Validity of the clinical and content scales of the Multiphasic Personality Inventory Minnesota 2 for the diagnosis of psychogenic non-epileptic seizures

Increased odds and predictive rates of MMPI-2-RF scale elevations in patients with psychogenic non-epileptic seizures and observed sex differences

OBJECTIVE

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) is a self-report instrument, previously shown to differentiate patients with epileptic seizures (ES) and psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES). At present, the odds of MMPI-2-RF scale elevations in PNES patients, as well as the diagnostic predictive value of such scale elevations, remain largely unexplored. This can be of clinical utility, particularly when a diagnosis is uncertain.

METHOD

After looking at mean group differences, we applied contingency table derived odds ratios to a sample of ES (n=92) and PNES (n=77) patients from a video EEG (vEEG) monitoring unit. We also looked at the positive and negative predictive values (PPV, NPV), as well as the false discovery rate (FDR) and false omission rate (FOR) for scales found to have increased odds of elevation in PNES patients. This was completed for the overall sample, as well as the sample stratified by sex.

RESULTS

The odds of elevations related to somatic concerns, negative mood, and suicidal ideation in the PNES sample ranged from 2 to 5 times more likely. Female PNES patients had 3-6 times greater odds of such scale elevations, while male PNES patients had odds of 5-15 times more likely. PPV rates ranged from 53.66% to 84.62%, while NPV rates ranged from 47.52% to 90.91%. FDR across scales ranged from 15.38% to 50%, while the FOR ranged from 9.09% to 52.47%.

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with prior research, PNES patients have greater odds of MMPI-2-RF scale elevations, particularly related to somatic concerns and mood disturbance. Female PNES patients endorsed greater emotional distress, including endorsement of suicide related items. Elevations of these scales could aid in differentiating PNES from ES patients, although caution is warranted due to the possibility of both false positives and the incorrect omissions of PNES cases.