See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/41967807

Psychometric Functioning of the MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r and TRIN-r Scales With

Varying Degrees of Randomness, Acquiescence, and Counter-Acquiescence

Article  in  Psychological Assessment · March 2010

DOI: 10.1037/a0017061 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
46 3,262

4 authors, including:

Yossef Ben-Porath Robert P Archer

Kent State University Eastern Virginia Medical School
291 PUBLICATIONS   8,026 CITATIONS    165 PUBLICATIONS   4,017 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

MMPI-2-RF View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert P Archer on 22 May 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Psychological Assessment © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 22, No. 1, 87–95 1040-3590/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0017061

Psychometric Functioning of the MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r and TRIN-r

Scales With Varying Degrees of Randomness, Acquiescence,
and Counter-Acquiescence

Richard W. Handel Yossef S. Ben-Porath

Eastern Virginia Medical School Kent State University

Auke Tellegen Robert P. Archer

University of Minnesota Eastern Virginia Medical School
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

In the present study, the authors evaluated the effects of increasing degrees of simulated non-content-
based (random or fixed) responding on scores on the newly developed Variable Response Inconsistency-
Revised (VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency-Revised (TRIN-r) scales of the Minnesota Mul-
tiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Y. S. Ben-Porath & A. Tellegen,
2008) and compared the performance of these new scales with the existing VRIN and TRIN scales of the
MMPI-2 (J. N. Butcher et al., 2001). The results support the interpretation of VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores
as measures of random and fixed responding, respectively. Furthermore, the authors examined how
scores on the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales (A. Tellegen et al., 2003) are affected by increasing levels
of non-content-based responding and offer practical interpretive recommendations for test users. Finally,
the results of the present study indicate that RC validity coefficients are relatively robust in the face of
moderate degrees of non-content-based responding.

Keywords: MMPI-2-RF, VRIN-r, TRIN-r, random responding, fixed responding

Test takers must respond to the content of self-report measures
of personality and psychopathology to produce meaningful and
useful test scores. Failure to do so threatens the validity of inter-
pretations based on scale scores. Content non-responsiveness can
involve various degrees of random or fixed responding to test
items. Fixed responding refers to a tendency to answer true–false
test items with mostly indiscriminate true (i.e., acquiescent) or
indiscriminate false (i.e., counter-acquiescent) responses.
The original Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1942) included several scales
sensitive to content non-responsiveness. The F (Infrequency) scale
was designed to identify problematic protocols marked by exces-
sive infrequent responding, which can be a result of content
non-responsiveness. Although not designed specifically to mea-
Richard W. Handel, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,
Eastern Virginia Medical School; Yossef S. Ben-Porath, Department of
Psychology, Kent State University; Auke Tellegen, Department of Psy-
chology, University of Minnesota; Robert P. Archer, Department of Psy-
chiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Eastern Virginia Medical School.
Yossef S. Ben-Porath and Auke Tellegen are paid consultants to the
publisher of the MMPI instruments, the University of Minnesota Press.
They receive royalties on sales of the MMPI-2-RF. Preliminary analyses
were presented at the 42nd Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in
the use of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, April 2007.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard
W. Handel, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Eastern
Virginia Medical School, Hofheimer Hall, 825 Fairfax Avenue, Norfolk,
VA 23507. E-mail: handelrw@evms.edu
sure content non-responsiveness, Scales L (Lie) and K (Correc-
tion) were sensitive to fixed responding because of their unbal-
anced scoring keys (i.e., all L and all but one of the K items are
keyed false).
Tellegen (1988) cited Buechly and Ball’s (1952) Test-Retest
Index (TR) as an early attempt to develop an inconsistency scale
for the MMPI. The TR was composed of repeated items (16 total
pairs) that were included in the original MMPI for early machine-
scoring systems. However, as noted by Tellegen (1988), the TR is
not sensitive to acquiescent or counter-acquiescent fixed respond-
ing. Tellegen (1982) developed scales designed to assess random,
acquiescent, and counter-acquiescent responding for the Multidi-
mensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982; Tel-
legen & Waller, 2008). These scales were named Variable Re-
sponse Inconsistency (VRIN) and True Response Inconsistency
(TRIN). These MPQ scales influenced the subsequent develop-
ment of similar scales for the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Gra-
ham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989; Butcher et al., 2001).
The MMPI-2’s VRIN scale consists of 67 item pairs with either
similar or opposite content. Inconsistent responses to a pair of
items result in one raw score point being added to the raw score
total. The raw score total is transformed to a linear T score. Since
the introduction of the VRIN scale in the MMPI-2, numerous
analog studies have demonstrated that it is sensitive to random
responding (Berry et al., 1992, 1991; Clark, Gironda, & Young,
2003; Cramer, 1995; Gallen & Berry, 1996; Paolo & Ryan, 1992;
Wetter, Baer, Berry, Smith, & Larsen, 1992).
The MMPI-2 TRIN scale consists of 20 item pairs that are
opposite in content. Of the 40 possible true–true and false–false

