Mmpi Self-inventory Tests Were Originally Used to Diagnose Disorders

Standardized psychometric measure out of psychopathology and personality

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
ICD-9-CM 94.02
MeSH D008950

The
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) is a standardized psychometric examination of adult personality and psychopathology.[1]
Psychologists and other mental health professionals apply various versions of the MMPI to help develop treatment plans, assist with differential diagnosis, assistance respond legal questions (forensic psychology), screen job candidates during the personnel selection process, or as role of a therapeutic assessment procedure.[2]

The original MMPI was developed by Starke R. Hathaway and J. C. McKinley, faculty of the University of Minnesota, and commencement published by the University of Minnesota Press in 1943.[3]
It was replaced by an updated version, the MMPI-ii, in 1989 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, and Kaemmer).[4]
A version for adolescents, the MMPI-A, was published in 1992. An alternative version of the test, the MMPI-2 Restructured Course (MMPI-two-RF), published in 2008, retains some aspects of the traditional MMPI assessment strategy, but adopts a different theoretical approach to personality test development.

History

[edit]

The original authors of the MMPI were American psychologist Starke R. Hathaway and American neurologist J. C. McKinley. The MMPI is copyrighted by the University of Minnesota.

The MMPI was designed every bit an adult measure out of psychopathology and personality structure in 1939. Many additions and changes to the measure have been made over time to improve interpretability of the original clinical scales. Additionally, in that location have been changes in the number of items in the measure, and other adjustments which reverberate its current use as a tool towards modern psychopathy and personality disorders.[5]
The almost historically significant developmental changes include:

  • In 1989, the MMPI became the MMPI-2 as a upshot of a restandardization projection to develop a new set of normative information representing current population characteristics; the restandardization increased the size of the normative database to include a wide range of clinical and not-clinical samples; psychometric characteristics of the clinical scales were non addressed at that fourth dimension.[half dozen]
  • In 2003, the Restructured Clinical scales were added to the published MMPI-2, representing a reconstruction of the original clinical scales designed to address known psychometric flaws in the original clinical scales that unnecessarily complicated their interpretability and validity, simply could not exist addressed at the same time every bit the restandardization process.[7]
    Specifically, Demoralization – a non-specific distress component thought to impair the discriminant validity of many self-report measures of psychopathology – was identified and removed from the original clinical scales. Restructuring the clinical scales was the initial step toward addressing the remaining psychometric and theoretical problems of the MMPI-2.
  • In 2008, the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Grade) was published to psychometrically and theoretically fine-tuned the measure.[8]
    The MMPI-2-RF contains 338 items, contains 9 validity and 42 homogeneous substantive scales, and allows for a straightforward interpretation strategy. The MMPI-ii-RF was synthetic using a like rationale used to create the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales. The residuum of the measure was developed utilizing statistical analysis techniques that produced the RC scales as well as a hierarchical set of scales like to contemporary models of psychopathology to inform the overall measure reorganization. The entire measure out reconstruction was accomplished using the original 567 items contained in the MMPI-2 item pool.[nine]
    The MMPI-2 Restandardization norms were used to validate the MMPI-2-RF; over 53,000 correlations based on more 600 reference criteria are bachelor in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual for the purpose of comparison the validity and reliability of MMPI-2-RF scales with those of the MMPI-2.[8]
    [10]
    Across multiple studies and as supported in the technical transmission, the MMPI-2-RF performs as skillful equally or, in many cases, ameliorate than the MMPI-two.

The MMPI-2-RF is a streamlined measure. Retaining just 338 of the original 567 items, its hierarchical scale construction provides non-redundant information across 51 scales that are easily interpretable. Validity scales were retained (revised), 2 new validity scales have been added (Fs in 2008 and RBS in 2011), and there are new scales that capture somatic complaints. All of the MMPI-2-RF’s scales demonstrate either increased or equivalent construct and criterion validity compared to their MMPI-2 counterparts.[8]
[10]
[xi]

Electric current versions of the exam (MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF) can be completed on optical browse forms or administered straight to individuals on the reckoner. The MMPI-2 can generate a Score Study or an Extended Score Study, which includes the Restructured Clinical scales from which the Restructured Class was later developed.[7]
The MMPI-2 Extended Score Report includes scores on the original clinical scales also as Content, Supplementary, and other subscales of potential interest to clinicians. Additionally, the MMPI-2-RF calculator scoring offers an option for the administrator to select a specific reference grouping with which to contrast and compare an individual’s obtained scores; comparison groups include clinical, non-clinical, medical, forensic, and pre-employment settings, to name a few. The newest version of the Pearson Q-Local computer scoring programme offers the option of converting MMPI-2 information into MMPI-2-RF reports also as numerous other new features. Use of the MMPI is tightly controlled. Any clinician using the MMPI is required to meet specific test publisher requirements in terms of training and feel, must pay for all assistants materials including the almanac calculator scoring license and is charged for each report generated by computer.

