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

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

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 1 1 California State University, Monterey Bay • 2 Kent State University (Lack, n.d.)

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

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

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 1 1 California State University, Monterey Bay • 2 Kent State University 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR Screening Steps: ACR 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1) No screening ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2) Using VRIN and TRIN CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 3) Adding CRIN (incremental utility) 0% CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA 4) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Adding F and Fp RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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 1 1 California State University, Monterey Bay • 2 Kent State University 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR ACR Screening Steps: ACR 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 1) No screening ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC ARC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 2) Using VRIN and TRIN CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR CAR 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 3) Adding CRIN (incremental utility) 0% CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA CRA 4) 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Adding F and Fp RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC RAC 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA RCA 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

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 1 1 California State University, Monterey Bay • 2 Kent State University THD ≥ 65 RC6 ≥ 65 RC8 ≥ 65 PSYC ≥ 65 RC1 ≥ 65 HLP ≥ 65 NUC ≥ 65 EAT ≥ 65 RC2 ≥ 65 SUI ≥ 65 FML ≥ 65 SUB ≥ 65 SFD ≥ 65 BRF ≥ 65

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 1 1 California State University, Monterey Bay • 2 Kent State University SUI ≥ 65 EAT ≥ 65 PSYC ≥ 65

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 1 1 California State University, Monterey Bay • 2 Kent State University Discussion Acknowledgements & Disclosures ● Importance of screening 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 for protocol invalidity (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. before interpreting References substantive scales 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 ● Caution needed with EAT, 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. ● SUI, & PSYC elevations P. (2010). Psychometric functioning of the MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r and TRIN-r scales with varying degrees of ○ Interpret in the context randomness, acquiescence, and counter-acquiescence. Psychological Assessment , 22 (1), 87–95. doi: 10.1037/a0017061 of extra-test Lack, C. (n.d.). The MMPI: bastion of the empirical paradigm ● [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from http://caleblack.com/psy5253_files/MMPI2%20essentials.pdf information Contact: dburchett@csumb.edu ● Frequency in real world

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