87
 88 HANDEL, BEN-PORATH, TELLEGEN, AND ARCHER
response pairs, 14 true–true and nine false–false response pairs are
scored as inconsistencies. The MMPI-2 TRIN scale is scored by
summing the total number of inconsistent true responses, subtract-
ing the total number of inconsistent false responses, and adding a
constant of 9. Adding 9 to the total raw score precludes negative
raw score values. Raw score values of less than 9 indicate a
counter-acquiescent response style, whereas values greater than 9
suggest acquiescence. Furthermore, TRIN scale T scores below 50
are reflected such that all T scores above 50 are labeled either T or
F to indicate a deviation in the acquiescent or counter-acquiescent
direction. Although multiple research studies have investigated the
psychometric properties of the VRIN scale, only one published
study has focused on TRIN. Handel, Arnau, Archer, and Dandy
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
(2006) found that the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) TRIN scale
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
was sensitive to random insertion of either true or false responses
into existing MMPI-2 protocols.
The recently released MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-
RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008) is a 338-item revised version of
the MMPI-2 designed to yield an efficient and comprehensive set
of scales that assess clinically relevant and salient constructs
represented in the MMPI-2 item pool. The MMPI-2-RF includes
two inconsistency measures, VRIN-Revised (VRIN-r) and TRIN-
Revised (TRIN-r), that were developed using methods similar to
those used to construct the MMPI-2’s VRIN and TRIN scales.
However, as indicated by Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008), some
changes were introduced in the development process to accommo-
date the substantially smaller MMPI-2-RF item pool, yet conduct
a rigorous item selection procedure, and increase the independence
of VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores.
Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008) have described the develop-
ment of the VRIN-r and TRIN-r scales in considerable detail.
Briefly, each raw score unit consists of a pair of inventory items
that are scored configurally to form a compound statement. That is,
of the four possible pairs of responses, true-true, true-false, false-
true, and false-false (or TT, TF, FT, and FF), one is keyed as a
positive score and coded “1,” whereas the three other possible
response pairs are coded “0.” Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008)
referred to this type of compound statement as a configural com-
posite, or c-composite. To identify suitable c-composites for
VRIN-r and TRIN-r, Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008) applied the
following five criteria:
1. The two component inventory items in each c-composite
had to be reliably correlated. Furthermore, the compo-
nent items of each TRIN-r c-composite had to be nega-
tively correlated so that the TRIN-r scale would assess
only TT (acquiescent) and FF (counter-acquiescent) in-
consistencies. However, only c-composites made up of
positively correlated inventory items were considered for
the VRIN-r scale because VRIN-r was intended to assess
exclusively TF and FT inconsistencies, and not (counter)
acquiescence. In other words, item pairs were selected
such that TRIN-r consisted only of “same response”
c-composites and VRIN-r only of “different response”
c-composites. These selection rules served to enhance the
independence and distinctiveness of TRIN-r (as an index
of fixed responding) and VRIN-r (as an index of variable
responding).
2. The content of each c-composite, as judged by Tellegen
and Ben-Porath (2008), had to be inconsistent when
scored as a positive.
3. Each c-composite was required to have a low ratio of
observed frequencies to expected frequencies to ensure
that any response pair scored as an inconsistency was
statistically improbable.
4. The c-composite was also required to have a low degree
of content saturation as determined by a negligible or
weak correlation with an additive composite consisting of
the same two inventory items but now scored to measure
the shared content component of the two items. For
example, suppose the hypothetical item pair (“I am tall”;
“I am short”) had been combined to create TT and FF
c-composites for possible use as supposedly content-free
(counter)acquiescence indicators. Criterion 4 would have
called for computing correlations of both these
c-composites with a measure made up of the same two
inventory items, but now keyed in opposite directions
and combined additively. This two-item scale would
therefore assess the shared content component of the two
items, namely, the respondent’s self-reported height.
Low correlations of the c-composites with this scale
would have been required as empirical evidence that the
c-composites were indeed relatively free of content.
5. The final criterion was designed to prevent the response
to a single inventory item from exerting excessive influ-
ence on the total VRIN-r or total TRIN-r scale score. It
required that no inventory item belong to more than one
of each of the four kinds of c-composites (TT, TF, FT, or
FF). For example, a T response to a given inventory Item
I could not be included in two different TF composites,
but could belong to both a TF composite and a TT
composite.
The resulting VRIN-r scale of the MMPI-2-RF consists of 53
c-composites, and the TRIN-r scale consists of 26 c-composites.
Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008) noted that these revised inconsis-
tency scales sample a larger percentage of the reduced MMPI-
2-RF item pool compared with the corresponding scales in the
MMPI-2.
The total VRIN-r score equals the sum of its c-composite scores;
in other words, it simply equals the number of scored inconsisten-
cies. Scoring TRIN-r is somewhat more complex, the algorithm
being similar to the one used for the MMPI-2 TRIN scale. That is,
the total TRIN-r raw score is obtained by summing the individual’s
TT c-composite scores and subtracting from this value the sum of
the FF c-composite scores. Consequently, higher TRIN-r raw
scores indicate higher levels of acquiescence, whereas lower
scores indicate higher levels of counter-acquiescence. A constant
of 11 is added to preclude negative raw score values.
Both VRIN-r and TRIN-r raw scores are converted to linear T
scores, but in the case of TRIN-r, all T scores below 50 are
“reflected.” For example, an initial TRIN-r T score of 35 is
reflected to a T score of 65F. As in the case of the MMPI-2 TRIN
scale, TRIN-r scale T scores below 50 are not possible.
 VRIN-r AND TRIN-r SCALES
The MMPI-2-RF technical manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath,
2008) includes a brief description of preliminary VRIN-r and
TRIN-r analyses presented by Handel, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, and
Archer (2007). We update these earlier analyses in the present
study and present them in their entirety. Specifically, we used a
computer simulation to introduce increasing degrees of random
and fixed responding into existing protocols to evaluate VRIN-r
and TRIN-r scores in comparison with their MMPI-2 counterparts.
In addition, we investigated the effects of introducing increasing
levels of non-content-based responding on the correlations of
selected MMPI-2 RC scales with the Brief Psychiatric Rating
Scale (BPRS; Overall & Gorham, 1988).
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Method
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Participants
Two previously published data sets were used in the present
study. The first data set was the MMPI-2 nongendered normative
sample (Ben-Porath & Forbey, 2003), which consisted of 2,276
participants (1,138 men and 1,138 women) and is a subset of the
MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) normative sample. The sample
comprised 1,861 Whites, 264 Blacks, 71 Native Americans, 67
Hispanics, and 13 Asians. Additional demographic information for
this sample is provided in Ben-Porath and Forbey (2003).
The second data set consisted of 704 mental health inpatients
(363 men and 341 women) originally published by Archer, Griffin,
and Aiduk (1995). This data set includes individuals who were
administered the MMPI-2 and other measures in one of three
inpatient psychiatric settings. The mean age of participants in this
sample was 33.7 years (SD ⫽ 9.4). The majority of participants
were White (n ⫽ 461), followed by Black (n ⫽ 144), and those of
other racial/ethnic groups or who did not report race/ethnicity (n ⫽
99). The primary Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, 3rd edition, revised (DSM–III–R; American Psychiatric
Association, 1987) Axis I diagnoses were as follows: schizophre-
nia or other psychotic disorders (n ⫽ 91), major depressive disor-
der (n ⫽ 117), bipolar disorder (n ⫽ 60), adjustment disorders
(n ⫽ 70), substance or alcohol abuse or dependence (n ⫽ 122),
other diagnoses (n ⫽ 111), and missing diagnoses (n ⫽ 133).
Measures
The MMPI-2. The MMPI-2-RF item set is a subset of the
MMPI-2 item pool. Furthermore, Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008)
have shown that the properties of MMPI-2-RF scales scored from
the 567-item MMPI-2 protocols and from the 338-item MMPI-
2-RF itself are essentially interchangeable. Consequently, it is
possible to evaluate scores on both pairs of scales, the MMPI-2
VRIN and TRIN scales and the MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r and TRIN-r
scales, based on the current MMPI-2 study samples.
Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008) reported alpha coefficients for
VRIN-r of .39 for men and of .20 for women in the MMPI-2-RF
normative sample. TRIN-r alpha coefficients were .37 for men and
.23 for women (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). Furthermore, Tel-
legen and Ben-Porath (2008) reported RC scale alpha coefficients
ranging from .63 to .87 for men and from .63 to .89 for women in
the MMPI-2-RF normative sample. The relatively low alpha co-
efficients for VRIN-r and TRIN-r are not surprising given that
89
these two measures were designed to be content free; furthermore,
largely cooperative individuals in the normative sample would not
be expected to produce reliable and large variations in invalid
responding (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). Tellegen and Ben-
Porath (2008) also indicated that VRIN-r and TRIN-r variances are
low and that their standard errors are small enough to warrant their
use in invalidating protocols at the recommended cutoff scores. In
a test–retest subsample (n ⫽ 193) of the MMPI-2-RF normative
sample, Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008) reported test–retest cor-
relations of .52 for VRIN-r and of .40 for TRIN-r and standard
errors of measurement (SEMs) of 7 T-score points for VRIN-r and
of 8 for TRIN-r.
For the clinical sample used in the present study, Handel and
Archer (2008) reported RC scale alpha coefficients ranging from
.83 to .94 for men and from .82 to .94 for women. These RC alpha
coefficients were based on a sample size of 544 because Handel
and Archer (2008) used MMPI-2 (rather than MMPI-2-RF) valid-
ity scales to remove invalid protocols. For VRIN-r, alpha coeffi-
cients of .34 for men and of .44 for women were obtained. For
TRIN-r, alpha coefficients were .49 for men and .45 for women.
The BPRS. The 18-item version of the BPRS (Overall &
Gorham, 1988) was used in the present study as an external
criterion measure. This version of the BPRS is an extension of
Overall and Gorham’s (1962) original 16-item version. Although
the 18-item version of the BPRS has been in the public domain
since 1965, Overall and Gorham (1988) provided an updated
reference for the 18-item version. The BPRS is a clinician rating
scale that was designed to provide a global assessment of symp-
toms across patients with a broad range of psychiatric conditions
within the context of a clinical interview (Faustman & Overall,
1999). Clinicians rate patients on each of the 18 BPRS dimensions
using a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (not present) to 7 (extremely
severe) (Faustman & Overall, 1999). The validity of BPRS score
interpretations has largely been evaluated within the context of
controlled studies of medication response (Rhoades & Overall,
1988, as cited in Faustman & Overall, 1999). Faustman and
Overall (1999) reported that the likely number of published studies
in this area is in the thousands. Hedlund and Vieweg (1980)
provided a comprehensive review of studies that evaluated the
psychometric properties of BPRS scores. Median interrater reli-
ability for BPRS item scores based on Pearson’s product–moment
correlations ranged from .67 (Blunted Affect) to .88 (Hallucinatory
Behavior). Hedlund and Vieweg (1980) identified over 150 pub-
lished drug treatment studies that provided validity data. These
studies provided evidence for the validity of BPRS score interpre-
tations based on relations to other variables. Hedlund and Vieweg
(1980) concluded that BPRS change scores have consistently been
shown to reflect treatment changes that are corroborated with
extratest data.
Procedure
Details of the data collection procedures for the MMPI-2 nor-
mative sample and the clinical sample are provided in Butcher et
al. (2001) and in Handel and Archer (2008), respectively. For
simulated random responding analyses using the MMPI-2-RF nor-
mative sample, an n of 2,109 was arrived at by applying validity
criteria using scales (other than the VRIN and VRIN-r) from both
the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF. All MMPI-2 validity scale T scores
 90 HANDEL, BEN-PORATH, TELLEGEN, AND ARCHER

