A meta-analytic review of the MMPI validity scales and indexes to detect defensiveness in custody evaluations

  1. Francisca Fariña 1
  2. Laura Redondo 1
  3. Dolores Seijo 2
  4. Mercedes Novo 2
  5. Ramón Arce 2
  1. 1 Universidade de Vigo
    info

    Universidade de Vigo

    Vigo, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05rdf8595

  2. 2 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Revista:
International journal of clinical and health psychology

ISSN: 1697-2600

Ano de publicación: 2017

Volume: 17

Número: 2

Páxinas: 128-138

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.1016/J.IJCHP.2017.02.002 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR

Outras publicacións en: International journal of clinical and health psychology

Obxectivos de Desenvolvemento Sustentable

Resumo

Background/Objective: In child custody disputes, one of the remit of the forensic psychologist is to evaluate parental attributes while suspecting defensiveness. The instrument of choice for undertaking this double task is the MMPI. Method: As to establish the state of the art on this, a meta-analysis was undertaken with a total of 32 primary studies from which 256 effect sizes were assessed. A meta-analysis was undertaken, effect sizes were corrected for sampling error and criterion unreliability. Results: The results revealed a positive, significant, large and generalizable mean true effect size for the L, K, S and MP scales, and the L+K and L+K-F indexes. The Wsd was positive, significant and large, but not generalizable. A negative and significant, but not generalizable mean true effect size was found for the F and generalizable for F–K index. The effect sizes for the L, K, S and MP scales, and the L+K and L+K-F indexes were equal. Both the gender of parents (father vs. mother) and the context of evaluation (parent child custody disputes vs. parenting capacity) were assessed as moderators. Conclusions: The results are discussed in relation to forensic practice.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ackerman, J. J., & Pritzl, T. B. (2011). Child custody evalua-tion practices: A 20-year follow-up. Family Court Review, 49,618---628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1617.2011.01397.x
  • Agüero, M. C. P., & Álvarez-Icaza, M. A. V. (2014). Evaluación psi-cológica con el MMPI-2 a padres en litigio judicial de materiafamiliar. Revista Intercontinental de Psicología y Educación, 16,71---91.
  • Amado, B. G., Arce, R., & Fari˜na, F. (2015). Undeutsch hypothe-sis and Criteria Based Content Analysis: A meta-analytic review.European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 7,3---12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpal.2014.11.002
  • Amado, B. G., Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilariño, M. (2016). CBCAreality criteria in adults: A meta-analytic review. Interna-tional Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 15, 29---36.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2016.01.002
  • Amato, P. R., & Keith, B. (1991). Parental divorce and adult well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53,43---58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0893-3200.15.3.355
  • American Psychological Association (2010). Guidelines for child cus-tody evaluations in family proceedings. American Psychologist,49, 677---680. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021250
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Seijo, D. (2005). Razonamientos judiciales enprocesos de separación: Análisis cognitivo y de contenido de lasmotivaciones. Psicothema, 17, 57---63.
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., Seijo, D., & Novo, M. (2015).Assessing impression management with the MMPI-2in child custody litigation. Assessment, 22, 769---777.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191114558111
  • Arce, R., Fariña, F., & Vilariño, M. (2015). Daño psicológico en casos de víctimas de violencia de género:Un estudio comparativo de las evaluaciones forenses.Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 6, 72---80.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rips.2015.04.002
  • Arch, M., Jarne, A., Peró, M., & Guàrdia, J. (2011). Child cus-tody assessment: A field survey of Spanish forensic psychologists’practices. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Con-text, 3, 107---128.
  • Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., & Handel,R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns amongforensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87,84---94. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701 07
  • Archer, E., Hagan, L. D., Mason, J., Handle, R., & Archer,R. (2012). MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evalua-tion litigants. Assessment, 19, 14---20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191110397469
