![difference between mmpi-2 and mmpi-2-rf difference between mmpi-2 and mmpi-2-rf](https://d3i71xaburhd42.cloudfront.net/5036ca6f54908b43d2c0331ac5b2e4a5253d46fe/9-Table7-1.png)
Intercorrelations within the RC scales significantly differed between CCL and normative samples. RC6 (Ideas of Persecution) was the most elevated. Results: CCL subjects reported higher scores in underreporting (L-r and K-r) and lower scores in overreporting validity scales and restructured clinical (RC) scales, with the exception of RC2 and RC8. To test the hypotheses, multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) and two-step cluster analyses were run. The 196 fathers were aged 20–59 years ( M = 42.31 SD = 7.8), with an average of 14.48 years ( SD = 3.9) of education. Mothers had a mean educational level of 14.48 years ( SD = 3.2). The mean age of the 204 mothers was 41.31 years ( SD = 6.6), with an overall range of 24–59 years. Materials and Methods: The sample comprised 400 CCLs undergoing personality evaluation as part of a parenting skills assessment. The study also analyzed gender differences in a CCL sample, general CCL profiles, and the implicit structure of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in the CCL sample. The study hypothesized that personality self-report measures completed by child custody litigants (CCLs) during a parental skills assessment would show underreporting, rendering the measures worthless. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italyīackground and Purpose: A psychological assessment of parents in post-divorce child custody disputes highlighted parents’ motivation to appear as adaptive and responsible caregivers. 2Department of Psychological, Health, and Territorial Sciences, G.1Department of Human Neuroscience, Sapienza University of Rome, Rome, Italy.Se discuten las implicaciones para la práctica forense de los resultados.Cristina Mazza 1, Franco Burla 1, Maria Cristina Verrocchio 2, Daniela Marchetti 2, Alberto Di Domenico 2, Stefano Ferracuti 1 and Paolo Roma 1* Además, los resultados evidenciaron validez incrementada de F-r sobre Fp-r y viceversa. En la clasificación de casos, las escalas F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, Fs y RBS clasificaban correcta y significativamente entre simuladores y respuestas honestas de la población general, y las escalas F-r and Fp-r entre simuladores y población clínica. Los resultados mostraron que los simuladores puntuaban significativamente más alto que los sujetos de las poblaciones general y clínica en las escalas F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, Fs y RBS. Participaron en el estudio 878 sujetos, 309 de la población general, 308 casos clínicos y 261 instruidos para simular daño psicológico. Se utilizó un diseño de investigación de simulación para evaluar la eficacia de las escalas de validez de evaluación de la simulación en la discriminación entre simuladores y las poblaciones general y clínica en el contexto forense. Forensic practical implications from the results were derived and discussed.Īunque el MMPI-2 ha sido el instrumento psicométrico más usado en la evaluación forense, está siendo reemplazado gradualmente por la versión reestructurada, el MMPI-2-RF precisándose de más evidencia científica para ello. Thus, F-r and Fp-r scales are independent and may be accumulated to detect malingering. Additionally, the results showed F-r incremental validity over Fp-r, and vice versa. As for the classification of cases, the F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, Fs, and RBS scales classified correctly and significantly between malingerers and honest respondents from the general population, and the F-r and Fp-r scales between malingerers and clinical population. The results showed that malingerers scored significantly higher than the clinical and general population on the F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, Fs and RBS scales. Of a total of 878 subjects, 309 were from the general population, 308 from the clinical population, and 261 were instructed to malinger a psychological injury.
![difference between mmpi-2 and mmpi-2-rf difference between mmpi-2 and mmpi-2-rf](https://www.frontiersin.org/files/Articles/459795/fpsyt-10-00725-HTML/image_m/fpsyt-10-00725-t001.jpg)
A malingering design was implemented to assess the efficacy of the overreporting validity scales in discriminating between a group of malingerers and the general and clinical populations in a forensic context. Though it has been the most extensively used instrument for forensic evaluation, the MMPI-2 is being gradually replaced by the MMPI-2-RF version, requiring evidence research to support it.