The Utility of the NEO–PI–R Validity Scales to Detect Response Distortion: A Comparison With the MMPI–2
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.034 | 0.119 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".