Updated meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 symptom validity scale (FBS): Verified utility in forensic practice

Nathaniel W. Nelson, James B. Hoelzle, Jerry J. Sweet, Paul A Arbisi, George J. Demakis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

46 Scopus citations

Abstract

Clinical research interest in the symptom reporting validity scale currently known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) has continued to be strong, with multiple new publications annually in peer-reviewed journals that publish psychological and neuropsychological assessment research. Related to this growth in relevant literature, the present study was conducted to update the Nelson, Sweet, and Demakis (2006b) FBS meta-analysis. A total of 83 FBS studies (43 new studies) were identified, and 32 (38.5%) met inclusion criteria. Analyses were conducted on a pooled sample of 2218 over-reporting and 3123 comparison participants. Large omnibus effect sizes were observed for FBS, Obvious-Subtle (O-S), and the Dissimulation Scale-Revised (Dsr2) scales. Moderate effect sizes were observed for the following scales: Back Infrequency (Fb), Gough's F-K, Infrequency (F), Infrequency Psychopathology (Fp), and Dissimulation (Ds2). Moderator analyses illustrate that relative to the F-family scales, FBS exhibited larger effect sizes when (1) effort is known to be insufficient and (2) evaluation is conducted in the context of traumatic brain injury. Overall, current results summarize an extensive literature that continues to support use of FBS in forensic neuropsychology practice.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)701-724
Number of pages24
JournalClinical Neuropsychologist
Volume24
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - May 1 2010

Keywords

  • Forensic neuropsychology
  • MMPI-2
  • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
  • Response validity assessment

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Updated meta-analysis of the MMPI-2 symptom validity scale (FBS): Verified utility in forensic practice'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this