The F (Infrequency) scale includes items selected to detect unusual or atypical responses. Several scales provide information about possible overreporting or symptom exaggeration. Underreporting is more common in personnel, presurgical, or child custody evaluations, whereas overreporting is more common in personal injury or criminal evaluations. Third, the extent to which the examinee accurately self-described symptoms and did not over- or underreport psychopathology is evaluated. High scores indicate a tendency to yea-say (i.e., endorse many items as true), and low scores indicate a tendency to nay-say (i.e., endorse many items as false). TRIN offers additional information about response sets or styles that may affect the profile, measuring the degree to which the examinee responded inconsistently by endorsing items similar in content, but phrased as opposites, as both true or as both false. Though some inconsistent responding is not unusual, high levels suggest that the examinee may have responded randomly or had reading comprehension difficulties or had been confused, careless, uncooperative, or overtly psychotic. VRIN measures the degree to which the examinee responded consistently to items similar in content, with logically inconsistent responses of particular note. Second, to assess response consistency, the Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN) scales are evaluated. A high number of such items renders a profile invalid and may suggest that the examinee perceived the items as irrelevant, was uncooperative, was defensive or indecisive, or could not understand the items. The most commonly used validity measures include the L (Lie), K (Correction), and F (Infrequency) scales.ДЄ first step in assessing response validity involves evaluating the Cannot Say scale, which indicates the number of unanswered items or items answered both true and false. Overall, the MMPI-2вЂ™s measures of test-taking approach and validity may qualify clinical findings or lend credence to interpretations yielded by the test in multiple situations, particularly in forensic situations such as criminal proceedings as well as in gatekeeping evaluations (e.g., child custody assessments), in which examinees may have motivation to modify their clinical presentation. However, some individuals may approach the test in a manner that deviates from this optimal scenario, and MMPI-2 profiles can be interpreted with confidence only when these issues have been addressed. Ideally, examinees answer all questions, respond consistently, and do not distort test findings by overreporting or underreporting experienced psychopathology.

A strength of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is its multiple indicators regarding an examineeвЂ™s approach to the test.

Mmpi 2 validity and reliability