Margarita B Marshall

McGill University, Montréal, Quebec, Canada

Are you Margarita B Marshall?

Claim your profile

Publications (12)38.22 Total impact

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors examined the relationship between self-criticism, dependency, and treatment outcome for 102 participants who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association, 2000) criteria for major depressive disorder. The participants were randomly assigned to receive either cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), interpersonal therapy (IPT), or pharmacotherapy with clinical management (PHT-CM) and completed the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Blatt, D'Affilitti, & Quinlan, 1976), a measure of self-criticism and dependency, as part of a broader research protocol. Regression analyses indicated that among individuals in IPT, self-criticism predicted poorer treatment outcome based on depressive symptom severity measured using the 17-item Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (Hamilton, 1960, 1967). In addition, there were trends toward dependency predicting worse treatment response in CBT and self-criticism predicting better treatment response in PHT-CM.
    Journal of Clinical Psychology 04/2008; 64(3):231-44. · 2.12 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors propose a new common treatment factor, autonomous motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000), defined as the extent to which patients experience participation in treatment as a freely made choice emanating from themselves. Ninety-five depressed outpatients were randomly assigned to receive 16 sessions of manualized interpersonal therapy, cognitive-behavior therapy, or pharmacotherapy with clinical management. Self-report and interviewer-based measures of depressive severity were collected at pretreatment and posttreatment. Autonomous motivation, therapeutic alliance, and perceived therapist autonomy support were assessed at Session 3. Autonomous motivation was a stronger predictor of outcome than therapeutic alliance, predicting higher probability of achieving remission and lower posttreatment depression severity across all three treatments. Patients who perceived their therapists as more autonomy supportive reported higher autonomous motivation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
    Psychotherapy Research 02/2007; · 1.75 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Margarita B Marshall, R Michael Bagby
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The incremental validity and clinical utility of the recently developed Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Infrequency Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale (Fptsd) was examined in relation to the family of MMPI-2 F scales in distinguishing feigned post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from disability claimants with PTSD. Research participants instructed to feign PTSD when completing the MMPI-2 scored significantly higher on the MMPI-2 family of F scales and the Fptsd scale compared with their responses when completing the MMPI-2 under standard instructions and the sample of claimants with PTSD. Although comparable in magnitude, effect sizes derived from mean group differences and hierarchical logistic regressions for the Fptsd scale never exceeded those for F(B), and F(P), F, F(B), and F(P) added incrementally to Fptsd in the prediction of feigned PTSD. These results suggest that the Fptsd scale does not afford any incremental predictive utility for detecting feigned PTSD relative to the complement of the existing family of F scales.
    Assessment 01/2007; 13(4):417-29. · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • R Michael Bagby, Margarita B Marshall, Jason R Bacchiochi
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this study, we examined the validity and clinical utility of the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Graham, Tellegen, Dahlstrom, & Kaemmer, 2001) Malingering Depression scale (Md) in relation to the MMPI-2 F scales (F, F(B), F(P)) to detect feigned depression. Overall, the F(B) scale and the F/F(P) scale combination were the best single predictors, although the Md scale did discriminate successfully cases of feigned depression from patients with bona fide depression. The Md scale added predictive capacity over the F scales, and the F(B) scale and the F/F(P) scale combination added predictive capacity over the Md scale; however, the actual increase in the number of cases predicted was minimal in each instance. In sum, although the Md scale is able to detect accurately feigned depression on the MMPI-2 (predictive validity), it does not confer a distinct advantage (incremental validity) over the existing standard validity scales-F, F(B), and F(P).