  • Archer, R. P., & Wygant, D. (2012). Child custody evaluations:Ethical, scientific, and practice considerations. Journal of Psy-chological Practice, 17, 1---70.
  • Baer, R. A., & Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathologyon the MMPI-2: A Meta-analytic review. Psychological Assess-ment, 24, 16---26. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.1.16
  • Baer, R. A., Wetter, M. W., & Berry, D. T. R. (1992). Detec-tion of underreporting of psychopathology of the MMPI:A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review, 12, 509---552.http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0272-7358(92)90069-K
  • Baer, R. A., Wetter, M. W., & Berry, D. T. R. (1995).Effects of information about validity scales on under-reporting of symptoms. Assessment, 2, 189---200.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/107319119500200209
  • Baer, R. A., Wetter, M. W., Nichols, D. S., Greene, R., & Berry, D.T. R. (1995). Sensitivity of the MMPI-2 validity scales to under-reporting of symptoms. Psychological Assessment, 7, 419---423.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.7.4.419
  • Bagby, R. M., & Marshall, M. B. (2004). Assessing underreport-ing response bias on the MMPI-2. Assessment, 11, 115---126.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191104265918
  • Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanic, H., & Fidler, B.J. (1999). Defensive responding on MMPI-2 in family custody andaccess evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11, 24---28.
  • Bagby, R. M., Rogers, R., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Seeman, M.V., & Rector, N. A. (1997). Effectiveness of MMPI-2 validityindicators in the detection of defensive responding in clinicaland nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 9, 406---413.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.4.406
  • Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E.(1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child cus-tody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205---211.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.9.3.205
  • Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Min-nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form):Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Min-neapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Bow, J. N., & Quinnell, F. A. (2001). Psychologists’ currentpractices and procedures in child custody evaluations: Fiveyears after American Psychological Association guidelines. Pro-fessional Psychology: Research and Practice, 32, 261---268.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.32.3.261
  • Butcher, J. N. (1997). Frequency of MMPI-2 scores in forensic eval-uations. MMPI-2 News and Profiles, 8, 2---4.
  • Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., &Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the restandardized MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. Minneapolis. MN:University of Minnesota Press.
  • Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A.,Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 (MinnesotaMultiphasic Personality Inventory-2): Manual for administra-tion, scoring, and interpretation (revised edition). Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Butcher, J. N., & Han, K. (1995). Development of an MMPI-2 scaleto assess the presentation of self in a superlative manner: TheS scale. In J. N. Butcher, & C. D. Spielberg (Eds.), Advances inpersonality assessment (10) (pp. 25---50). Hillsdale, NJ: LEA.
  • Caldwell, A.B. (2004). [MMPI-2 child-custody dataset]. Unpublishedraw data.
  • Carr, G. D., Moretti, M. M., & Cue, B. J. H. (2005). Evaluating parent-ing capacity: Validity problems with the MMPI-2, PAI, CAPI, andratings of child adjustment. Professional Psychology: Researchand Practice, 36, 188---196.
  • Chacón, F., García, J. F., García, A., Gómez, R., & Vázquez, B.(2009). Guía de buenas prácticas para la elaboración de informespsicológicos periciales sobre custodia y régimen de visitas demenores. Madrid: Colegio de Psicólogos de Madrid.
  • Cheng, H., Dunn, J., O’Connor, T. G., & Holding, J. (2006). Factorsmoderating children’s adjustment to parental separation: Find-ings from a community study in England. Journal of AbnormalChild Psychology, 2, 239---250.
  • Cooke, G. (2010). MMPI-2 defensiveness in child custody evalua-tions: The role of education and socioeconomic level. AmericanJournal of Forensic Psychology, 28, 5---16.
  • Daskalakis, K. (2004). The use of the MMPI-2 in complexissues of high conflict child-custody disputes. Ontario,Canada: University of Toronto. Doctoral dissertation Retrievedhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/305082915/6411BF7FAC0B44F0PQ/5?accountid=17253.