In 2018, the University of Minnesota Press commissioned development of the MMPI-3, which volition be based in office on the MMPI-two-RF and include updated normative data. The MMPI-3 projected publication date is Autumn 2020.[12]
[thirteen]

MMPI

[edit]

The original MMPI was developed on a scale-by-scale footing in the late 1930s and early 1940s.[14]
Hathaway and McKinley used an empirical [criterion] keying approach, with clinical scales derived by selecting items that were endorsed past patients known to accept been diagnosed with certain pathologies.[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
The difference between this arroyo and other examination development strategies used around that time was that it was in many ways atheoretical (non based on any particular theory) and thus the initial test was non aligned with the prevailing psychodynamic theories. Theory in some ways affected the development process, if only because the candidate test items and patient groups on which scales were developed were affected by prevailing personality and psychopathological theories of the time.[twenty]
The arroyo to MMPI evolution ostensibly enabled the test to capture aspects of homo psychopathology that were recognizable and meaningful, despite changes in clinical theories. However, the MMPI had flaws of validity that were shortly credible and could not be overlooked indefinitely. The control grouping for its original testing consisted of a small number of individuals, more often than not young, white, and married men and women from rural areas of the Midwest. (The racial makeup of the respondents reflected the ethnic makeup of that fourth dimension and place.) The MMPI likewise faced problems equally to its terminology and its irrelevance to the population that the test was intended to measure out. It became necessary for the MMPI to measure out a more diverse number of potential mental health bug, such as “suicidal tendencies, drug abuse, and treatment-related behaviors.”[21]

MMPI-2

[edit]

The first major revision of the MMPI was the MMPI-two, which was standardized on a new national sample of adults in the United States and released in 1989.[6]
The new standardization was based on 2,600 individuals from a more representative background than the MMPI.[22]
Information technology is appropriate for utilize with adults 18 and over. Subsequent revisions of certain test elements have been published, and a wide variety of sub scales were introduced over many years to assist clinicians interpret the results of the original ten clinical scales. The current MMPI-2 has 567 items, and normally takes betwixt i and two hours to complete depending on reading level. It is designed to crave a sixth-grade reading level.[22]
At that place is an infrequently used abbreviated form of the test that consists of the MMPI-2’southward first 370 items.[23]
The shorter version has been mainly used in circumstances that take not allowed the full version to be completed (e.g., illness or time pressure), but the scores available on the shorter version are not as extensive as those available in the 567-item version. The original class of the MMPI-two is the third virtually often utilized test in the field of psychology, behind the most used IQ and accomplishment tests.

MMPI-A

[edit]

A version of the test designed for adolescents ages 14 to eighteen, the MMPI-A, was released in 1992. The youth version was developed to ameliorate measurement of personality, behavior difficulties, and psychopathology among adolescents. Information technology addressed limitations of using the original MMPI among boyish populations.[24]
Twelve- to thirteen-year-former children were assessed and could non adequately understand the question content and so the MMPI-A is non meant for children younger than fourteen. Children who are 18 and no longer in high school may appropriately be tested with the MMPI-2.[25]

Some concerns related to use of the MMPI with youth included inadequate particular content, lack of appropriate norms, and problems with farthermost reporting. For example, many items were written from an developed perspective, and did non cover content critical to adolescents (e.thousand., peers, schoolhouse). Likewise, adolescent norms were not published until the 1970s, and at that place was not consensus on whether developed or adolescent norms should be used when the instrument was administered to youth. Finally, the use of developed norms tended to overpathologize adolescents, who demonstrated elevations on most original MMPI scales (e.k., T scores greater than seventy on the F validity scale; marked elevations on clinical scales 8 and 9). Therefore, an adolescent version was adult and tested during the restandardization process of the MMPI, which resulted in the MMPI-A.[24]

