MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3045567151 · doi:10.1037/pas0000941

Examining the “traditional background hypothesis” for the MMPI-2–RF L-r scores in a Muslim faith–based sample.

2020· article· en· W3045567151 on OpenAlexaff
R. Michael Bagby, Karin A. Onno, Ardeshir Mortezaei, Martin Sellbom

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychological Assessment · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicResilience and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthLakehead UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryPsychologyFaithScale (ratio)NormativeSocial psychologyNoticeSample (material)Clinical psychologyPersonalityTheologyLawPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(see record 2020-72093-001). In the article "Examining the 'Traditional Background Hypothesis' for the MMPI-2-RF L-r Scores in a Muslim Faith-Based Sample," by R. Michael Bagby, Karin A. Onno, Ardeshir Mortezaei, and Martin Sellbom (Psychological Assessment, 2020, Vol. 32, No. 10, pp. 991-995, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/pas0000941), the word "not" was missing in the abstract from the text "(b) direct assessments of strength of faith or positive impression management were not included or measured independently." The correct sentence should have read as follows: "(b) direct assessments of strength of faith or positive impression management were not included or measured independently." All versions of this article have been corrected.] The traditional background hypothesis (TBH) is a long-standing belief associated with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) L scale; a validity scale, which appears on every version of the family of MMPI instruments including the soon-to-be released MMPI-3. The L scale was originally designed to assess whether test respondents presented themselves in an unrealistically favorable light. Both researchers and clinicians noted, however, that those from traditional Christian faith-based groups produced elevated L-scale scores. A recent meta-analysis supported this observation, reporting an average L-scale elevation 0.50 SD greater than the MMPI-2 normative sample compared to samples of those with presumptively strong Christian-Judeo faith. Some limitations of this meta-analysis are that (a) the samples used in it included those undergoing an evaluative assessment, which could elevate L-scale scores independent of strength of faith belief, and (b) direct assessments of strength of faith or positive impression management were included or measured independently. Our primary goal in this study was to examine the TBH addressing these limitations with a sample of those who self-identified as believers in the Muslim faith (N = 267), the examination of which expands the scope beyond those of the Christian-Judeo faith. Consistent with previous results, the mean L-r (MMPI/MMPI-2 L scale counterpart on the MMPI-2-Restructured Form) was 56.41 T. Higher L-r scale scores were associated with increasing strength in the Muslim faith, and although increasing L-r scores were primarily associated with impression management, increasing Muslim-based faith values had a nontrivial influence on L-r scores and especially in the moderate score range of this scale. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.045
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.045
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.003

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 head0.423
GPT teacher head0.465
Teacher spread0.042 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychological AssessmentSame topicResilience and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207