Diagnostic Accuracy of the MMPI–2 Malingering Discriminant Function Index in the Detection of Malingering Among Inmates

Reimbursing incarcerated individuals for participation in research: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Little is known about global practices regarding the provision of reimbursement for the participation of people who are incarcerated in research. To determine current practices related to the reimbursement of incarcerated populations for research, we aimed to describe international variations in practice across countries and carceral environments to help inform the development of more consistent and equitable practices.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review by searching PubMed, Cochrane library, Medline, and Embase, and conducted a grey literature search for English- and French-language articles published until September 30, 2022. All studies evaluating any carceral-based research were included if recruitment of incarcerated participants occurred inside any non-juvenile carceral setting; we excluded studies if recruitment occurred exclusively following release. Where studies failed to indicate the presence or absence of reimbursement, we assumed none was provided.

RESULTS

A total of 4,328 unique articles were identified, 2,765 were eligible for full text review, and 426 were included. Of these, 295 (69%) did not offer reimbursement to incarcerated individuals. A minority (n = 13; 4%) included reasons explaining the absence of reimbursement, primarily government-level policies (n = 7). Among the 131 (31%) studies that provided reimbursement, the most common form was monetary compensation (n = 122; 93%); five studies (4%) offered possible reduced sentencing. Reimbursement ranged between $3-610 USD in total and 14 studies (11%) explained the reason behind the reimbursements, primarily researchers' discretion (n = 9).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of research conducted to date in carceral settings globally has not reimbursed incarcerated participants. Increased transparency regarding reimbursement (or lack thereof) is needed as part of all carceral research and advocacy efforts are required to change policies prohibiting reimbursement of incarcerated individuals. Future work is needed to co-create international standards for the equitable reimbursement of incarcerated populations in research, incorporating the voices of people with lived and living experience of incarceration.

A New Index for the MMPI-2 Test for Detecting Dissimulation in Forensic Evaluations: A Pilot Study

This pilot study is the starting point of a potentially broad research project aimed at identifying new strategies for assessing malingering during forensic evaluations. The forensic group was comprised of 67 males who were seeking some sort of certification (e.g., adoption, child custody, driver's license, issuance of gun permits, etc.); the nonforensic group was comprised of 62 healthy male volunteers. Each participant was administered the MMPI-2. Statistical analyses were conducted on obtained scores of 48 MMPI-2 scales. In the first step, parametric statistics were adopted to identify the best combination of MMPI-2 scales that differentiated the two groups of participants. In the second step, frequency-based, nonparametric methods were used for diagnostic purposes.

RESULTS

A model that utilized the best three predictors ("7-Pt", "L," and "1-Hs") was developed and used to calculate the Forensic Evaluation Dissimulation Index (FEDI), which features satisfactory diagnostic accuracy (0.9), sensitivity (0.82), specificity (0.81), and likelihood ratio indices (LR+ = 4.32; LR- = 0.22).

A Comparative Analysis of MMPI-2 Malingering Detection Models Among Inmates

There are several strategies, or models, for combining the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) validity indicators to detect malingered psychiatric symptoms. Some scholars have recommended that an elevated F (Infrequency) score should be followed by the inspection of Fp (Infrequency—Psychopathology), whereas a recent meta-analysis indicated that Fp and Ds (Gough’s Dissimulation Scale) should be examined. For correctional settings, one model of malingering suggests that F, Fp, and F - K (Gough’s Dissimulation Index) should be inspected for one or more elevated scores. Although a large body of research has examined malingering detection with the MMPI-2, this research has typically focused on the contributions of individual validity indicators to differentiate malingered from genuine psychiatric symptoms. Therefore, the current study compared these models of malingering detection on the MMPI-2. Inmate simulators were contrasted with inmates who were hospitalized for psychiatric treatment. Results from classification and logistic regression analyses supported the sequential use of F and Fp in malingering detection.