The MMPI-A has 478 items. It includes the original 10 clinical scales (Hs, D, Hy, Pd, Mf, Pa, Pt, Sc, Ma, Si), six validity scales (?, L, F, F1, F2, Thousand, VRIN, TRIN), 31 Harris Lingoes subscales, 15 content component scales (A-anx, A-obs, A-dep, A-hea, A-ain, A-biz, A-ang, A-cyn, A-con, A-lse, A-las, A-sod, A-fam, A-sch, A-trt), the Personality Psychopathology V (PSY-5) scales (AGGR, PSYC, DISC, NEGE, INTR), three social introversion subscales (Shyness/Self-Consciousness, Social Avoidance, Alienation), and 6 supplementary scales (A, R, MAC-R, ACK, PRO, IMM). At that place is also a short form of 350 items, which covers the basic scales (validity and clinical scales). The validity, clinical, content, and supplementary scales of the MMPI-A have demonstrated adequate to potent test-retest reliability, internal consistency, and validity.[24]

A 4 factor model (similar to all of the MMPI instruments) was chosen for the MMPI-A and included

  1. Full general Maladjustment,
  2. Over-control (repression) (L, K, Ma),
  3. Si (Social Introversion),
  4. MF (Masculine/Feminine).[25]

The MMPI-A normative and clinical samples included 805 males and 815 females, ages fourteen to xviii, recruited from eight schools beyond the United States and 420 males and 293 females ages xiv to 18 recruited from treatment facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota, respectively. Norms were prepared by standardizing raw scores using a compatible t-score transformation, which was developed by Auke Tellegen and adopted for the MMPI-2. This technique preserves the positive skew of scores but also allows percentile comparing.[24]

Strengths of the MMPI-A include the use of boyish norms, advisable and relevant item content, inclusion of a shortened version, a articulate and comprehensive transmission,[26]
and strong show of validity.[27]
[28]

Critiques of the MMPI-A include a non-representative clinical norms sample, overlap in what the clinical scales measure, irrelevance of the mf calibration,[26]
equally well every bit long length and high reading level of the instrument.[28]

The MMPI-A is one of the most commonly used instruments amid adolescent populations.[28]

A restructured form of the MMPI-A, the MMPI-A-RF was published in 2016.

MMPI-2-RF

[edit]

The University of Minnesota Printing published a new version of the MMPI-two, the MMPI-two Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), in 2008.[29]
The MMPI-2-RF builds on the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales adult in 2003,[7]
and subsequently subjected to extensive inquiry,[30]
with an overriding goal of improved discriminant validity, or the power of the test to reliably differentiate betwixt clinical syndromes or diagnoses. Most of the MMPI and MMPI-2 Clinical Scales are relatively heterogeneous, i.east., they measure diverse groupings of signs and symptoms, such that an pinnacle on Scale two (Depression), for example, may or may not betoken a depressive disorder.[a]
The MMPI-2-RF scales, on the other hand, are fairly homogeneous; are designed to more precisely measure singled-out symptom constellations or disorders. From a theoretical perspective, the MMPI-2-RF scales rest on an assumption that psychopathology is a homogeneous condition that is additive.[31]

Advances in psychometric theory, test development methods, and statistical analyses used to develop the MMPI-2-RF were not bachelor when the MMPI was developed.

Popular:   Which Spanish Catholic Priest Cooperated With French Authorities in Louisiana

MMPI-iii

[edit]

The MMPI-3 was released in 2020,[32]
which is the starting time total revision that included simplifying and adding questions about eating-disorders and compulsivity.[33]
A new normative sample was nerveless as the basis for the MMPI-iii measures that was more demographically inclusive, including Spanish-linguistic communication norms.

Current scale composition

[edit]

Clinical scales

[edit]

The original clinical scales were designed to measure common diagnoses of the era.

