93 at the reliability analysis of M-FAST (Table 2).
The absence of a difference of M-FAST Turkish Form test-retest was shown by Wilcoxon test (n=22, measurement mean score=7.
M-FAST scores of the malingering ([+ or -]) groups is anticipated to be different, in order to test if the M-FAST score is also a valid criterion for malingering in Turkey Malingering ([+ or -]) groups were compared in this respect and nonparametric test was used due to the absence of a normal distribution of M-FAST scores in the malingering (-) group.
The AUC (area under curve) values of ROC analysis were determined, in order to detect the validity of differentiating of M-FAST and some subscales (AUC for total M-FAST=.
This cut-off value is preferred, as by the original Miller article of the M-FAST scale, where to detect true positives rather than true negatives were taken into consideration.
A moderately significant association between the quantitative scores of M-FAST and MMPI validity scales (F F-K) was detected with Spearman test (M-FAST vs MMPI F: [r.
The importance of this study is to be the first one investigating the reliability and validity of a scale used to detect malingering in Turkey M-FAST scale has been translated to Turkish and M-FAST Turkish Form validity and reliability procedure has been done with this study
M-FAST has a considerably high reliability coefficient as a whole.
001 with test-retest that done in l-3 weeks interval in the developmental study of M-FAST Scale (14).
In the present study, one researcher explicated the diagnosis of malingering, while another researcher, blinded in terms of the clinical features and forensic admission types of the evaluees, applied M-FAST In this way, a single blind study design was planned and the diagnosis of the clinician was considered as the gold standard.
Miller found the area under the curve for M-FAST as .
The M-FAST scores of seven participants were high, although they were not diagnosed to be malingering (the mean M-FAST score of the false positive participants=10.