Effectiveness of NEO-PI-R research validity scales for discriminating analog malingering and genuine psychopathology

The validity and utility of the positive presentation management and negative presentation management scales for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory

Schinka, Kinder, and Kremer developed "validity" scales for the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae) to detect underreporting-the Positive Presentation Management (PPM) Scale and overreporting-the Negative Presentation Management (NPM) Scale. In this investigation, the clinical utility of these scales was examined using the established validity scales from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher et al.) as the referent. The sample was composed of 370 psychiatric patients who completed the NEO PI-R and the MMPI-2 as part of a routine evaluation. Results indicated that response distortion compromised the utility of the NEO PI-R domain scales. Moreover, the PPM and NPM scales and an NPM-PPM index significantly differentiated invalid under-and overreporting groups from a valid responding group. The PPM and NPM-PPM index were adequate in classifying under- and overreporters, respectively.

The Utility of the NEO–PI–R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With the MMPI–2

In this psychometric study, we compared the recently developed Validity Scales from the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992b) with the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) Validity Scales. We collected data from clients (n = 74) who completed comprehensive psychological evaluations at a university-based outpatient mental health clinic. Correlations between the Validity Scales of the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 were significant and in the expected directions. The relationships provide support for convergent and discriminant validity of the NEO-PI-R Validity Scales. The percent agreement of invalid responding on the two measures was high, although the diagnostic agreement was modest (kappa = .22-.33). Finally, clients who responded in an invalid manner on the NEO-PI-R Validity Scales produced significantly different clinical profiles on the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 than clients with valid protocols. These results provide additional support for the clinical utility of the NEO-PI-R Validity Scales as indicators of response bias.

Positive Impression Management and Its Influence on the Revised NEO Personality Inventory: A Comparison of Analog and Differential Prevalence Group Designs

Participants (n = 22) completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) as part of an authentic job application. Protocols produced by this group were compared with "analog" participants (n = 23) who completed the NEO PI-R under standard instructions and again under instructions designed to mimic the test-taking scenario of the job applicants (the "fake-good" condition). Participants completing the NEO PI-R under fake-good instructions and the job applicants scored lower on the Neuroticism and higher on the Extraversion scales than did the participants responding under standard instructions. Analog participants in the fake-good condition scored higher on the Extraversion and lower on the Agreeableness scales than did the job applicants. These results suggest that outcomes from analog designs are generalizable to real-world samples where response dissimulation is probable.