[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-293861-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":85,"doc-detail-293861-en":135},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":78,"head_meta":80,"extra_data":82,"updated_unix":84},105,"en","evaluating-the-performance-of-the-mmpi-3-overreporting-scales-sophisticated-simulators-and-the-effects-of-comorbid-conditions","Evaluating the performance of the MMPI-3 overreporting scales: sophisticated simulators and the effects of comorbid conditions","","Objective: This study examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) to detect feigned over-reporting using a symptom-based coaching simulation. Method: Participants (310 college students) were randomly assigned to a control group and three diagnostic feigning conditions: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), minor traumatic brain injury (mTBI), and comorbid PTSD and mTBI. Results: MMPI-3 over-reporting scales classified feigning with low sensitivity and high specificity; effect sizes ranged from 1.12 to 2.47. Scales did not differ across diagnostic conditions with dissimilar symptoms. Conclusions: Findings support the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales for detecting feigned PTSD, mTBI, and comorbid PTSD and mTBI, with general psychopathological symptom feigning prominent and Fp strongest.",{"@graph":14,"@context":77},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/evaluating-the-performance-of-the-mmpi-3-overreporting-scales-sophisticated-simulators-and-the-effects-of-comorbid-conditions/293861/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/evaluating-the-performance-of-the-mmpi-3-overreporting-scales-sophisticated-simulators-and-the-effects-of-comorbid-conditions/293861.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Connor ","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",14,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69,73],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What was the objective of the study?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"To evaluate the utility of the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales for detecting feigned over-reporting using a symptom-based coaching simulation design.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How were participants assigned in the study?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"A total of 310 college students were randomly assigned to a control group or one of three diagnostic feigning conditions: PTSD, mTBI, or comorbid PTSD and mTBI.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What did the results show about classification accuracy?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"MMPI-3 over-reporting scales performed well in classifying feigning, showing low sensitivity, high specificity, and medium-to-large effect sizes ranging from 1.12 to 2.47.",{"name":74,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":75},"Did diagnostic feigning conditions produce different scale patterns?",{"text":76,"@type":64},"No. There were no differences in scales assessing over-reporting between diagnostic conditions with dissimilar symptoms, and the strongest scale for detecting these feigned disorders was Fp.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":79,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":81,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":83,"site_id":7},293861,1789669568,{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":87},"success",[88,92,96,100,105,110,115,119,124,127,131],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":112,"show_sort_weight":113,"slug":114},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":116,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},8,30,"research-report",{"id":120,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":121,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":123},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":122,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":122,"slug":126},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":128,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":129,"show_sort_weight":128,"slug":130},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":132,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":133,"show_sort_weight":101,"slug":134},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":86,"data":136},{"doc_id":83,"user_id":137,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":138,"doc_module":4,"category_id":116,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":139,"file_id":140,"file_url":141,"file_type":142,"file_size":143,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":120,"language":144,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":145,"faqs":146,"seo_title":147,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":84,"read_time":148,"preview_page_count":4},687207022233,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","The CliniCal neuropsyChologisT  \n[https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1968037](https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2021.1968037)  \nEvaluating the performance of the MMPI-3 overreporting scales: sophisticated simulators and