![mmpi 2 lie scale mmpi 2 lie scale](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wt2xsDxIris/maxresdefault.jpg)
Youngjohn ( 1995) documented the occurrence of such coaching and cautioned that individuals who receive information on test construction and validity scales are more sophisticated at malingering (Youngjohn, Lees-Haley, & Binder, 1999). Wetter and Corrigan ( 1995) found that a significant percentage of surveyed attorneys and law students felt it was their duty as zealot advocates to provide clients with instructions on test construction.
![mmpi 2 lie scale mmpi 2 lie scale](https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41RBW0S7Y8L.jpg)
Information on test construction also can be obtained from the direct coaching of interested parties. Adding to concerns surrounding instructional effects is the reality that knowledge of test construction can easily be obtained on the internet (Hartmann & Hartmann, 2014). Unfortunately, one condition that can influence the classification accuracy of L and other MMPI-2 validity scales is when individuals are presented with information on test construction and interpretive principles (e.g., Baer & Miller, 2002 Bury & Bagby, 2002 Storm & Graham, 2000). Such findings reflect favorably on the L scale as a measure of conscious impression management, even among individuals with strong faith beliefs. Yet, when seminary students and clergy from mainstream Judeo-Christian backgrounds are administered the MMPI-2, the “traditional background hypothesis” accounts for, on average, no more than one-half standard deviation above the test’s normative group (Rosen, Baldwin, & Smith, 2016). For example, it has been suggested that elevated scores on the L scale can reflect strong religious backgrounds and adherence to clear rules for proper and virtuous behavior, including honesty (e.g., Friedman, Bolinskey, Levak, & Nichols, 2015 Greene, 2011). In general, the L scale performs well and withstands seemingly plausible and rival hypotheses. Whether these scores reflect conscious "fake good" impression management or religious-based virtuousness remains unanswered.Elevated scores on the L (Lie) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI: Butcher, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989 MMPI-2: Butcher, Graham, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, & Dahlstrom, 2001) reflect conscious attempts at impression management: specifically, the extent to which an individual presents a positive image by denying common human foibles (Paulhus, 1984 Nichols, 2011). Our analyses indicated that religious-group membership accounts, on average, for elevations on L of about 5 t-score points. The meta-analysis revealed large between-study heterogeneity (I2 = 87.1), L scale scores for religious samples that were somewhat higher but did not approach the upper limits specified in the MMPI-2 manual, and an overall moderate effect size (d¯ = 0.54, p <.
![mmpi 2 lie scale mmpi 2 lie scale](https://www.verywellmind.com/thmb/_u69t7ohKG9NmTMmCmr9ntxVX-Y=/2592x2592/smart/filters:no_upscale()/168307664-56a795b33df78cf772976163.jpg)
We then conducted a meta-analysis of 12 published MMPI-2 studies in which we compared L scores of religious samples to the test normative group. To assess the validity of the traditional background hypothesis, we reviewed 11 published studies that employed the original MMPI with religious samples and found that only 1 obtained an elevated mean L score.
Mmpi 2 lie scale manual#
At the same time, the current MMPI-2 manual states that "traditional" and religious backgrounds can account for elevated L scale scores as high as 65T-79T, thereby tempering impression management interpretations for faith-based individuals. The Lie (L) scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is widely regarded as a measure of conscious attempts to deny common human foibles and to present oneself in an unrealistically positive light.