Cross validation of the response bias scale and the response bias scale-19 in active-duty personnel: use on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3

ABSTRACT

The Response Bias Scale (RBS) is the central measure of cognitive over-reporting in the MMPI-family of instruments. Relative to other clinical populations, the research evaluating the detection of over-reporting is more limited in Veteran and Active-Duty personnel, which has produced some psychometric variability across studies. Some have suggested that the original scale construction methods resulted in items which negatively impact classification accuracy and in response crafted an abbreviated version of the RBS (RBS-19; Ratcliffe et al., 2022; Spencer et al., 2022). In addition, the most recent edition of the MMPI is based on new normative data, which impacts the ability to use existing literature to determine effective cut-scores for the RBS (despite all items having been retained across MMPI versions). To date, no published research exists for the MMPI-3 RBS. The current study examined the utility of the RBS and the RBS-19 in a sample of Active-Duty personnel (n = 186) referred for neuropsychological evaluation. Using performance validity tests as the study criterion, we found that the RBS-19 was generally equitably to RBS in classification. Correlations with other MMPI-2-RF over- and under-reporting symptom validity tests were slightly stronger for RBS-19. Implications and directions for research and practice with RBS/RBS-19 are discussed, along with implications for neuropsychological assessment and response validity theory.

KEYWORDS:

• Validity
• MMPI-2-RF
• MMPI-3
• RBS
• military

Disclosure statement

Paul Ingram receives research support from the University of Minnesota Press, Test Division, publisher of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory family of instruments as well as from PAR Inc, distributor of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), on which he serves as an advisory board member. No specific support was received for this project. The authors report there are no other competing interests to declare.

Data availability statement

Because data are derived from the Department of Defense, it is not publicly available. Analysis output and Syntax are available upon request.

Notes

1. Item number, rather than item content, is displayed for test security. A * indicates the item is reverse scored.

2. On the MMPI-3, RBS and FBS are the only two validity scales which did not undergo item revision (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a).

3. Rogers et al. (2003) recommend effect size values of ≥ .75 as indicating a medium effect, ≥ 1.25 indicating a large effect, and ≥ 1.75 indicating a very large effect. In cases where an over-reporting scale on the MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-3 does not produce a large effect size, effects are generally on the upper bound of moderate/lower range of large effects (e.g., 1.00 to 1.20; Reeves et al., 2022) but military samples have greater variability and can have lower effects (e.g., P. B. Ingram et al., 2024).

4. Whitman, Tylicki, and Ben-Porath (2021)’s feigning prompt: “Please take this test as though you were trying to appear like you have serious mental health problems that might help you get a lesser sentence or possibly even found not guilty of the murder you committed”

5. The term partial profile invalidity reflects the standard interpretation of certain over-reporting scales to impact specific subsets of substantive scales in a manner disproportionate to others, consistent with current theories of symptom validity response (e.g., somatic, cognitive, and psychological symptoms; see Burchett & Bagby, 2021; Sweet et al., 2021) as well as the description of findings in some meta-analytic studies (Sharf et al., 2017). For instance, Fs is most described as being more associated with the interpretation problems on the Somatic scales, RBS with the Cognitive Complaints scales, and FBS-r/RBS with both Somatic and Cognitive scales. In contrast, F-r and Fp-r are described as producing invalid profiles without respect to single or specific interpretive domain(s) of the substantive scales (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/2011).

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.