were nongendered. The following validity criteria were used:
MMPI-2 CNS (Cannot Say; raw score) ⬍ 30, MMPI-2-RF CNS
(raw score) ⬍ 18, F ⬍ 90, F-r (Infrequent Responses) ⬍ 90, Fp
(Infrequency-Psychopathology) ⬍ 80, Fp-r (Infrequent Psychopa-
thology Responses) ⬍ 80, FB (Back F) ⬍ 90, L ⬍ 80, L-r
(Uncommon Virtures) ⬍ 80, TRIN ⬍ 80, and TRIN-r ⬍ 80. For
simulated fixed responding analyses using the MMPI-2-RF nor-
mative sample, profiles were again removed using the aforemen-
tioned validity criteria with two exceptions. Here, profiles with
VRIN or with VRIN-r T scores ⱖ 80 were removed, whereas no
profiles were removed on the basis of TRIN or TRIN-r scores,
resulting in an n of 2,130.
For the clinical sample, the following validity criteria were ob-
served: Fp-r ⬍ 100 (T score), MMPI-2-RF CNS ⬍ 18, and TRIN-r ⬍
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
items were randomly selected to evaluate TRIN, whereas 20% of
the 338 MMPI-2-RF items were selected to evaluate TRIN-r.
Because the items selected for modification were always randomly
selected at the individual protocol level, it is highly unlikely that
any two profiles would have the same exact set of randomly
selected items. All mean T scores reported in this study were
calculated using unrounded, untruncated T scores, as recom-
mended by Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008). Finally, mean TRIN
and TRIN-r T scores were calculated using T scores that were not
reflected. In other words, T scores below 50 were permitted for the
purposes of calculating a mean score, and the resulting mean T
score was then reflected when below 50 (e.g., a mean T score of 48
was reflected to 52F).

