Use of the Parents Preference Test in Child Custody Evaluations: Preliminary Development of Conforming Parenting Index

Franco Burla, Cristina Mazza, Chiara Cosmo, Benedetta Barchielli, Daniela Marchetti, Maria Cristina Verrocchio, Paolo Roma

Abstract


The Parents Preference Test (PPT) is a graphical test comprised of 24 easy to understand images of daily family life, which is widely used in forensic assessments of parenting skills. Nevertheless, the PPT lacks validity scales to detect participants’ attitudes toward the test; this is an important oversight, as the tendency to demonstrate faking-good parenting behaviors is common in child custody litigants. Study 1 aimed at identifying the differences in PPT responses between a normative/control group (N = 110) and a sample of parents undergoing a psychological evaluation of parenting ability (N = 99). Chi-square goodness of fit tests showed significant differences in answer preferences between groups in 11 vignettes (almost half of the total PPT items). Study 2 aimed at developing an index to detect faking-good behaviors. On the 11 vignettes in which significant differences in answer preferences were found in Study 1, the alternatives chosen with the highest frequency by the forensic group were added to an index called the “Conforming Parenting Index” (CPI). The area under the curve (AUC) of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for a sample of 58 participants who completed the PPT under both standard and faking-good instructions demonstrated good classification accuracy (AUC= .813).


Keywords


PPT; Parenting skills assessment; Faking-good; Forensic evaluation; Accuracy.

Full Text:

PDF

References


Aceti, F., Baglioni, V., Ciolli, P., De Bei, F., Di Lorenzo, F., Ferracuti, S., … Williams, R. (2012). Maternal attachment patterns and personality in post partum depression [Modelli di attaccamento e personalità nella depressione post partum]. Rivista di Psichiatria, 47(3), 214–220.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Guidelines for child-custody evaluations in family law proceedings. American Psychologist, 65(9), 863–867.

American Psychological Association. (2013). Specialty guidelines for forensic psychology. American Psychologist, 68(1), 7.

Archer, E. M., Hagan, L. D., Mason, J., Handel, R., & Archer, R. P. (2012). MMPI-2-RF characteristics of custody evaluation litigants. Assessment, 19(1), 14–20.

Baer, R. A., & Miller, J. (2002). Underreporting of psychopathology on the MMPI-2: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 14, 16–26.

Bagby, R. M., Nicholson, R. A., Buis, T., Radovanovic, H., & Fidler, B. J. (1999). Defensive responding on the MMPI-2 in family custody and access evaluations. Psychological Assessment, 11(1), 24–28.

Baiocco, R., Westh, F., Laghi, F., Hansen, C. R., Ferrer, C. A., & D’Alessio, M. (2008). Psychometric properties and construct validity of the Parents Preference Test (PPT™) in the Italian context. International Journal of Psychology, 43(3–4), 442.

Baker, A. J. L., & Verrocchio, M. C. (2015). Parental bonding and parental alienation as correlates of psychological maltreatment in adults in intact and non-intact families. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(10), 3047-3057.

Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9(3), 205–211.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) scales in mental health, forensic and nonclinical settings: An introduction. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 119–121.

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation, revised edition. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Camisasca, E., Miragoli, S., & Di Blasio, P. (2019). Children’s triangulation during inter-parental conflict: Which role for maternal and paternal parenting stress? Journal of Child and Family Studies, 28(6), 1623-1634.

Carr, G. D., Moretti, M. M., & Cue, B. J. H. (2005). Evaluating parenting capacity: Validity problems with the MMPI-2, PAI, CAPI, and ratings of child adjustment. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 36(2), 188–196.

Crighton, A. H., Marek, R. J., Dragon, W. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2017). Utility of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales in detection of simulated underreporting: Implications of incorporating a manipulation check. Assessment, 24(7), 853–864.

Department of Health. (2000). Framework for the assessment of children in need and their families. London: The Stationery Office.

Exner, J. E., Jr. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system. Vol. 1 (4th ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Ferrer, C. A. (2006). PPTs placering i psykologisk teori [The position of the PPT within psychological theory]. In F. Westh (Ed.), I dialog med familien [In dialogue with the family]. Copenhagen: Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.

Giacchetti, N., Roma, P., Pancheri, C., Williams, R., Meuti, V., Aceti, F. (2019). Personality traits in a sample of Italian filicide mothers. Rivista di Psichiatria, 54(2), 67-74.

Hartmann, P. V., Westh, F., Stewart-Ferrer, C. A., & Prieler, J. (2011). The psychometric properties of the Parents Preference Test (PPT) revisited. Nordic Psychology. London: HMSO.

Herbers, J. E., Garcia, E. B., & Obradović, J. (2017). Parenting assessed by observation versus parent-report: Moderation by parent distress and family socioeconomic status. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 26(12), 3339–3350.


Kauffman, C. M., Stolberg, R., & Madero, J. (2015). An examination of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) with the MMPI-2 and MCMI-III of child custody litigants. Journal of Child Custody, 12(2), 129–151.

Main, M., Kaplan, N., & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Growing points in attachment theory and research. Monographs of the society for research in child development (Vol. 50, pp. 66–106).

Mazza, C., Burla, F., Verrocchio, M.C., Di Domenico, A., Ferracuti, S., Roma, P. (2019a). MMPI-2-RF Profiles in Child Custody Litigants, Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 725.