    Journal of Personality Assessment 01/2006; 85(3):304-11. · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The goal of the present investigation is to compare the factor structure of the revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) in samples of respondents differentially motivated to respond in a socially desirable manner. In the French sample, the authors compared the NEO PI-R structure of job applicants (N=12,631) subgrouped by relative degree of socially desirable responding with that of a normative sample (N=801). In the Belgian sample, the authors compared the NEO PI-R structure in naturally occurring groups, including job applicants (N=3,028), individuals receiving career counseling (N=221), and a normative sample (N=549). Results indicate that the NEO PI-R factor structure remained stable across all samples.
    Psychological Assessment 10/2005; 17(3):379-84. · 2.99 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The personality disorder classification system (Axis II) in the various versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manuals of Mental Disorders (DSM) has been the target of repeated criticism, with conceptual analysis and empirical evidence documenting its flaws. In response, many have proposed alternative approaches for the assessment of personality psychopathology, including the application of the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM). Many remain sceptical, however, as to whether domain and facet traits from a model of general personality functioning can be successfully applied to clinical patients with personality disorders (PDs). In this study, with a sample of psychiatric patients (n = 115), personality disorder symptoms corresponding to each of the 10 PDs were successfully predicted by the facet and domain traits of the FFM, as measured by a semi-structured interview, the Structured Interview for the Five Factor Model (SIFFM; Trull & Widiger, 1997) and a self-report questionnaire, the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R; Costa and McCrae, 1992). These results provide support for the perspective that personality psychopathology can be captured by general personality dimensions. The FFM has the potential to provide a valid and scientifically sound framework from which to assess personality psychopathology, in a way that covers most of the domains conceptualized in DSM while transcending the limitations of the current categorical approach to these disorders. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    European Journal of Personality 05/2005; 19(4):307 - 324. · 2.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical and content scales from the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) were used to examine the capacity of these scales to assist in the differential diagnosis of a sample of 212 psychiatric patients-137 with major depression; 43 with schizophrenia; and 32 with bipolar disorder, depressed state. Consistent with the previous literature, the clinical scales Depression (D), and Schizophrenia (Sc), and the content scales Depression (DEP), and Low Self-Esteem (LSE) best distinguished major depression from schizophrenia; the content scale DEP proved to be the most powerful predictor in distinguishing bipolar depression from schizophrenia. No clinical or content scale proved to be effective in distinguishing patients with bipolar depression from patients with major depression. In general, the content scales outperformed the clinical scales.
    Journal of Personality Assessment 03/2005; 84(1):89-95. · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • R Michael Bagby, Margarita B Marshall, Stelios Georgiades
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III; APA, 1980) set forth a categorical system of personality psychopathology that is composed of discrete personality disorders (PDs), each with a distinct set of diagnostic criteria. Although this system is widely accepted and highly influential, alternative dimensional approaches to capturing personality psychopathology have been proposed. Three dimensional models of personality have garnered particular attention-the Five-Factor Model (FFM; Costa & McCrae, 1992), the Seven-Factor Psychobiological Model of Temperament and Character (Seven-Factor Model; Cloninger, Svrakic, & Przybeck, 1993); and the 18-factor model of personality pathology (18-factor model; Livesley, 1986). Although the personality traits from each of these models has been examined in relation to the ten personality disorders in the DSM-IV, no study has examined the comparative and incremental validity of these models in predicting PD symptoms for these ten disorders. Using self-report instruments that measure these models and the ten DSM-IV PDs, correlation and linear regression analyses indicate that traits from all three models had statistically significant associations with PD symptom counts. Hierarchical regressions revealed that the 18-factor model had incremental predictive validity over the FFM and Seven-Fac-tor Model in predicting symptom counts for all ten DSM-IV PDs. The FFM had incremental predictive validity over the Seven-Factor Model model for all ten disorders and the Seven-Factor was able to add incremental predictive validity over the 18-factor model for five of the ten PDs and for eight of the ten disorders relative to the FFM.
