Using the MMPI-2-RF, IOP-29, IOP-M, and FIT in the In-Person and Remote Administration Formats: A Simulation Study on...

Area of Science:

• Neuropsychology
• Forensic Psychology

Background:

• Assessing response validity is crucial in mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) evaluations.
• Symptom Validity Tests (SVTs) and Performance Validity Tests (PVTs) are used to detect inconsistent responding.
• The impact of remote versus in-person administration on validity testing requires further investigation.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the efficacy of in-person versus remote administration of SVTs and PVTs.
• To evaluate different methods for combining validity test results.
• To identify the most effective combination of tests for detecting feigned mTBI.

Main Methods:

• 164 adults completed the MMPI-2-RF, IOP-29, IOP-M, and FIT under simulated mild TBI (mTBI) or honest responding conditions.
• Participants were randomly assigned to either in-person or remote (videoconferencing) testing formats.
• 2x2 ANOVAs and hierarchical logistic regression analyses were used to compare test performance and predictive validity.

Main Results:

• Administration format (in-person vs. remote) did not significantly impact SVT and PVT scores.
• The MMPI-2-RF Reliable Response Scale (RBS) demonstrated the largest effect size in distinguishing between feigners and controls (d = 3.05).
• The IOP-29 and IOP-M provided incremental validity when combined with the MMPI-2-RF RBS for predicting group membership.

Conclusions:

• Remote administration of SVTs and PVTs is a viable alternative to in-person testing.
• The MMPI-2-RF RBS, in conjunction with the IOP-29 and IOP-M, offers a robust approach for identifying feigned mTBI.
• Combining multiple validity measures enhances the accuracy of detecting inconsistent effort in neuropsychological evaluations.