80 (T score) for random response insertion. For true- and false-

response insertion, the protocol validity criteria were as follows:
Fp-r ⬍ 100 (T score), MMPI-2-RF CNS ⬍ 18, and VRIN-r ⬍ 80
(T score). For random response insertion, 525 valid MMPI-2-RF
profiles were available, but the sample size ranged from 442 to 446
because of missing BPRS data. For true- and false-response insertion,
the valid profiles numbered 545, whereas for the correlation coeffi-
cients, ns ranged from 459 to 463.
For the present study, the procedure involved a computer sim-
ulation of the effects of inserting increasing levels of simulated
random responding, acquiescence, and counter-acquiescence into
existing MMPI-2 protocols. To simulate increasing degrees of
random responding, percentages (i.e., 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%,
60%, and 70%) of items were selected at the individual protocol
level and replaced with a randomly generated true or false re-
sponse. The insertion of random responses for the VRIN-r analyses
was restricted to the subset of 338 MMPI-2-RF items in the
MMPI-2 protocols. This ensured that exact percentages (e.g.,
exactly 20%) of items were selected for each case from the
MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF item pools, allowing direct comparisons
between the VRIN and VRIN-r results. The same procedure was
followed to simulate increasing acquiescence and counter-
acquiescence. For example, in the 20% acquiescent condition, 20%
of the items for each case were randomly selected and replaced
with true responses. In this example, 20% of the 567 MMPI-2
Results
Table 1 shows the mean nongendered T scores for the VRIN and
VRIN-r scales using the various simulated random response con-
ditions. Furthermore, the percentage of cases in each condition
with T scores ⱖ 80 is provided. As seen in Table 1, mean scores
for both VRIN and VRIN-r increased monotonically as greater
degrees of simulated random responding were introduced into
protocols. Mean scores for VRIN and VRIN-r were highly com-
parable in all conditions of simulated random responding. Further-
more, both scales identified a majority of these partially random
protocols after at least 50% of the responses were replaced with
random responses. The MMPI-2 VRIN scale produced a slightly
greater number of elevated cases in most conditions.
Similar analyses for TRIN and TRIN-r using simulated acqui-
escence are presented in Table 2. As seen in Table 2, mean T
scores again increased monotonically with increasing degrees of
randomly inserted true responses. Again, mean T scores were
generally comparable for TRIN and TRIN-r under the various
response insertion conditions. In contrast to the VRIN scales in the
assessment of simulated random responding, a much lower per-
centage (i.e., 30%) of true-response insertion was required for the
majority of cases to produce T scores ⱖ 80 for both TRIN and
TRIN-r.

Table 1
MMPI-2 VRIN and MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r Mean T-Scores and Percentage of Cases With
T-Scores ⱖ 80 for Varying Degrees of Random Response Insertion—Normative Sample
(n ⫽ 2,109)

VRIN VRIN-r
Random insertion Percentage ⱖ Percentage ⱖ
percentage M SD T-score of 80 M SD T-score of 80

0% 49.6 9.8 0.4 49.5 9.5 0.5

10% 57.6 10.3 2.5 57.1 10.6 2.5
20% 65.0 10.6 9.3 64.3 10.8 8.1
30% 71.5 11.2 24.7 70.4 11.9 21.0
40% 77.4 11.5 43.8 76.0 12.7 36.8
50% 82.0 11.6 58.7 81.5 12.8 53.7
60% 86.6 12.0 73.3 86.0 13.7 66.5
70% 89.8 12.4 80.2 90.0 13.6 77.0

Note. MMPI-2 ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; MMPI-2-RF ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; VRIN ⫽ Variable Response Inconsistency; VRIN-r ⫽ Variable
Response Inconsistency-Revised.
 VRIN-r AND TRIN-r SCALES 91

Table 2
MMPI-2 TRIN and MMPI-2-RF TRIN-r Mean T-Scores and Percentage of Cases With
T-Scores ⱖ 80 for Varying Degrees of True-Response Insertion—Normative Sample (n ⫽ 2,130)

TRIN TRIN-r
True-insertion Percentage ⱖ Percentage ⱖ
percentage M SD T-score of 80T M SD T-score of 80T

0% 50.2F 9.4 0.6 50.2F 9.3 0.8

10% 58.9T 11.4 6.5 59.5T 11.8 8.0
20% 67.7T 12.8 25.3 69.7T 13.2 29.4
30% 77.3T 14.1 52.4 79.9T 14.5 58.8
40% 87.6T 14.9 78.0 90.1T 15.0 82.3
50% 97.4T 14.4 93.1 101.1T 15.0 95.2
60% 108.3T 14.0 98.9 113.1T 14.7 99.3
70% 119.0T 13.2 99.8 125.5T 13.4 100.0
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Note. MMPI-2 ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; TRIN ⫽ True Response Inconsistency;
MMPI-2-RF ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; TRIN-r ⫽ True Response
Inconsistency-Revised; T ⫽ True; F ⫽ False.