  • De Dreu, C. K., & Weingart, L. R. (2003). Task versus relation-ship conflict, team performance, and team member satisfaction:A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 741---749.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.4.741
  • Ezzo, F., Pinsoneault, T. B., & Evans, T. M. (2007). A comparisonof MMPI-2 profiles between child maltreatment cases and twotypes of custody cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice,7, 29---43. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15228932.2012.674469
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Real, S. (1994). Ruedas de identificación: Dela simulación y la realidad. Psicothema, 6, 395---402.
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., & Sotelo, A. (2010). ¿Es efectivo el estudiopsicométrico estándar del peritaje del estado clínico y de ladisimulación en progenitores en litigio por la guarda y custodiade menores? Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología y Salud, 1,65---79.
  • Fariña, F., Arce, R., Vilariño, M., & Novo, M. (2014). Assessment ofthe standard forensic procedure for the evaluation of psycholog-ical injury in intimate-partner violence. The Spanish Journal ofPsychology, 17, 1---10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2014.30,e32
  • Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis research.Educational Researcher, 5, 3---8.
  • Glass, G. V., McGraw, B., & Smith, M. L. (1981). Meta-analysis insocial research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
  • Gordon, R. M., Stoffey, R., & Bottinelli, J. (2008). MMPI-2 findings ofprimitive defences in alienating parents. The American Journalof Family Therapy, 36, 221---228.
  • Graham, J. R. (2011). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psy-chopathology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Gready, P. A. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in child custodyevaluations and child protection evaluations: An exam-ination of defensive responding and psychopathology.Doctoral dissertation, University of Hartford. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/304958565/fulltextPDF/D9A6A25E7F2C4C8EPQ/1?accountid=17253.
  • Greene, R. G. (2011). The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF. An interpretativemanual (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personalityschedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journalof Psychology, 10, 249---254.
  • Hopkins, L. (1999). The role of the K scale as a validity measurein court-ordered child custody MMPI’s. Doctoral disserta-tion, Kent State University. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/619446221/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/11?accountid=17253.
  • Hunsley, J., Hanson, R. K., & Parkeret, K. C. H. (1988). A summaryof the reliability and stability of MMPI scales. Journal of ClinicalPsychology, 44, 44---46.
  • Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis:Correcting errors and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Thou-sand Oaks, CA: Sage.
  • Kauffman, C. M., Stolberg, R., & Madero, J. (2015). An examina-tion of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) with the MMPI-2 andMCMI-III of child custody litigants. Journal of Child Custody, 12,129---151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15379418.2015.1057354
  • Konecni, V. J., & Ebbesen, E. B. (1992). Methodological issues onlegal decision-making, with special reference to experimental simulations. In F. Lösel, D. Bender, & T. Bliesener (Eds.), Psychol-ogy and law: International perspectives (pp. 413---423). Berlin,Germany: Walter de Gruyter.
  • Lanyon, R. I., & Lutz, R. W. (1984). MMPI discrimination of defensiveand nondefensive felony sex offenders. Journal of Consultingand Clinical Psychology, 52, 841---843.Leib, R. (2006). MMPI-2 family problems scales in child-custodylitigants. Doctoral dissertation, Pacific Graduate School of Psy-chology. Retrieved from http://search.proquest.com/docview/304937412/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/22?accountid=17253.
  • Mandappa, P. (2004). MMPI-2: The need for specific normsin child custody evaluations. Doctoral dissertation, TheChicago School of Professional Psychology. Retrieved fromhttp://search.proquest.com/docview/305057409/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/6?accountid=17253.
  • Martindale, D. A., Martin, L., Autin, W. G., & Task Force Members.(2007). Model standards of practice for child custody evalua-tions. Family Court Review, 45, 70---91.
  • Mosier, C. I. (1943). On the reliability of a weighted composite.Psychometrika, 8, 161---168.
  • Moreland, K., & Greenberg, S.A. (1993). Unpublished raw data.Normington, D. (2006). Caregiver competency evaluations:An examination of psychological characteristics of caregivers who neglect their children. Doctoral disser-tation, Pacific Graduate School of Psychology. Retrievedfrom http://search.proquest.com/docview/304937462/C47F7B0B2ECA4917PQ/1?accountid=17253.