the effects of comorbid conditions  \nNicole M. Morris , Jessica Mattera, Brittney Golden, Serena Moses and Paul B. Ingram   \nDepartment of psychological sciences, Texas Tech university, lubbock, TX, usa  \nABSTRACT  \nObjective: We examined the utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) to detect feigned over-reporting using a symptom-based coaching simulation design across a control group and three diagnostic conditions: posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), minor traumatic brain injury (mTBI), and comorbid PTSD and mTBI. Method: Participants were310 college students who wererandomly assigned to one of the four conditions. For participants in the feigning conditions, they were provided with a descriptionof their respective disorder condition throughout the duration of the session and asked to feign according to their condition while completing the MMPI-3 . Results: MMPI-3 over-reporting scales perform well at classifying feigning. There is low sensitivity, high specificity, and effect magnitudes are medium to large range (1.12 − 2.47) . There are no differences in scales assessing over-reporting between diagnostic conditions with dissimilar symptoms. Conclusions: Findings provide initial support for the use of the MMPI-3 overreporting scales for detecting feigned PTSD, mTBI, and comorbid PTSD and mTBI. Further, individuals feigning different disorders, namely PTSD, mTBI, and comorbid PTSD and mTBI, feign predominantly general psychopathological symptoms, making Fp the strongest scale in terms of detecting these feigned disorders. Future research will benefit from establishing relevant diagnostic comparison groups to contrast with this study and utilizing known-group designs withboth PV T and SVT administration.  \nARTICLE HISTORY  \nReceived 12 April 2021 Accepted 10 August 2021 Published online 30 August 2021  \nKEYWORDS  \nMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3; PTSD; traumatic brain injury; feigning;  \nvalidity scales; assessment  \nIn many contexts, it is beneficial, and often profitable, for individuals to misrepresent symptoms to achieve a more advantageous outcome (Rogers & Bender, 2003) . Thus, accurately detecting invalid responding is central to good psychological testing as interpretation relies on respondents providing accurate information about their symptoms, attitudes, and beliefs (Rogers & Bender, 2018) . Undetected invalid responding limits the capacity to interpret clinical scale content (Burchett & Ben-Porath, 2010) .  \nCONTACT nicole M. Morris  [nmlemaster1@gmail.com](nmlemaster1@gmail.com)  Department of psychological sciences, Texas Tech university, 2810 18th street, lubbock, TX 79424, usa.  \n© 2021 informa uK limited, trading as Taylor & Francis group  \n2  N. M. MORRIS ET AL.  \nMisrepresentation of functioning undercuts the validity of assessment data and leads to unnecessary costs, which may include erroneously recommended treatment (i.e., lengthy hospital stays, treatment programs), use of clinical resources (i.e.,time and clinician availability), costly and inappropriate prescription medication, disability compensation, and general strain on the healthcare system (Taylor et al., 2007) .  \nThe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) family of instruments are the most widely used (Wright et al., 2017) and frequently trained (Ingram et al., 2020) of personality assessment instruments. The MMPI-3 (Ben-Porath &Tellegen, 2020a) is the most recent version of the MMPI and an updated version of the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath &Tellegen, 2008/2011) . The MMPI-3 updates include a revised normative sample that is comparable to the current United States census and several new scales. There were also item changes made to most MMPI-2-RF scales, such as wording chang","cbCaicbA5NPzedLu","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaicbA5NPzedLu","pdf",664906,"English","# Abstract\n# Methods\n# Results\n# Conclusions\n# Keywords\n# Background and Rationale\n# Description of MMPI-3 Validity Scales\n# Prior Related Studies\n# Study Scope and Design","[{\"question\":\"What was the objective of the study?\",\"answer\":\"To evaluate the utility of the MMPI-3 over-reporting scales for detecting feigned over-reporting using a symptom-based coaching simulation design.\"},{\"question\":\"How were participants assigned in the study?\",\"answer\":\"A total of 310 college students were randomly assigned to a control group or one of three diagnostic feigning conditions: PTSD, mTBI, or comorbid PTSD and mTBI.\"},{\"question\":\"What did the results show about classification accuracy?\",\"answer\":\"MMPI-3 over-reporting scales performed well in classifying feigning, showing low sensitivity, high specificity, and medium-to-large effect sizes ranging from 1.12 to 2.47.\"},{\"question\":\"Did diagnostic feigning conditions produce different scale patterns?\",\"answer\":\"No. There were no differences in scales assessing over-reporting between diagnostic conditions with dissimilar symptoms, and the strongest scale for detecting these feigned disorders was Fp.\"}]","Evaluating the performance of the MMPI-3 overreporting scales: sophisticated simulators and the effects of comorbid conditions | PDF",23]