    Journal of Personality Disorders 02/2005; 19(1):53-67. · 2.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Depressive personality disorder (DPD) is listed in the DSM-IV as one of the "Disorders for Further Study." In this investigation we examined (1) the rates of comorbidity of DPD with the 10 personality disorders (PDs) in the main text of DSM-IV, and (2) the convergent and discriminant validity of DPD in its relation to the 30 facet traits of the Five-Factor Model of personality (FFM). One hundred and sixty-nine participants with psychiatric diagnoses were interviewed with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders Questionnaire (SCID-II) and completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R). A total of 26 (15%) of the participants met diagnostic criteria for at least one of the 10 main text PDs, and 15 (9%) met criteria for DPD. Of those who met criteria for DPD, 10 (59%) of the participants also met criteria for one or more of the 10 main text PDs. Regression analyses indicated a four-facet trait set derived from the NEO PI-R thought to be uniquely associated with DPD accounted for a significant amount of variance in DPD SCID-II PD scores and was significantly larger for DPD than it was for the 9 of the 10 main text PDs; the sole exception was for avoidant PD. Diagnostically, DPD overlaps significantly with other PDs but is distinguishable in its unique relation with traits from the FFM.
    Journal of Personality Disorders 01/2005; 18(6):542-54. · 2.31 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale has been the gold standard for the assessment of depression for more than 40 years. Criticism of the instrument has been increasing. The authors review studies published since the last major review of this instrument in 1979 that explicitly examine the psychometric properties of the Hamilton depression scale. The authors' goal is to determine whether continued use of the Hamilton depression scale as a measure of treatment outcome is justified. MEDLINE was searched for studies published since 1979 that examine psychometric properties of the Hamilton depression scale. Seventy studies were identified and selected, and then grouped into three categories on the basis of the major psychometric properties examined-reliability, item-response characteristics, and validity. The Hamilton depression scale's internal reliability is adequate, but many scale items are poor contributors to the measurement of depression severity; others have poor interrater and retest reliability. For many items, the format for response options is not optimal. Content validity is poor; convergent validity and discriminant validity are adequate. The factor structure of the Hamilton depression scale is multidimensional but with poor replication across samples. Evidence suggests that the Hamilton depression scale is psychometrically and conceptually flawed. The breadth and severity of the problems militate against efforts to revise the current instrument. After more than 40 years, it is time to embrace a new gold standard for assessment of depression.
    American Journal of Psychiatry 01/2005; 161(12):2163-77. · 14.72 Impact Factor
  • Source
    R Michael Bagby, Margarita B Marshall
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The authors assess the replicability of the two-factor model of underreporting response style. They then examine the relative performance of scales measuring these styles in analog (ARD) and differential prevalence group (DPG) designs. Principal components analysis produced a two-factor structure corresponding to self-deceptive (SD) and impression management (IM) response styles. The IM factor scale and related individual validity scales were elevated among research participants instructed to fake good on the MMPI-2 as compared with participants who completed the MMPI-2 under standard instructions (ARD) and among individuals evaluated in real-life assessment contexts where underreporting is expected (DPG). Participants in DPG samples produced significantly higher SD factor and related individual scale scores than did the ARD participants instructed to fake good. These findings confirm that the MMPI-2 validity scales measure two types of underreporting styles and that these styles may operate differently in ARD versus DPG designs.
    Assessment 07/2004; 11(2):115-26. · 2.01 Impact Factor
  • Source
    R Michael Bagby, Margarita B Marshall
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Participants (n = 22) completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO PI-R) as part of an authentic job application. Protocols produced by this group were compared with "analog" participants (n = 23) who completed the NEO PI-R under standard instructions and again under instructions designed to mimic the test-taking scenario of the job applicants (the "fake-good" condition). Participants completing the NEO PI-R under fake-good instructions and the job applicants scored lower on the Neuroticism and higher on the Extraversion scales than did the participants responding under standard instructions. Analog participants in the fake-good condition scored higher on the Extraversion and lower on the Agreeableness scales than did the job applicants. These results suggest that outcomes from analog designs are generalizable to real-world samples where response dissimulation is probable.
    Psychological Assessment 10/2003; 15(3):333-9. · 2.99 Impact Factor