Table 3 provides the results for simulated counter-acquiescence.
Here, we used a T score of ⱖ 79 to define an elevation for
nongendered TRIN, whereas we used a T score ⱖ 80 to define an
elevation for TRIN-r. The rationale for the slightly lower cutoff
score for TRIN is that a TRIN raw score of 5 corresponds to a T
score of 79F, whereas a raw score of 4 corresponds to a T score of
87F. Therefore, defining an elevated case as one with a T score ⱖ
80F for TRIN would result in a de facto cutoff score of 87F.
However, this phenomenon does not occur for TRIN-r for which a
raw score of 7 corresponds to a T score of 80F. As seen in Table
3, TRIN-r tended to produce greater mean scores than did TRIN,
and this discrepancy became more pronounced as increasing de-
grees of simulated counter-acquiescence were introduced into pro-
tocols. Furthermore, TRIN-r consistently produced a greater per-
centage of cases with T scores ⱖ 80.
Next, we evaluated the effects of introducing varying degrees of
simulated non-content-based responding on the RC scale scores.
This series of analyses bears on the issue of the conditions under
which interpretation of individual RC scores may become prob-
lematic due to score distortion owing to non-content-based re-
sponding. Table 4 provides the results of these analyses. In this
table, the percentage of randomly selected items is listed in the first
column, followed by a “T” for simulated acquiescent responding,
an “F” for simulated counter-acquiescent responding, or an “R” for
simulated random responding.
In the MMPI-2-RF normative sample, SEMs range from 3 T-score
points for RCd (demoralization) to 6 points for RC2 (low-positive
emotions), RC6 (ideas of persecution), and RC8 (aberrant experi-
ences) for men (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). For women, SEMs
also range from 3 T-score points (RCd) to 6 T-score points (RC2 and
RC6). We used these SEM values as benchmarks for substantive
deviations from mean scores under various conditions of simulated
non-content-based responding. When there was a difference in SEM
values between genders, we used the smaller of the two values. In
Table 4, superscripts are used to designate mean T scores that deviated
from the baseline mean RC scores (i.e., 0% response insertion) by at
least one, two, or three times the SEM for each scale (these values are
denoted by superscripts a, b, and c, respectively).
RC6 was the most sensitive scale to simulated random responding
followed closely by RC8. For RC6, the mean score deviated from the
baseline score by at least twice the SEM after only 20% simulated
random responding was introduced. Similarly, the mean RC8 score
deviated from baseline by at least twice the SEM after 30% simulated
random responding was introduced. RCd and RC1 were the next scales

Table 3
MMPI-2 TRIN and MMPI-2-RF TRIN-r Mean T-Scores and Percentage of Elevated Cases for
Varying Degrees of False-Response Insertion—Normative Sample (n ⫽ 2,130)

TRIN TRIN-r
False-insertion Percentage ⱖ Percentage ⱖ
percentage M SD T-score of 79F M SD T-score of 80F

0% 50.2F 9.4 0.5 50.2F 9.3 0.6

10% 56.4F 10.4 3.1 57.3F 10.8 4.0
20% 62.2F 11.3 11.1 64.7F 12.4 16.5
30% 68.9F 11.6 27.5 72.0F 12.6 36.0
40% 75.3F 11.6 49.5 80.5F 13.6 62.3
50% 81.9F 12.0 70.2 88.5F 13.5 81.1
60% 88.8F 11.5 87.5 96.7F 12.9 94.0
70% 95.5F 10.3 96.9 105.1F 12.2 99.1

Note. MMPI-2 ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2; TRIN ⫽ True Response Inconsistency;
MMPI-2-RF ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form; TRIN-r ⫽ True Response
Inconsistency-Revised; T ⫽ True; F ⫽ False.
 92 HANDEL, BEN-PORATH, TELLEGEN, AND ARCHER

Table 4
The Effects of Varying Degrees of Random, True-, and False-Response Insertion on Mean RC Scale T-Scores

Response RCd dem RC1 som RC2 lpe RC3 cyn RC4 asb RC6 per RC7 dne RC8 abx RC9 hpm
insertion
percentage M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD M SD

0% (R) 49.5 9.6 49.5 9.6 49.8 9.7 49.5 9.7 49.6 9.8 49.2 9.3 49.6 9.5 49.3 9.5 49.7 9.6
0% (T or F) 49.6 9.6 49.5 9.6 49.8 9.7 49.6 9.8 49.7 9.8 49.3 9.4 49.6 9.6 49.4 9.6 49.8 9.7
10% (R) 51.9 8.2 53.3 8.5 51.5 9.2 50.0 8.8 51.6 9.1 56.1 9.4a 51.0 8.7 53.0 8.8 50.1 9.0
10% (T) 54.1 7.8a 52.4 8.6 48.3 9.1 52.1 9.5 53.1 9.1 60.8 9.4a 53.7 8.8a 56.8 8.5a 52.8 9.4
10% (F) 49.2 8.9 53.8 8.3 54.8 9.4 47.8 8.4 50.3 9.0 49.8 9.2 48.2 8.7 49.0 9.1 47.6 8.6
20% (R) 53.6 7.3a 56.4 7.6a 53.3 8.9 50.3 8.0 53.6 8.5 61.4 9.2b 52.4 7.9 56.1 8.2a 50.4 8.1
20% (T) 57.3 6.8b 54.9 7.7a 46.7 8.4 54.6 9.4a 56.4 8.4a 69.0 9.4c 57.7 8.5b 62.2 7.8b 56.1 9.3a
20% (F) 48.9 8.3 57.6 7.4a 59.6 9.4a 46.4 7.5 50.7 8.4 50.4 8.8 46.8 8.0 49.0 8.6 45.5 7.7a
30% (R) 55.1 6.2 58.8 7.2 54.9 8.7 50.5 7.5 55.4 8.0a 65.6 8.8 53.5 7.3 59.4 7.6b 50.9 7.7
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

30% (T) 60.1 6.6c 57.1 6.9 45.3 7.9 57.0 9.2 59.6 8.0 76.5 9.2 61.4 8.4 67.5 7.9c 59.4 9.3b
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