Number Abbreviation Clarification What is measured[
citation needed
]
No. of items
1 Hs Hypochondriasis Business concern with bodily symptoms 32
2 D Depression Depressive symptoms 57
three Hy Hysteria Awareness of issues and vulnerabilities 60
four Pd Psychopathic Deviate Conflict, struggle, anger, respect for order’due south rules 50
5 MF Masculinity/Femininity Stereotypical masculine or feminine interests/behaviors 56
half dozen Pa Paranoia Level of trust, suspiciousness, sensitivity 40
7 Pt Psychasthenia Worry, anxiety, tension, doubts, obsessiveness 48
eight Sc Schizophrenia Odd thinking and social alienation 78
9 Ma Hypomania Level of excitability 46
0 Si Social Introversion People orientation 69

Codetypes are a combination of the i, two or iii (and according to a few authors even 4) highest-scoring clinical scales (ex. 4, 8, 2, = 482). Codetypes are interpreted as a single, wider ranged superlative, rather than interpreting each scale individually.

Psychopathic Deviate

[edit]

This scale comes from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), where 50 statements compose the Psychopathic Deviate subscale. The 50 statements must be answered in true or faux format every bit practical to one’southward cocky.[34]

The Psychopathic Deviate scale measures general social maladjustment and the absence of strongly pleasant experiences. The items on this calibration tap into complaints about family and authority figures in general, self-alienation, social alienation and boredom.[35]

When diagnosing psychopathy, the MMPI-2’s Psychopathic Deviate scale is considered one of the traditional personality tests that contain subscales relating to psychopathy, though they appraise relatively non-specific tendencies towards hating or criminal beliefs.[36]


Restructured Clinical (RC) scales

[edit]

The Restructured Clinical scales were designed to exist psychometrically improved versions of the original clinical scales, which were known to comprise a high level of interscale correlation, overlapping items, and were confounded by the presence of an overarching factor that has since been extracted and placed in a carve up scale (demoralization).[37]
The RC scales mensurate the core constructs of the original clinical scales. Critics of the RC scales assert they accept deviated likewise far from the original clinical scales, the implication being that previous research washed on the clinical scales volition not be relevant to the interpretation of the RC scales. Nonetheless, researchers on the RC scales assert that the RC scales predict pathology in their designated areas ameliorate than their concordant original clinical scales while using significantly fewer items and maintaining equal to higher internal consistency, reliability and validity; farther, different the original clinical scales, the RC scales are not saturated with the primary factor (demoralization, at present captured in RCdem) which ofttimes produced diffuse elevations and fabricated interpretation of results difficult; finally, the RC scales accept lower interscale correlations and, in contrast to the original clinical scales, incorporate no interscale item overlap.[38]
The effects of removal of the common variance spread across the older clinical scales due to a general factor common to psychopathology, through use of sophisticated psychometric methods, was described every bit a paradigm shift in personality assessment.[39]
[40]
Critics of the new scales debate that the removal of this common variance makes the RC scales less ecologically valid (less similar real life) because real patients tend to present circuitous patterns of symptoms.[
citation needed
]

Proponents of the MMPI-2-RF argue that this potential problem is addressed by beingness able to view elevations on other RC scales that are less saturated with the general factor and, therefore, are also more than transparent and much easier to interpret.[
citation needed
]

Calibration Abbreviation Proper noun Description[
citation needed
]
RCd dem Demoralization A general measure out of distress that is linked with anxiety, low, helplessness, hopelessness, low self-esteem, and a sense of inefficacy[41]
RC1 som Somatic Complaints Measures an private’s tendency to medically unexplainable physical symptoms[41]
RC2 lpe Low Positive Emotions Measures features of anhedonia – a common feature of depression[41]
RC3 cyn Cynicism Measures a negative or overly-critical worldview that is associated with an increased likelihood of impaired interpersonal relationships, hostility, acrimony, low trust, and workplace misconduct[41]
RC4 asb Antisocial Behavior Measures the acting out and social deviance features of hating personality such as rule breaking, irresponsibility, failure to conform to social norms, deceit, and impulsivity that ofttimes manifests in assailment and substance corruption[41]
RC6 per Ideas of Persecution Measures a trend to develop paranoid delusions, persecutory beliefs, interpersonal suspiciousness and alienation, and mistrust[41]
RC7 dne Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Measures a tendency to worry/be fearful, exist anxious, feel victimized and resentful, and assess situations generally in means that foster negative emotions[41]
RC8 abx Aberrant Experiences Measures take a chance for psychosis, unusual thinking and perception, and adventure for non-persecutory symptoms of thought disorders[41]
RC9 hpm Hypomanic Activation Measures features of mania such as aggression and excitability[41]

Validity scales

[edit]

