MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079192724 · doi:10.2466/pr0.2002.90.1.131

Specificity of the MMPI–2 Fake Bad Scale as a Marker for Personal Injury Malingering

2002· article· en· W2079192724 on OpenAlex
Grant L. Iverson, Theodore F. Henrichs, Elizabeth A. Barton, Summer V. Allen

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

VenuePsychological Reports · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsRiverview HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMalingeringMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyPsychopathologyResponse biasClinical psychologyPersonal injuryPsychiatryCutoffSocial psychologyPersonality

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Psychologists who evaluate patients in medicolegal contexts should utilize objective assessment data with empirically established sensitivity and specificity for identifying negative response bias. The purpose of this study was to investigate the specificity of the Fake Bad Scale for identifying negative response bias in personal injury claimants. The cutoff scores proposed by Lees-Haley and colleagues were applied a federal prison, medical outpatients, and patients from to inmate volunteers from substance abuse unit. Half of the inmates were given instructions to malinger psychopathology to affect the adjudication process, and the remaining inmates and all of the hospital patients were given standard instructions. The original cutoff scores correctly identified the majority of inmates instructed to malinger psychopathology, but these scores resulted in unacceptably high rates of false positive classifications. The revised cutoff scores resulted in fewer false positives, i.e., 8%-24%.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.540
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.290 · 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