B – 133 Domain-specific or Non-Discriminant? Divergent Validity of the MMPI-2-RF Over-Reporting Scales.

Abstract Objective Over-reporting theories emphasize deception and intent dimensions, as well as distinct somatic, cognitive, and psychological domains. Sharf and colleagues (2017) meta-analyzed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Reformed Form (MMPI-2-RF) over-reporting scales and concluded the scales assessed their intended symptom domains (e.g., Fs assesses somatic symptoms). However, statistical analyses demonstrating discriminant performance were not conducted and effect sizes were generally equitable. Relatedly, emerging work suggests over-reporting scales share most of their variance. Method We (1) re-analyzed Sharf et al’s (2017) findings, computing Cohen’s q effects to compare differences between the effect sizes of each scale and (2) conducted a meta-analysis of over-reporting scale inter-correlation to assess for divergent validity. Results The meta-analytic re-analysis found minimal to small differences across the over-reporting scales (q = .03−.27), suggesting a non-discriminant performance between scales of different symptom domains. The correlation meta-analysis (k=14, n=7,984) includes data from the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual (k=7) and published studies (k=7). We observed largely similar consistent intercorrelations (r =.43−.84; M=.63, SD=.10). Consistent with the meta-analytic re-analysis, these effects were mostly (60%) negligible (q =.03−.25). Assessment setting moderated some correlations whereas sex did not. Conclusion In both meta-analytic analyses, over-reporting appears a more general task, rather than one in which specific differences emerge reliably or consistently across symptom-focused domain constructs. Results are consistent with recent scale development efforts (e.g., Ingram et al., 2024). In light of recent concerns about symptom validity (Leonhard, 2023), we will discuss the implications of these findings for validity assessment theory and practice guidelines (Rogers & Bender, 2018; Sweet et al., 2021).

Authors

Publication Details

Journal
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Published
2025-09-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acaf084.283
Primary Topic
Delphi Technique in Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

B – 133 Domain-specific or Non-Discriminant? Divergent Validity of the MMPI-2-RF Over-Reporting Scales.

Tristan T Herring, Paul B. Ingram, B. Robertson
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology
Delphi Technique in Research
article

B – 133 Domain-specific or Non-Discriminant? Divergent Validity of the MMPI-2-RF Over-Reporting Scales.

Tristan T Herring, Paul B. Ingram, B. Robertson
article en

Abstract

Abstract Objective Over-reporting theories emphasize deception and intent dimensions, as well as distinct somatic, cognitive, and psychological domains. Sharf and colleagues (2017) meta-analyzed the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Reformed Form (MMPI-2-RF) over-reporting scales and concluded the scales assessed their intended symptom domains (e.g., Fs assesses somatic symptoms). However, statistical analyses demonstrating discriminant performance were not conducted and effect sizes were generally equitable. Relatedly, emerging work suggests over-reporting scales share most of their variance. Method We (1) re-analyzed Sharf et al’s (2017) findings, computing Cohen’s q effects to compare differences between the effect sizes of each scale and (2) conducted a meta-analysis of over-reporting scale inter-correlation to assess for divergent validity. Results The meta-analytic re-analysis found minimal to small differences across the over-reporting scales (q = .03−.27), suggesting a non-discriminant performance between scales of different symptom domains. The correlation meta-analysis (k=14, n=7,984) includes data from the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual (k=7) and published studies (k=7). We observed largely similar consistent intercorrelations (r =.43−.84; M=.63, SD=.10). Consistent with the meta-analytic re-analysis, these effects were mostly (60%) negligible (q =.03−.25). Assessment setting moderated some correlations whereas sex did not. Conclusion In both meta-analytic analyses, over-reporting appears a more general task, rather than one in which specific differences emerge reliably or consistently across symptom-focused domain constructs. Results are consistent with recent scale development efforts (e.g., Ingram et al., 2024). In light of recent concerns about symptom validity (Leonhard, 2023), we will discuss the implications of these findings for validity assessment theory and practice guidelines (Rogers & Bender, 2018; Sweet et al., 2021).

Archives of Clinical NeuropsychologyVol. 40(Supplement_2)
Openalex Percentile: Top 65%
Delphi Technique in Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

B – 133 Domain-specific or Non-Discriminant? Divergent Validity of the MMPI-2-RF Over-Reporting Scales. — Tristan T Herring, Paul B. Ingram, et al. · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS