Development of the MMPI-2 cognitive complaints scale as an embedded measure of symptom validity
Rattachement africain : us. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To empirically-derive a new MMPI-2 sub-scale, the 13-item Cognitive Complaints Scale (CCS), as an embedded measure of symptom validity. This study hypothesized that mild traumatic brain injured subjects with financial incentives who failed performance validity tests (PVTs) would score significantly higher on the CCS compared to mild traumatic brain injured subjects with financial incentives who passed PVTs. Mild traumatic brain injured controls with no financial incentives were predicted to score lowest on the CCS. RESEARCH DESIGN: A known groups design was utilized as this design allows for the accurate classification of criterion groups. METHODS: One hundred and fifty mild head-injured adults were assigned to one of three groups: the Failed Performance Validity (FPV) group, the Passed Performance Validity (PPV) group or a control group. RESULTS: An ANOVA revealed that the FPV group scored significantly higher on the CCS compared to the PPV group. Controls with no financial incentives scored lowest. A CCS cut-score of ≥12 discriminated between the FPV and PPV groups at a high level of specificity (94%). CONCLUSIONS: A dissociation between 'performance validity' and 'symptom validity' supports recommendations for the differential application of these descriptive terms. The CCS may be helpful to assess credibility of clinical presentation in situations where PVTs are absent.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Development of the MMPI-2 cognitive complaints scale as an embedded measure of symptom validity
- Date Crossref
- 19/12/2013
- Éditeur
- Informa UK Limited
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.