The validity scales in all versions of the MMPI-2 (MMPI-two and RF) contain three basic types of validity measures: those that were designed to find non-responding or inconsistent responding (CNS, VRIN, TRIN), those designed to find when clients are over reporting or exaggerating the prevalence or severity of psychological symptoms (F, Fb, Fp, FBS), and those designed to notice when test-takers are under-reporting or downplaying psychological symptoms (L, G, S). A new add-on to the validity scales for the MMPI-2-RF includes an over reporting scale of somatic symptoms (Fs) every bit well as revised versions of the validity scales of the MMPI-2 (VRIN-r, TRIN-r, F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, L-r, and Thousand-r). The MMPI-2-RF does not include the Due south or Fb scales, and the F-r scale at present covers the entirety of the test.[42]

Abbreviation New in version Description Assesses[
citation needed
]
CNS 1 “Cannot Say” Questions not answered
L 1 Prevarication Customer “faking good”
F 1 Infrequency Customer “faking bad” (in first half of test)
Grand one Defensiveness Denial/evasiveness
Fb 2 F Dorsum Client “faking bad” (in last half of test)
VRIN ii Variable Response Inconsistency Answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently
TRIN 2 True Response Inconsistency Answering questions all true/all false
F-K two F minus Thou Honesty of test responses/not faking good or bad
Due south 2 Pinnacle Self-Presentation Improving upon Chiliad calibration, “appearing excessively proficient”
Fp 2 F-Psychopathology Frequency of presentation in clinical setting
Fs 2-RF Infrequent Somatic Response Overreporting of somatic symptoms

Content scales

[edit]

Although elevations on the clinical scales are pregnant indicators of sure psychological conditions, it is difficult to determine exactly what specific behaviors the high scores are related to. The content scales of the MMPI-two were developed for the purpose of increasing the incremental validity of the clinical scales.[43]
The content scales incorporate items intended to provide insight into specific types of symptoms and areas of functioning that the clinical scales do non measure out, and are supposed to exist used in improver to the clinical scales to interpret profiles. They were adult by Butcher, Graham, Williams and Ben-Porath using similar rational and statistical procedures every bit Wiggins who developed the original MMPI content scales.[43]
[44]

The items on the content scales contain obvious content and therefore are susceptible to response bias – exaggeration or denial of symptoms, and should be interpreted with caution. T scores greater than 65 on any content scale are considered high scores.[45]

Abbr. Description What is measured?[
citation needed
]
ANX Feet Full general symptoms of anxiety, somatic issues, nervousness or worry
FRS Fears Specific fears and general fear
OBS Obsessiveness Difficulty making decisions, excessive rumination and dislike change
DEP Depression Feelings of low mood, lack of energy, suicidal ideation and other depressive features
HEA Health Concerns Concerns about disease and concrete symptoms
BIZ Baroque Mentation The presence of psychotic thought processes
ANG Acrimony Feelings and expression of anger
CYN Cynicism Distrust and suspiciousness of other people and their motives
ASP Antisocial Practices Expression of nonconforming attitudes and possible bug with dominance
TPA Type A Behavior Irritability, impatience and competitiveness
LSE Depression Self Esteem Negative attitudes about cocky, ain ability and submissiveness
SOD Social Discomfort Preferring to be alone and discomfort when coming together new people
FAM Family Problems Resentment, anger and perceived lack of support from family unit members
WRK Piece of work Interference Attitudes that contribute to poor piece of work performance
TRT Negative Treatment Indicators Feelings of pessimism and unwillingness to reveal personal information to others


[edit]

To supplement these multidimensional scales and to aid in interpreting the frequently seen diffuse elevations due to the general factor (removed in the RC scales)[46]
[47]
were likewise developed, with the more frequently used being the substance abuse scales (MAC-R, APS, AAS), designed to assess the extent to which a customer admits to or is prone to abusing substances, and the A (anxiety) and R (repression) scales, developed past Welsh after conducting a factor analysis of the original MMPI particular puddle.

