4.3 Article

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form in National Guard Soldiers Screening Positive for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder and Mild Traumatic Brain Injury

Journal

PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT
Volume 23, Issue 1, Pages 203-214

Publisher

AMER PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1037/a0021339

Keywords

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form; blast injury; mild traumatic brain injury; posttraumatic stress disorder; assessment

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2 RF) was administered to 251 National Guard soldiers who had recently returned from deployment to Iraq. Soldiers were also administered questionnaires to identify posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI). On the basis of responses to the screening instruments, the National Guard soldiers who produced a valid MMPI-2 RF were classified into four groups: 21 soldiers who screened positive for PTSD only, 33 soldiers who screened positive for mTBI only, 9 soldiers who screened positive for both conditions, and 166 soldiers who did not screen positive for either condition. Results showed that the MMPI-2 RF was able to differentiate across the groups with the MMPI-2 RF specific problem scale Anxiety adding incrementally to MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales in predicting PTSD. Both MMPI-2 RC 1 (Somatic Complaints) and MMPI-2 RF head pain complaints predicted mTBI screen but did not add incrementally to each other. Of note, all of the MMPI-2 RF validity scales associated with overreporting, including Symptom Validity-Revised (FBS-r), were not significantly elevated in the mTBI group. These findings support the use of the MMPI-2 RF in assessing PTSD in non-treatment-seeking veterans. This further suggests that a positive screen for mTBI alone is not associated with significant emotional disturbance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available