MMPI-2 Restructured Form Over-Reporting Scales in First-Episode Psychosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MMPI-2-RF over-reporting scales for physical, cognitive, or psychological symptoms were examined in 130 consecutive referrals to a first-episode psychosis (FEP) clinic. Although acutely ill upon presentation, consistent and responsive profiles were obtained in 79% of the sample. There was no indication of under-reporting on defensive scales, and anticipated elevations were observed on clinical scales sensitive to thought disorder, ideas of persecution, and aberrant experiences. The Infrequent Somatic (Fs), Symptom Validity Scale (FBS-r), and Response Bias (RBS) scales did not indicate somatic or cognitive over-reporting, but the Infrequent Psychopathology Scale (Fp-r) showed a moderate elevation that may suggest a propensity for over-reporting or an effect of clinical symptoms on the over-reporting scale. Clinician ratings of positive symptoms of psychosis were related to the Fp-r. Although the over-reporting classifications with the RBS were relatively low, RBS scores were directly related to positive and general symptoms of psychosis. The MMPI-2-RF appears to have clinical value in an acutely ill FEP sample. The sample was not prone to over-reporting pathology, but associations between both the Fp-r and the RBS with clinical symptoms will warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".