Self-report personality inventories may be useful in directing perpetrators of intimate partner violence (IPV) to appropriate intervention programs. They may also have predictive capabilities in assessing the likelihood of desistance or persistence of IPV. However, validity problems are inherent in self-report clinical tools, particularly in forensic settings. Scores of the modifying indices (subsections of the scale designed to detect biases in responding) of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) often are not reported in research. This study analyses the response sets of a sample of 492 IPV perpetrators at intake to a Danish perpetrator program. Profiles were grouped into levels of severity, and the proportion of exaggerated or minimized profiles at each severity level was analyzed. Findings suggested that 30% of the present sample were severely disturbed or exaggerating their symptoms. As expected, there were significant levels of exaggerated profiles present in the severe pathology group and significant levels of minimized profiles in the low pathology group. Self-referred participants were more likely to exaggerate their pathology, but minimization was not associated with referral status. Nor was there an association between gender and the modifying indices. It is suggested that so-called “fake good” or “fake bad” profiles should not necessarily be treated as invalid, but that elevations in the modifying indices can be interpreted as clinically and forensically relevant information in their own right and should be reported on in research.

自我报告的人格清单可能有助于将亲密伴侣暴力 (IPV) 的肇事者引导至适当的干预计划。他们还可能具有预测能力来评估 IPV 停止或持续存在的可能性。然而，有效性问题是自我报告临床工具所固有的，特别是在法医环境中。Millon Clinical Multiaxis Inventory-III (MCMI-III) 的修正指数（旨在检测响应偏差的量表的子部分）的分数通常不会在研究中报告。本研究分析了 492 名 IPV 犯罪者样本在丹麦犯罪者计划中的反应集。配置文件被分组为严重程度，并分析了每个严重程度的夸大或最小化配置文件的比例。调查结果表明，目前样本中有 30% 受到严重干扰或夸大其症状。正如预期的那样，在严重病理组中存在显着水平的夸张轮廓，在低病理组中存在显着水平的最小化轮廓。自我推荐的参与者更有可能夸大他们的病理，但最小化与转诊状态无关。性别与修正指数之间也没有关联。建议所谓的“假好”或“假坏”配置文件不一定被视为无效，但修改指数的升高本身可以解释为临床和法医学相关信息，并应报告在研究中。在严重病理组中存在显着水平的夸张轮廓，在低病理组中存在显着水平的最小化轮廓。自我推荐的参与者更有可能夸大他们的病理，但最小化与转诊状态无关。性别与修正指数之间也没有关联。建议所谓的“假好”或“假坏”配置文件不一定被视为无效，但修改指数的升高本身可以解释为临床和法医学相关信息，并应报告在研究中。在严重病理组中存在显着水平的夸张轮廓，在低病理组中存在显着水平的最小化轮廓。自我推荐的参与者更有可能夸大他们的病理，但最小化与转诊状态无关。性别与修正指数之间也没有关联。建议所谓的“假好”或“假坏”配置文件不一定被视为无效，但修改指数的升高本身可以解释为临床和法医学相关信息，并应报告在研究中。自我推荐的参与者更有可能夸大他们的病理，但最小化与转诊状态无关。性别与修正指数之间也没有关联。建议所谓的“假好”或“假坏”配置文件不一定被视为无效，但修改指数的升高本身可以解释为临床和法医学相关信息，并应报告在研究中。自我推荐的参与者更有可能夸大他们的病理，但最小化与转诊状态无关。性别与修正指数之间也没有关联。建议所谓的“假好”或“假坏”配置文件不一定被视为无效，但修改指数的升高本身可以解释为临床和法医学相关信息，并应报告在研究中。