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Psychologists using the FBS for making decisions about clients’ motivations need to be aware of the serious problems with the scale’s use and the cases of its inadmissibility in court.Īmerican Psychiatric Association (1994). We raise questions about its potential bias against people with disabilities and physical illnesses, women, individuals exposed to highly traumatic situations, and those motivated to present themselves in a favorable light. We examine: (1) questions of item bias in the FBS (2) how malingering and nonmalingering groups are identified in FBS studies, including whether the research has been broadly inclusive and fully represents the populations assessed by the MMPI-2 (3) the reliability and validity of the FBS (4) the highly variable recommendations for raw score cut-offs and how they relate to T scores (5) two inpatient groups who may be inappropriately labeled as malingering by the FBS (6) the publisher’s statement on use of the FBS and (7) a Frye hearing in Florida where the FBS was excluded from expert testimony, one of three so far. Results of the current study confirm the clinical utility of the RBS and suggest that, particularly if the MMPI-2 is an existing part of the neuropsychological assessment, examination of RBS scores is an efficient means of detecting negative response bias.The Fake Bad Scale (FBS), developed to identify malingering of emotional distress among claimants seeking compensation for personal injuries, was recently added to the MMPI-2 scoring materials, resulting in its widespread dissemination across the various clinical settings that use the MMPI-2 in psychological evaluations. Findings from this retrospective data analysis ( N = 46) demonstrated the superiority of the RBS, and to a certain extent the HHI, over other MMPI-2 validity scales in predicting TOMM failure within the outpatient Veterans Affairs population. In addition to examining the relationship between the Test of Memory Malingering (TOMM), RBS, and several other well-researched Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 (MMPI-2) validity scales (i.e., F, Fb, Fp, and the Fake Bad Scale), the present study also included the recently developed Infrequency Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale and the Henry–Heilbronner Index (HHI) of the MMPI-2. The present study represents a replication and extension of the original Response Bias Scale (RBS) validation study.