Assessing Underreporting Response Bias on the MMPI-2
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors assess the replicability of the two-factor model of underreporting response style. They then examine the relative performance of scales measuring these styles in analog (ARD) and differential prevalence group (DPG) designs. Principal components analysis produced a two-factor structure corresponding to self-deceptive (SD) and impression management (IM) response styles. The IM factor scale and related individual validity scales were elevated among research participants instructed to fake good on the MMPI-2 as compared with participants who completed the MMPI-2 under standard instructions (ARD) and among individuals evaluated in real-life assessment contexts where underreporting is expected (DPG). Participants in DPG samples produced significantly higher SD factor and related individual scale scores than did the ARD participants instructed to fake good. These findings confirm that the MMPI-2 validity scales measure two types of underreporting styles and that these styles may operate differently in ARD versus DPG designs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it