Dozens of content scales currently exist, the post-obit are some samples:

Abbreviation Description
Es Ego Strength Scale
OH Over-Controlled Hostility Calibration
MAC MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale
MAC-R MacAndrews Alcoholism Calibration Revised
Do Dominance Scale
APS Addictions Potential Scale
AAS Addictions Acknowledgement Scale
SOD Social Discomfort Scale
A Feet Scale
R Repression Scale
TPA Type A Scale
MDS Marital Distress Scale


PSY-5 (Personality Psychopathology Five) scales

[edit]

The PSY-5 is set of scales measuring dimensional traits of personality disorders, originally developed from factor assay of the personality disorder content of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Transmission of Mental Disorders.[48]
Originally, these scales were titled: Aggressiveness, Psychoticism, Constraint, Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism, and Positive Emotionality/Extraversion;[48]
however, in the most current edition of the MMPI-two and MMPI-ii-RF, the Constraint and Positive Emotionality scales have been reversed and renamed as Disconstraint and Introversion / Low Positive Emotionality.[49]

Across several big samples including clinical, college, and normative populations, the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales showed moderate internal consistency and intercorrelations comparable with the domain scales on the NEO-PI-R Large Five personality measure.[48]
Also, scores on the MMPI-ii PSY-five scales appear to be similar across genders,[48]
and the structure of the PSY-5 has been reproduced in a Dutch psychiatric sample.[50]

Calibration Name Description[
citation needed
]
Aggressiveness Measures an individual’south tendency towards overt and instrumental assailment that typically includes a sense of grandiosity and a desire for ability[48]
Psychoticism Measures the accurateness of an individual’s inner representation of objective reality,[51]
often associated with
perceptual aberration
and
magical ideation
[48]
Constraint (Disconstraint) Measures an individual’southward level of command over their own impulses, physical hazard disfavor, and traditionalism[48]
Negative Emotionality / Neuroticism Measures an individual’south tendency to feel negative emotions, particularly feet and worry[48]
Positive Emotionality/Extraversion
(Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality)
Measures an individual’southward tendency to experience positive emotions and take enjoyment from social experiences[48]

MMPI-A-RF

[edit]

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Boyish – Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF) is a broad-band musical instrument used to psychologically evaluate adolescents.[52]
It was published in 2016 and was primarily authored by Robert P. Archer, Richard W. Handel, Yossef Southward. Ben-Porath, and Auke Tellegen. Information technology is a revised version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent (MMPI-A). Like the MMPI-A, this version is intended for use with adolescents aged 14–xviii years sometime. It consists of 241 truthful-false items which produce scores on 48 scales: 6 Validity scales (VRIN-r, TRIN-r, CRIN, F-r, L-r, M-r), 3 College-Gild scales (EID, THD, BXD), 9 Restructured Clinical scales (RCd, RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, RC6, RC7, RC8, RC9), 25 Specific Problem scales, and revised versions of the MMPI-A PSY-five scales (AGGR-r, PSYC-r, DISC-r, NEGE-r, INTR-r).[53]
It also features 14 critical items, including 7 regarding depressing and suicidal ideation.[53]

The MMPI-A-RF was designed to accost limitations of its predecessor, such as the scale heterogeneity and item overlap of the original clinical scales. The weaknesses of the clinical scales resulted in intercorrelations of several MMPI-A scales and limited discriminant validity of the scales. To address the bug with the clinical scales, the MMPI-A underwent a revision similar to the restructuring of the MMPI-ii to the MMPI-two-RF. Specifically, a demoralization scale was developed, and each clinical scale underwent exploratory factor assay to identify its distinctive components.[53]

Additionally, the Specific Problems (SP) scales were developed. Whereas the RC scales provide a broad overview of psychological bug (due east.k., low positive emotions or symptoms of depression; antisocial behavior; baroque thoughts), the SP scales offered narrow, focused descriptions of the problems the individual reported he or she was experiencing. The MMPI-2-RF SP Scales were used equally a template. First, corresponding items from the MMPI-2-RF were identified in the MMPI-A, and and so 58 items unique to the MMPI-A were added to the item pool. This way the MMPI-A-RF SP scales could maintain continuity with the MMPI-ii-RF merely also address bug specific to adolescent problems. After a preliminary ready of SP scales were adult based on their content, each scale went through statistical tests (factor analysis) to make sure they did not overlap or chronicle as well strongly to the RC demoralization scale.[54]
Additional statistical analyses were washed to brand certain each SP scale contained items that were strongly related (correlated) with its scale and less strongly associated with other scales; in the end, each item appeared on only i SP calibration. These scales were adult to provide additional information in association with the RC scales, but SP scales are not subscales and tin be interpreted even when the related RC scale is not elevated.[54]

Popular:   A Consumer Group Has Determined That the Distribution

As noted higher up, 25 SP scales were developed. Of these, xix have the same names as the corresponding MMPI-2-RF SP scales, although the specific items that brand up SP scales on each form are unlike. The following 5 scales were unique to the MMPI-A-RF: Obsessions/Compulsions (OCS), Antisocial Attitudes (ASA), Conduct Problems (CNP), Negative Peer Influence (NPI) and Specific Fears (SPF).

