MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036296572 · doi:10.1177/1073191104273515

Susceptibility of the MMPI-2 Clinical, Restructured Clinical (RC), and Content Scales to Overreporting and Underreporting

2005· review· en· W2036296572 on OpenAlex
Martin Sellbom, Yossef S. Ben‐Porath, John R. Graham, Paul A. Arbisi, R. Michael Bagby

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

VenueAssessment · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryClinical psychologyContent (measure theory)Social psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The authors examined and compared the susceptibility of three Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) scale sets (Clinical, Restructured Clinical [RC], and Content) to over- and underreporting using five analog samples. Two samples of 85 and 191 undergraduate students, respectively, took the MMPI-2 under underreporting versus standard instructions. Three samples consisting of 42 undergraduates, 73 psychiatric inpatients, and 84 medical patients took the MMPI-2 under overreporting versus standard instructions. A comparison of the effect sizes across the three sets of scales indicated that Clinical Scale scores are not less susceptible to distortion than the Content or RC Scales. An apparent lesser susceptibility to underreporting for the Clinical Scales was an artifact of the subtle items' effect on these scales.

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)0.055
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0550.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
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 head0.826
GPT teacher head0.644
Teacher spread0.182 · 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