An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶

an examination of the impact of mixed variable fixed non

Nov 15, 2022 243 likes •358 views

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales Amanda N. Hansen 1 , Maddie Cardellio 1 , Akshata Melanahalli 1 , Danielle Burchett 1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath 2

SLIDE 1

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1, & Yossef S. Ben-Porath2

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

SLIDE 2

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

(Lack, n.d.)

SLIDE 3

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

SLIDE 4

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

No studies have examined the impact of mixed inconsistent responding on the MMPI-3 substantive scales Research Questions

How does mixed inconsistent responding affect MMPI-3

substantive scales?

Does screening for protocol invalidity reduce the likelihood of

misinterpreting substantive scale elevations caused by mixed inconsistent responding?

SLIDE 5

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACR 0%

ACR 10 ACR 20 ACR 30 ACR 40 ACR 50 ACR 60 ACR 70 ACR 80 ACR 90 ACR 100

ARC

ARC 10 ARC 20 ARC 30 ARC 40 ARC 50 ARC 60 ARC 70 ARC 80 ARC 90 ARC 100

CAR

CAR 10 CAR 20 CAR 30 CAR 40 CAR 50 CAR 60 CAR 70 CAR 80 CAR 90 CAR 100

CRA

CRA 10 CRA 20 CRA 30 CRA 40 CRA 50 CRA 60 CRA 70 CRA 80 CRA 90 CRA 100

RAC

RAC 10 RAC 20 RAC 30 RAC 40 RAC 50 RAC 60 RAC 70 RAC 80 RAC 90 RAC 100

RCA

RCA 10 RCA 20 RCA 30 RCA 40 RCA 50 RCA 60 RCA 70 RCA 80 RCA 90 RCA 100

Screening Steps: 1) No screening 2) Using VRIN and TRIN 3) Adding CRIN (incremental utility) 4) Adding F and Fp

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

SLIDE 6

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACR 0%

ACR 10 ACR 20 ACR 30 ACR 40 ACR 50 ACR 60 ACR 70 ACR 80 ACR 90 ACR 100

ARC

ARC 10 ARC 20 ARC 30 ARC 40 ARC 50 ARC 60 ARC 70 ARC 80 ARC 90 ARC 100

CAR

CAR 10 CAR 20 CAR 30 CAR 40 CAR 50 CAR 60 CAR 70 CAR 80 CAR 90 CAR 100

CRA

CRA 10 CRA 20 CRA 30 CRA 40 CRA 50 CRA 60 CRA 70 CRA 80 CRA 90 CRA 100

RAC

RAC 10 RAC 20 RAC 30 RAC 40 RAC 50 RAC 60 RAC 70 RAC 80 RAC 90 RAC 100

RCA

RCA 10 RCA 20 RCA 30 RCA 40 RCA 50 RCA 60 RCA 70 RCA 80 RCA 90 RCA 100

Screening Steps: 1) No screening 2) Using VRIN and TRIN 3) Adding CRIN (incremental utility) 4) Adding F and Fp

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

SLIDE 7

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

THD ≥ 65 RC6 ≥ 65 RC8 ≥ 65 PSYC ≥ 65 RC1 ≥ 65 NUC ≥ 65 EAT ≥ 65 RC2 ≥ 65 SUI ≥ 65 SFD ≥ 65 BRF ≥ 65 HLP ≥ 65 FML ≥ 65 SUB ≥ 65

SLIDE 8

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

EAT ≥ 65 SUI ≥ 65 PSYC ≥ 65

SLIDE 9

Discussion

Importance of screening

for protocol invalidity before interpreting substantive scales

Caution needed with EAT,

SUI, & PSYC elevations ○ Interpret in the context

f extra-test

information

Frequency in real world

Acknowledgements & Disclosures

This research was made possible by support from a grant from the University of Minnesota Press, Test Division—which supported data collection—and the California State University, Monterey Bay Undergraduate Research Opportunity Center (UROC)—which provided additional financial, logistical, and mentorship support (HSI grant, U.S. Department of Education Hispanic Serving Institution Grant #P031C160221). This research was approved by the Kent State University Institutional Review Board.

References

Dragon, W. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Handel, R. W. (2012).

Examining the impact of unscorable item responses on the validity and interpretability of MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Restructured Clinical (RC) Scale scores. Assessment, 19(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111415362

Handel, R. W., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., & Archer, R.
P. (2010). Psychometric functioning of the MMPI-2-RF

VRIN-r and TRIN-r scales with varying degrees of randomness, acquiescence, and counter-acquiescence. Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 87–95. doi: 10.1037/a0017061

Lack, C. (n.d.). The MMPI: bastion of the empirical paradigm

[PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://caleblack.com/psy5253_files/MMPI2%20essentials.pdf

An Examination of the Impact of Mixed Variable & Fixed Non-Content-Based Invalid Responding on the MMPI-3 Substantive Scales

Amanda N. Hansen1, Maddie Cardellio1, Akshata Melanahalli1, Danielle Burchett1 , & Yossef S. Ben-Porath1

1California State University, Monterey Bay • 2Kent State University

Contact: dburchett@csumb.edu

SLIDE 10

Summary of Hypotheses & Impact of Mixed Inconsistent Responding

Scale Hypothesized to be Impacted? “Points” Earned > Items to Elevation % Items Required for Elevation

Normative Item Endorsement Index

Result THD YES In 6/6 Conditions 30% 0.11 Impact Mitigated RC1 YES In 6/6 Conditions 43% 0.18 Impact Mitigated RC2 YES In 3/6 Conditions 50% 0.22 Impact Mitigated RC6 YES In 6/6 Conditions 43% 0.12 Impact Mitigated RC8 YES In 5/6 Conditions 39% 0.15 Impact Mitigated NUC YES In 3/6 Conditions 50% 0.19 Impact Mitigated EAT YES In 4/6 Conditions 40% 0.11 Major Impact SUI YES In 6/6 Conditions 29% 0.08 Major Impact HLP YES In 4/6 Conditions 43% 0.16 Impact Mitigated SFD NO In 0/6 Conditions 71% 0.24 Impact Mitigated BRF YES In 6/6 Conditions 43% 0.09 Impact Mitigated FML NO In 2/6 Conditions 60% 0.27 Impact Mitigated SUB NO In 2/6 Conditions 56% 0.22 Impact Mitigated PSYC YES In 6/6 Conditions 30% 0.10 Major Impact