  • Ollendick, D. G., & Collings, R. P. (1984). MMPI characteristics ofparents referred of child custody cases. Journal of Psychology,117, 227---232.
  • Osuna, E., López-Martínez, M., Arce, R., & Vázquez, M. J. (2015).Analysis of response patterns on the MMPI-2 in psychiatric prisoninmates. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychol-ogy, 15, 29---36. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2014.09.002
  • Palmer, A., Borrás, C., Pérez-Pareja, J., Sesé, A., & Vilariño, M.(2013). Are patients with chronic pain and fibromyalgia cor-rectly classified by MMPI-2 validity scales and indexes? European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, 5, 123---129.http://dx.doi.org/10.5093/ejpalc2013a1
  • Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirableresponding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46,598---609. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.46.3.598
  • Peters, K. M. (2012). Marital conflict in child custody dis-putes and the corresponding psychological variables.Doctoral dissertation, Immaculata University. Retrievedfrom http://search.proquest.com/docview/1464395031/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/24?accountid=17253.
  • Posthuma, A. B., & Harper, J. F. (1998). Comparison of MMPI-2responses of child custody and personal injury litigants. Profes-sional Psychology: Research and Practice, 29, 437---443.
  • Rehil, H. (2011). Clinical usefulness and common profiles ofthe MMPI-2 RF in child custody assessment. Doctoral dis-sertation, Indiana University of Pennsylvania. Retrievedfrom http://search.proquest.com/docview/885211308/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/2?accountid=17253.
  • Resendes, J., & Lecci, L. (2012). Comparing the MMPI-2 scalescores of parents involved in parental competency and childcustody assessments. Psychological Assessment, 24, 1054---1059.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028585
  • Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Martin, M. A., & Vitacco, M. J.(2003). Detection of feigned mental disorders: A meta-analysisof the MMPI-2 and malingering. Assessment, 10, 160---177.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191103252349
  • Roma, P., Ricci, F., Kotzalidis, G. D., Abbate, L., Lubrano, A., Ver-sace, G., Pazzelli, F., Malagoli, M., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S.(2014). MMPI-2 in child custody litigation: A comparison betweengenders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30,110---116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000192
  • Schenk, P. W. (1996). MMPI-2 norms for child custody litigants. TheGeorgia Psychologist, 50, 51---54.Stredny, R. V., & Archer, R. P. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of parental competency examinees.Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 113---115.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8701 10
  • Strong, D. R., Greene, R. L., Hoppe, C., Johnston, T., &Olesen, T. (1999). Taxonometric analysis of impression mana-gement and self-deception on the MMPI-2 in child-custodylitigants. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 1---18.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730101
  • Strong, D. R., Greene, R. L., & Kordinak, S. T. (2002).Taxometric analysis of impression management and self-deception in college student and personnel evaluationsettings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78, 161---175.http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA780110
  • Tukey, J. W. (1960). A survey of sampling from contaminated distri-butions. In I. Olkin, J. G. Ghurye, W. Hoeffding, W. G. Madoo, &H. Mann (Eds.), Contributions to probability and statistics (pp.448---485). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  • Vilariño, M., Arce, R., & Fariña, F. (2013). Forensic-clinical inter-view: Reliability and validity for the evaluation of psychologicalinjury. European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context,5, 1---21.
  • Wakefield, H., & Underwager, R. C. (1990). Personality character-istics of parents making false accusations of sexual abuse incustody disputes. Issues in Child Abuse Accusation, 2, 121---136.
  • Weaver, J. M., & Schofield, T. J. (2015). Mediation andmoderation of divorce effects on children’s behav-ior problems. Journal of Family Psychology, 29, 39---48.http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/fam0000043
  • Wisneski, J. L. (2006). The MMPI-2 in contested childcustody cases: Differences for parents in entrenched dis-putes. Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University. Retrievedfrom http://search.proquest.com/docview/305324459/184D9C7FCF38493DPQ/7?accountid=17253.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet