MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029613168 · doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa8503_06

The Validity and Clinical Utility of the MMPI–2 Malingering Depression Scale

2005· article· en· W2029613168 on OpenAlex
R. Michael Bagby, Margarita B. Marshall, Jason R. Bacchiochi

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Personality Assessment · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicSuicide and Self-Harm Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyIncremental validityPredictive validityScale (ratio)Personality testTest validityDepression (economics)PsychometricsClinical psychologyPsychiatryPersonalitySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we examined the validity and clinical utility of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Graham, Tellegen, Dahlstrom, & Kaemmer, 2001) Malingering Depression scale (Md) in relation to the MMPI-2 F scales (F, F(B), F(P)) to detect feigned depression. Overall, the F(B) scale and the F/F(P) scale combination were the best single predictors, although the Md scale did discriminate successfully cases of feigned depression from patients with bona fide depression. The Md scale added predictive capacity over the F scales, and the F(B) scale and the F/F(P) scale combination added predictive capacity over the Md scale; however, the actual increase in the number of cases predicted was minimal in each instance. In sum, although the Md scale is able to detect accurately feigned depression on the MMPI-2 (predictive validity), it does not confer a distinct advantage (incremental validity) over the existing standard validity scales-F, F(B), and F(P).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.237

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.332 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it