30% (F) 48.7 7.4 61.0 6.4b 64.7 9.1b 45.0 6.8 51.1 7.7 50.9 8.5 45.5 7.4a 48.6 8.0 43.5 6.6
40% (R) 56.3 5.5b 61.5 6.6b 56.8 8.3a 51.0 6.8 57.3 7.5 69.7 8.6c 54.6 6.9a 61.8 7.2 51.3 7.1
40% (T) 62.9 6.1 59.1 6.2 43.8 7.2a 59.8 9.1b 62.8 7.2b 83.5 9.3 65.9 8.2c 72.8 7.5 62.9 9.0c
40% (F) 48.3 6.6 63.8 6.0 69.3 9.0c 43.5 5.8a 51.7 6.7 51.2 8.2 44.2 6.8 48.3 7.4 41.6 6.1b
50% (R) 57.4 5.1 63.8 6.5 58.5 8.2 51.4 6.5 59.1 7.2 73.4 8.8 55.8 6.5 64.3 7.4c 51.7 6.6
50% (T) 66.2 5.7 61.1 5.5b 42.2 6.5 63.2 9.0 66.0 6.9c 90.5 9.5 70.5 7.7 78.0 7.4 66.8 8.2
50% (F) 47.9 5.9 66.9 5.6c 74.5 8.2 42.2 5.4 52.2 6.0 52.0 7.7 42.7 6.1 48.1 6.8 39.8 5.5
60% (R) 58.5 4.7c 66.3 6.1c 60.1 7.9 51.7 6.1 60.9 6.9b 76.9 9.0 57.3 6.4 66.8 7.2 51.9 6.2
60% (T) 69.3 5.1 62.8 5.0 40.6 5.9 66.9 8.3c 68.9 6.4 97.5 8.9 75.1 6.8 82.5 6.9 71.0 7.5
60% (F) 47.6 5.1 69.8 5.0 79.5 7.6 40.8 4.9 52.6 5.2 52.4 7.2 41.2 5.5b 47.8 6.3 37.7 4.8c
70% (R) 59.9 4.4 68.5 6.1 62.0 8.0b 52.0 5.6 62.8 6.9 80.5 9.1 58.4 6.0b 68.9 7.0 52.5 5.9
70% (T) 72.8 4.6 64.8 4.3c 39.0 5.0 70.8 7.6 72.1 5.4 105.1 8.3 79.6 6.0 87.9 6.0 75.4 6.5
70% (F) 47.3 4.5 72.5 4.4 84.2 7.0 39.2 4.3b 53.0 4.4 53.4 6.2 39.5 4.9 47.4 5.3 35.7 4.4

Note. n ⫽ 2,109 for random response insertion and n ⫽ 2,130 for true- and false-response insertion. RC ⫽ Restructured Clinical scale; R ⫽ random; T ⫽
true; F ⫽ false; dem ⫽ Demoralization; som ⫽ Somatic Complaints; lpe ⫽ Low Positive Emotions; cyn ⫽ Cynicism; asb ⫽ Antisocial Behavior; per ⫽
Ideas of Persecution; dne ⫽ Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; abx ⫽ Aberrant Experiences; hpm ⫽ Hypomanic Activation.
a
The mean score deviates from the baseline mean score (i.e., 0% random, true-, or false-insertion) by one times the standard error of measurement for this
scale. b The mean score deviates from the baseline mean score by two times the standard error of measurement for this scale. c The mean score deviates
from the baseline mean score by three times the standard error of measurement for this scale. All standard errors of measurement are based on the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form normative sample as reported in Tellegen and Ben-Porath (2008). In cases in which there were
gender differences in standard-error-of-measurement values, the lower of the two values was used.

most susceptible to distortion from this response set, reaching twice the
SEM from baseline after 40% random response insertion.
For simulated acquiescence, RCd, RC6, RC7, and RC8 mean
scores all deviated by at least one SEM after 10% true-response
insertion and two times the SEM after 20% true-response insertion
(three times the SEM in the case of RC6). RC4 and RC9 mean
scores reached one SEM from the baseline after 20% true-response
insertion and at least twice the SEM after 30% true-response
insertion for RC9 and 40% true-response insertion for RC4.
RC1 and RC2 mean scores were most sensitive to simulated
counter-acquiescence deviating by at least one SEM after we
introduced 20% false responses and by two times the SEM after
we introduced 30% false responses. RC9 also deviated by at least
one times the SEM after we introduced 20% false responses but by
two times the SEM when we inserted 40% false responses. RC3
deviated by at least one times the SEM at 40% simulated counter-
acquiescence and by two times the SEM at 70% false-response
insertion.
Finally, we evaluated the effects of increasing degrees of non-
content-based responding on RC convergent and discriminant validity
coefficients. For these analyses (presented in Table 5), we only
evaluated RC scales that measure constructs with clear conceptual
counterparts in the BPRS (Overall & Gorham, 1988). We rationally
selected one representative convergent correlation and one represen-
tative discriminant correlation for each scale (i.e., RCd, RC1, RC2,
RC6, RC7, and RC8). The BPRS items used for these analyses are
indicated at the bottom of Table 5. Baseline correlations (i.e., 0%
response insertion) between the RC scales and the BPRS items were
originally published by Handel and Archer (2008). Some correlation
coefficients presented in Table 5 are slightly different from those
presented in Handel and Archer (2008) because the two studies did
not use the same protocol validity criteria.
As seen in Table 5, all RC validity coefficients were found to be
impervious to simulated random responding rates of less than 30%.
To evaluate the degradation in validity coefficients, we squared the
Pearson r values in Table 5 and subtracted these from their baseline
values. At the 30% level of simulated random responding, we noted
some degradation in validity coefficients, particularly for RC1 (ac-
counting for 4% less variance than at baseline), RC2 (5% less vari-
ance), and RC8 (5% less variance). When we inserted 70% random-
ness, the reduction in percentage of variance accounted for ranged
from 4% for RC7 to 11% for RC2. As seen in Table 5, and as
expected, simulated randomness had no large or systematic effect on
discriminant validity coefficients. We found similar results for simu-
lated acquiescent responding: The introduction of random acquies-
cence of less than 30% had minimal effect on validity coefficients. At
30%, validity coefficients for RC1 (5%) and RC6 (5%) were most
affected. At 70% simulated acquiescence, the degradation of validity
coefficients ranged from 3% for RC8 to 7% for RC2. Similar to the
findings for simulated random responding, the introduction of ran-
 VRIN-r AND TRIN-r SCALES 93

Table 5
The Effects of Varying Degrees of True-, False-, and Random Response Insertion on RC Scale Correlations With Variables From the
Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale

Response insertion
percentage RCda dem RC1b som RC2a lpe RC6c per RC7d dne RC8e abx

0% (R) .38/.08 .40/.09 .41/.06 .29/.02 .27/.03 .32/.00

0% (T or F) .38/.10 .40/.09 .40/.08 .30/.02 .27/.04 .32/.00
10% (R) .37/.08 .37/.09 .41/.06 .27/.03 .25/.01 .30/⫺.01
10% (T) .39/.10 .38/.09 .39/.07 .28/.01 .26/.04 .30/⫺.02
10% (F) .38/.10 .39/.07 .40/.09 .29/.01 .27/.03 .32/.01
20% (R) .37/.08 .37/.08 .41/.06 .30/.06 .26/.00 .29/⫺.02
20% (T) .37/.11 .36/.08 .39/.06 .24/.06 .25/.02 .29/⫺.01
20% (F) .38/.07 .36/.07 .38/.07 .29/.01 .28/.03 .33/.00
30% (R) .34/.07 .34/.06 .34/.07 .25/.01 .26/.02 .22/.00
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