The SP scales were organized into iv groupings: Somatic/Cerebral, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Interpersonal Scales. The Somatic/Cerebral scales (MLS, GIC, HPC, NUC, and COG) share their names with the SP scales on the MMPI-2-RF, are related to RC1, and focus on aspects of physical health and performance. There are nine Internalizing scales. The first three (HLP, SFD, and NFC) are related to aspects of demoralization, or the general sense of unhappiness, and the remaining scales (OCS, STW, AXY, ANP, BRF, SPF) appraise for Dysfunctional Negative Emotions (due east.one thousand., a trend toward worry, fright, and anxiety). Six Externalizing scales (NSA, ASA, CNP, SUB, NPI, and AGG) are related to hating behavior, and the need for excitement and stimulating activeness (i.east., hypomanic activation). Finally, Interpersonal scales (FML, IPP, SAV, SHY, and DSF), while not related to detail RC scales, focus on aspects of social and relational functioning with family unit and peers.[55]

Additionally, the 478-particular length of the MMPI-A was identified as a challenge to adolescent attending span and concentration. To address this, the MMPI-A-RF has less than half the items of the MMPI-A.[53]

Calibration Description[
citation needed
]
MLS–Malaise General sense of poor physical health, weakness, and low energy
GIC–Gastrointestinal Complaints Complaints related to nausea, upset tum, and airsickness
HPC–Head Pain Complaints Reports of headaches and difficulty concentrating
NUC–Neurological Complaints Describes loss of sensation, numbness, and lack of control over movement of body parts; dizziness
COG–Cognitive Complaints Trouble with attending and concentrating; academic and learning difficulties
HLP–Helplessness/Hopelessness General sense of cynicism and low self-esteem in handling life’s difficulties
SFD–Self-Doubt Reports feeling useless, footling self-confidence and highly critical view of self
NFC–Inefficacy Reports seeing self as incapable and useless
OCS–Obsessions/Compulsions Ruminates over unpleasant thoughts; engages in compulsive behaviors (e.g., repetitive counting)
STW–Stress/Worry Experiences symptoms related to stress (eastward.g., trouble sleeping, problems concentrating, nervousness)
ANX–Anxiety Reports experiences of dread, apprehension, and nightmares
ANP–Anger Proneness Reports tendency to experience and limited anger, aggression, and irritable behaviors
BRF–Behavior-Restricting Fears Describes fears and anxiety that go far the way of daily functioning; general fearfulness and feet
SPF–Specific Fears Reports fears and phobias (e.chiliad., fear of blood, spiders, heights, etc.)
NSA–Negative Schoolhouse Attitudes Expresses dislike for school and difficulty being motivated in bookish activities
ASA–Hating Attitudes Reports breaking rules, school problems and intermission, and engaging in oppositional behaviors
CNP–Bear Problems Reports engaging in problematic behaviors at abode and at schoolhouse (e.g., problems with the constabulary, running away from home, school suspensions)
SUB–Substance Abuse Endorses behaviors related to problematic drug and alcohol utilise and abuse
NPI–Negative Peer Influence Describes associating with peers who engage in problem behaviors (e.thousand., substance use, rule-breaking)
AGG–Aggression Reports expressing anger physically and violently; threatening others verbally
FML–Family unit Problems Reports problematic family interactions and feeling unsupported; expresses a want to leave abode considering of difficulties with family unit
IPP–Interpersonal Passivity Expresses feeling unable to stand for oneself; feels easy pushed effectually by others
SAV–Social Avoidance Expresses discomfort being with others; withdrawn from interactions; reports having few friends
SHY–Shyness Reports being easily embarrassed; feels nervous interacting with others
DSF–Disaffiliativeness Expresses a preference for being alone and abstention of interacting with others; withdrawn and reports having few friends

Criticism

[edit]