Mazza, C., Monaro, M., Orrù, G., Colasanti, M., Ferracuti, S., Burla, F., & Roma, P. (2019b). Introducing machine learning to detect personality good-fakers: a new model based on MMPI-2-RF scales and reaction times, Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 389.

Millon, T. (1969). Modern psychopathology. A biosocial approach to maladaptive learning and functioning. Philadelphia, PA: W.B. Saunders.

Millon, T. (1990). Toward a new personology: An evolutionary model. New York, NY: Wiley.

Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1996). An evolutionary theory of personality disorders. In J. F. Clarkin & M. F. Lenzenweger (Eds.), Major theories of personality disorder (pp. 221–346). New York, NY & London: Guilford Press.

Millon, T., Davis, R. D., Millon, C. M., Wenger, A., Van Zuilen, M. H., Fuchs, M., & Millon, R. B. (1996). Disorders of personality: DSM-IV and beyond (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

Monaro, M., Gamberini, L., & Sartori, G. (2017). The detection of faked identity using unexpected questions and mouse dynamics. PLOS ONE, 12(5), e0177851.

Murray, H. A. (1943). Manual for the thematic apperception test. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Ortega, C., & Berger, S. (2016). Qualitative analysis of current child custody evaluation practices. International Journal of Social, Behavioral, Educational, Economic, Business and Industrial Engineering, 10(6), 2126–2137.

Paulhus, D. L. (1984). Two-component models of socially desirable responding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 598–609.

Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. I. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 49–69). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Resendes, J., & Lecci, L. (2012). Comparing the MMPI-2 scale scores of parents involved in parental competency and child custody assessments. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1054.

Roma, P., Giromini, L., Burla, F., Ferracuti, S., Viglione, D. J., & Mazza, C. (in press). Ecological Validity of the Inventory of Problems-29 (IOP-29): An Italian Study of Court-Ordered, Psychological Injury Evaluations Using the Structured Inventory of Malingered Symptomatology (SIMS) as Criterion Variable. Psychological Injury and Law.


Roma, P., Mazza, C., Ferracuti, G., Cinti, M.E., Ferracuti, S., & Burla, F. (2019a). Drinking and driving relapse: Data from BAC and MMPI-2. PLOS ONE, 14(1): e0209116.

Roma, P., Mazza, C., Mammarella, S., Mantovani, B., Mandarelli, G., & Ferracuti, S. (2019b). Faking-good behavior in self-favorable scales of the MMPI-2, a study with time pressure. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.


Roma, P., Pazzelli, F., Pompili, M., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S. (2013). Shibari: Double hanging during consensual sexual asphyxia. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42(5), 895–900.

Roma, P., Piccinni, E., Ferracuti, S. (2016). Using MMPI-2 in forensic assessment. Rassegna Italiana di Criminologia, 10(2), 116–122.

Roma, P., Ricci, F., Kotzalidis, G. D., Abbate, L., Lubrano, A., Versace, G., Pazzelli, F., Malagoli, M., Girardi, P., & Ferracuti, S. (2014). MMPI-2 in child custody litigation: A comparison between genders. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 30, 110-116.

Roma, P., Verrocchio, M.C., Mazza, C., Marchetti, D., Burla, F., Cinti, M.E., & Ferracuti, S. (2018). Could Time Detect a Faking-Good Attitude? A Study With the MMPI-2-RF. Frontiers in Psychology, 9:1064.

Sellbom, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). Validity of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form) L-r and K-r scales in detecting underreporting in clinical and nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 20(4), 370–376.

Sessa, F. M., Avenevoli, S., Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Correspondence among informants on parenting: Preschool children, mothers, and observers. Journal of Family Psychology, 15(1), 53.

Settineri, S., Merlo, E. M., Fabio, F., Marchetti, D., Verrocchio, M. C., Pellegrino, M. G., . . . Fenga, C. (2018). The experience of health and suffering in the medical profession. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology, 6(2).

Swets, J. A. (1988). Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 240(4857), 1285–1293.

Van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1995). Adult attachment representations, parental responsiveness, and infant attachment: A meta-analysis on the predictive validity of the Adult Attachment Interview. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 387.

Verrocchio, M. C., Cortini, M., & Marchetti, D. (2012). Assessing child sexual abuse allegations: An exploratory study on psychological reports. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches, 6(2), 175-186.

Verrocchio, M. C., Marchetti, D., & Fulcheri, M. (2015). Perceived parental functioning, self-esteem, and psychological distress in adults whose parents are separated/divorced. Frontiers in Psychology, 6,1760.

Verrocchio, M.C., Marchetti, D., Roma, P., & Ferracuti, S. (2018) Relational and psychological features of high-conflict couples who engage in parental alienation, Ricerche di Psicologia, 41 (4), 679-692.

Westh, F. (2003a). Parents Preference Test. Copenhagen: Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.

Westh, F. (2003b). Parents Preference Test – Manual. Copenhagen: Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.

Westh, F. (Ed.) (2006). I dialog med familien [In Dialogue with the Family]. Copenhagen: Hogrefe Psykologisk Forlag.

Youden, W. J. (1950). Index for rating diagnostic tests. Cancer, 3(1), 32-35.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.6092/2282-1619/2019.7.2213

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.