30% (T) .38/.09 .33/.09 .38/.07 .21/.00 .26/.04 .28/⫺.03

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

30% (F) .34/.10 .36/.11 .35/.05 .31/.02 .25/.03 .30/.01

40% (R) .34/.08 .34/.08 .36/.04 .21/⫺.03 .27/.05 .25/.00
40% (T) .34/.08 .36/.07 .34/.07 .32/.03 .23/.03 .26/.04
40% (F) .34/.09 .37/.07 .35/.06 .30/.01 .24/.03 .26/⫺.02
50% (R) .33/.08 .34/.07 .36/.01 .20/⫺.03 .18/.01 .20/.04
50% (T) .33/.08 .36/.08 .26/.08 .19/.03 .24/.05 .26/.01
50% (F) .31/.12 .37/.12 .31/.06 .26/.02 .22/⫺.01 .28/.00
60% (R) .30/.09 .23/.11 .23/.07 .10/⫺.03 .19/.03 .18/.06
60% (T) .31/.07 .34/.02 .33/.05 .18/⫺.01 .22/⫺.02 .20/⫺.05
60% (F) .34/.13 .29/.09 .32/.03 .24/.03 .24/.00 .24/.00
70% (R) .23/.10 .28/.05 .24/.05 .12/.02 .19/.01 .20/.04
70% (T) .32/.03 .33/.07 .30/.08 .17/⫺.02 .19/⫺.01 .26/.03
70% (F) .31/.07 .31/.07 .25/.04 .21/.02 .19/.01 .22/⫺.02

Note. N ranges from 442 to 446 for random response insertion. N ranges from 459 to 463 for true- and false-response insertion. RC ⫽ Restructured
Clinical scale; R ⫽ random response insertion; T ⫽ true-response insertion; F ⫽ false-response insertion; dem ⫽ Demoralization; som ⫽ Somatic
Complaints; lpe ⫽ Low Positive Emotions; per ⫽ Ideas of Persecution; dne ⫽ Dysfunctional Negative Emotions; abx ⫽ Aberrant Experiences. In each
cell, the correlation coefficient to the left of the forward slash is the convergent correlation, and the correlation coefficient to the right of the forward slash
is the discriminant correlation.
For these analyses, convergent and discriminant correlations were assigned as follows (Convergent Correlation/Discriminant Correlation): a Depressive
Mood/Hallucinatory Behavior. b Somatic Concern/Suspiciousness. c Suspiciousness/Depressive Mood. d Anxiety/Uncooperativeness. e Hallucina-
tory Behavior/Guilt Feelings.

domly inserted true responses had little effect on discriminant validity
coefficients. We obtained similar results for simulated counter-
acquiescence. At the 30% level of simulated counter-acquiescence,
the difference in variance accounted for in comparison to baseline was
4% for RC2, 3% for RCd, and 3% for RC1. At 70% simulated
counter-acquiescence, the RC2 validity coefficient accounted for 10%
less variance than at baseline. The degradation of other validity
coefficients ranged from 4% for RC7 to 6% for RC1. Discriminant
validity coefficients showed little change (similar to the findings for
simulated randomness and acquiescence).
Discussion
In the present study, we evaluated the psychometric properties
of scores on the new MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008)
VRIN-r and TRIN-r scales under various conditions of simulated
inconsistent responding. We also explored the effects of varying
degrees and kinds of inconsistency on mean T scores from the RC
scales (Tellegen et al., 2003). Finally, we investigated the extent to
which RC validity coefficients are degraded when subjected to
increasing degrees of simulated inconsistent responding.
The results of the present study indicate that the MMPI-2 VRIN
and the MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r scales produce nearly identical mean
linear T scores when random responses are introduced into existing
protocols. The MMPI-2 VRIN scale produced a slightly greater num-
ber of elevated cases (i.e., T score ⱖ 80) in most conditions.
Similarly, the introduction of simulated acquiescent responding
into existing protocols results in comparable mean T scores for
TRIN and TRIN-r as well as similar percentages of elevated cases.
However, TRIN-r produced greater mean T scores than did TRIN
when counter-acquiescence was simulated, and this phenomenon
becomes more pronounced as greater degrees of false responses
are inserted into protocols. Not surprisingly, TRIN-r also is more
sensitive to counter-acquiescence than TRIN as evidenced by more
than a 10% difference in the number of elevated cases for the 40%
and 50% response insertion conditions.
The present study allows for several practical clinical inter-
pretive recommendations. Ben-Porath and Tellegen (2008) rec-
ommended that profiles with T scores ⱖ 70 on VRIN-r or on
TRIN-r be interpreted cautiously. Furthermore, T scores ⱖ 80
on either VRIN-r or TRIN-r are considered to invalidate a
profile. Because we used a subset of the MMPI-2-RF normative
sample in the present study, and therefore the mean T scores of
the RC scales are near 50 prior to non-content-based response
insertion, we were able to examine directly the effects of
simulated inconsistent responding on the mean T scores of each
of the individual scales. A mean VRIN-r T score of 70 occurs
 94 HANDEL, BEN-PORATH, TELLEGEN, AND ARCHER
after approximately 30% of MMPI-2-RF items have been mod-
ified to random responses. At this 30% level of quasi-
randomness, test users should be particularly cautious about
interpreting scores on RC1, RC6, and RC8, as these mean scale
scores deviated approximately 10 T-score points from baseline
for RC1 and RC8 and approximately 15 T-score points for RC6.
These changes are likely to alter clinical interpretation in many
cases. Whereas 30% random responding raises the RC1, RC6,
and RC8 T-score means approximately one standard deviation
above baseline, acquiescence has a particularly marked influ-
ence on RC6 and RC8. The mean TRIN-r T score reaches
approximately 70 after 20% of items have been randomly
selected and modified to “true” responses. At this relatively
modest level of simulated acquiescence, RC6 scores are dis-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
torted substantially, followed closely by scores on RC8. There-
fore, the results of the present study indicate that test users
should be particularly cautious when interpreting RC6 and RC8
for cases in which TRIN scores exceed 69 in the acquiescent
direction. After 30% false-response insertion, the mean TRIN-r
T score reaches approximately 70. Here, RC1 and RC2 scores
are most likely to be affected, and test users should be partic-
ularly cautious in interpreting scores from these two scales.
Overall, the results of this investigation support the interpretive
recommendations for VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores in the MMPI-
2-RF manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). By following these
recommendations, MMPI-2-RF users should be able to identify
protocols with excessive levels of non-content-based responsive-
ness. However, future studies need to be conducted to fully eval-
uate sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power, and nega-
tive predictive power with varying base rates of randomness,
acquiescence, and counter-acquiescence.
For the six RC scales with conceptually related BPRS items,
some degradation in validity coefficients occurs with increasing
simulated non-content-based responding. However, all RC validity
coefficients appear to be relatively robust to modest levels of
non-content-based responding. Nevertheless, our findings indicate
that at a T-score elevation of 70 on VRIN-r or on TRIN-r, T scores
on substantive scales (e.g., the RC scales) may be distorted sig-
nificantly as a result of non-content-based responding, which
would substantially affect their interpretation.
The present study is not without limitations. The degree to
which our simulation of non-content-based responding approx-
imates how actual test-takers may engage in content non-
responsiveness is unknown. In our procedure, each item was
given an equal probability of being selected for response mod-
ification. However, the content non-responsiveness of some test
takers may vary across different parts of the test booklet.
Furthermore, we were unable to evaluate the effects of non-
content-based responding on validity coefficients for RC3,
RC4, and RC9. Future studies need to address the effects of
content nonresponsiveness on these additional RC scales as
well as on additional scales included in the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-
Porath & Tellegen, 2008).
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual of mental disorders (3rd ed., revised). Washington, DC: Author.
Archer, R. P., Griffin, R., & Aiduk, R. (1995). MMPI-2 clinical correlates
for ten common codes. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 391– 407.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Forbey, J. D. (2003). Non-gendered norms for the
MMPI-2. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Mul-
tiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form): Manual for ad-
ministration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Berry, D. T. R., Wetter, M. W., Baer, R. A., Larsen, L., Clark, C., &
Monroe, K. (1992). MMPI-2 random responding indices: Validation
using a self-report methodology. Psychological Assessment, 4, 340 –345.
Berry, D. T. R., Wetter, M. W., Baer, R. A., Widiger, T. A., Sumpter, J. C.,
Reynolds, S. K., & Hallam, R. A. (1991). Detection of random respond-
ing on the MMPI–2: Utility of F, back F, and VRIN scales. Psycholog-
ical Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 3,
418 – 423.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B.
(1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual
for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom,
W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory-2): Manual for administration and scoring (rev. ed.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Clark, M. E., Gironda, R. J., & Young, R. W. (2003). Detection of back
random responding: Effectiveness of MMPI-2 and Personality Assessment
Inventory validity indices. Psychological Assessment, 15, 223–234.
Cramer, K. M. (1995). Comparing three new MMPI-2 randomness indices
in a novel procedure for random profile derivation. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 65, 514 –520.
Faustman, W. O., & Overall, J. E. (1999). Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale. In M.
Maruish (Ed.), The use of psychological testing for treatment planning and
outcome assessment (pp. 791– 830). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gallen, R. T., & Berry, D. T. R. (1996). Detection of random responding
in MMPI-2 protocols. Assessment, 3, 171–178.
Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (2008). An investigation of the psycho-
metric properties of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with
mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 239 –
249.
Handel, R. W., Arnau, R. C., Archer, R. P., & Dandy, K. L. (2006). An
evaluation of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A True Response Inconsistency
(TRIN) scales. Assessment, 13, 98 –106.
Handel, R. W., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., & Archer, R. P. (April,
2007). Psychometric functioning of the MMPI-2-RF VRIN-r and TRIN-r
scales with varying degrees of randomness, acquiescence, and nonac-
quiescence. Paper presented at the 42nd annual meeting on Recent
Developments in MMPI-2 and MMPI-A Research, Fort Lauderdale, FL.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Schedule. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hedlund, J. L., & Vieweg, B. W. (1980). The Brief Psychiatric Rating
Scale (BPRS): A comprehensive review. Journal of Operational Psy-
chiatry, 11, 48 – 62.
Overall, J. E., & Gorham, D. R. (1962). The brief psychiatric rating scale.
Psychological Reports, 10, 799 – 812.
Overall, J. E., & Gorham, D. R. (1988). Introduction—The Brief Psychi-
atric Rating Scale (BPRS): Recent developments in ascertainment and
scaling. Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 24, 97–98.
Paolo, A. M., & Ryan, J. J. (1992). Detection of random response sets on
the MMPI-2. Psychotherapy in Private Practice, 11, 1– 8.
Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Differential Personality Ques-
tionnaire. Unpublished manuscript.
Tellegen, A. (1988). The analysis of consistency in personality assessment.
Journal of Personality, 56, 621– 663.
Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Mul-
tiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form): Technical man-
ual. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham,
 VRIN-r AND TRIN-r SCALES 95

J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC)
Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN:
University of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test
construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Ques-
tionnaire. In G. J. Boyle, G. Matthews, and D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), The
sage handbook of personality theory and assessment: Vol. II, Person-
ality measurement and testing (Vol. 2, pp. 261–292). London: Sage.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
Wetter, M. W., Baer, R. A., Berry, D. T. R., Smith, G. T., & Larsen, L. H.
(1992). Sensitivity of MMPI-2 validity scales to random responding and
malingering. Psychological Assessment, 4, 369 –374.
Received March 3, 2009
Revision received June 1, 2009
Accepted June 2, 2009 䡲

E-Mail Notification of Your Latest Issue Online!

Would you like to know when the next issue of your favorite APA journal will be available
online? This service is now available to you. Sign up at http://notify.apa.org/ and you will be
notified by e-mail when issues of interest to you become available!

View publication stats