Like many standardized tests, scores on the diverse scales of the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF are not representative of either percentile rank or how “well” or “poorly” someone has washed on the test. Rather, analysis looks at relative height of factors compared to the various norm groups studied. Raw scores on the scales are transformed into a standardized metric known as T-scores (Mean or Average equals 50, Standard Deviation equals 10), making interpretation easier for clinicians. Exam manufacturers and publishers ask test purchasers to prove they are qualified to purchase the MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF and other tests.[56]


Improver of the Lees-Haley FBS (Symptom Validity)

[edit]

Psychologist Paul Lees-Haley adult the FBS (Fake Bad Scale). Although the FBS acronym remains in employ, the official name for the scale changed to Symptom Validity Scale when it was incorporated into the standard scoring reports produced by Pearson, the licensed publisher.[57]
Some psychologists question the validity and utility of the FBS scale. The peer-reviewed journal
Psychological Injury and Police
published a series of pro and con articles in 2008, 2009, and 2010.[58]
[59]
[60]
[61]
Investigations of the cistron structure of the Symptom Validity Calibration (FBS and FBS-r) heighten doubts about the scale’s construct and predictive validity in the detection of malingering.[62]
[63]

Racial disparity

[edit]

One of the biggest criticisms of the original MMPI has been the difference between whites and not-whites.

In the 1970s, Charles McCreary and Eligio Padilla from UCLA compared scores of Black, white and Mexican-American men and found that non-whites tended to score five points higher on the test. They stated: “There is continuing controversy about the appropriateness of the MMPI when decisions involve persons from non-white racial and ethnic backgrounds. In general, studies of such divergent populations every bit prison inmates, medical patients, psychiatric patients, and high school and higher students take found that blacks commonly score higher than whites on the 50, F, Sc, and Ma scales. There is near understanding that the notion of more psychopathology in racial indigenous minority groups is simplistic and untenable. Nevertheless, three divergent explanations of racial differences on the MMPI have been suggested. Black-white MMPI differences reverberate variations in values, conceptions, and expectations that consequence from growing up in different cultures. Another point of view maintains that differences on the MMPI between blacks and whites are not a reflection of racial differences, but rather a reflection of overriding socioeconomic variations between racial groups. Thirdly, MMPI scales may reflect socioeconomic factors, while other scales are primarily race-related.”[64]

Translations of the MMPI-2

[edit]

The MMPI-2 is currently available in 22 dissimilar languages,[65]
including:

  • Bulgarian
  • Chinese
  • Croation
  • Czech
  • Danish
  • Dutch/Flemish
  • French
  • Canada (Canadian French & English)
  • German language
  • Greek
  • Hebrew
  • Hmong
  • Hungarian
  • Italian
  • Korean
  • Norwegian
  • Polish
  • Romanian
  • Slovak
  • Spanish for United mexican states & Central America
  • Spanish for Espana, South America & Central America
  • Spanish for the United states of america
  • Swedish
  • Ukrainian

This section provides a brief overview of the evolution of some translated versions.

MMPI-2 in Chinese

[edit]

The Chinese MMPI-two was developed by Fanny M. Cheung, Weizhen Song, and Jianxin Zhang for Hong Kong and adapted for apply in the mainland.[66]
The Chinese MMPI was used as a base instrument from which some items, that were the same in the MMPI-2, were retained. New items on the Chinese MMPI-two underwent translation from English language to Chinese then back translation from Chinese to English language to establish uniformity of the items and their content. The psychometrics are robust with the Chinese MMPI-2 having high reliability (a measure out of whether the results of the calibration are consistent). Reliability coefficients were constitute to be over 0.8 for the test in Hong Kong and were betwixt 0.58 and 0.91 across scales for the mainland. In addition, the correlation of the Chinese MMPI-2 and the English language MMPI-ii was found to average 0.64 for the clinical scales and 0.68 for the content scales indicating that the Chinese MMPI-two is an effective tool of personality assessment.[66]
[67]

MMPI-2 in Korean

[edit]

The Korean MMPI-2 was initially translated by Kyunghee Han through a process of multiple rounds of translation (English to Korean) and back-translation (Korean to English), and it was tested in a sample of 726 Korean higher students.[68]
[69]
In general, the examination-retest reliabilities in the Korean sample were comparable to those in the American sample. For both civilization samples, the median test-retest reliabilities were institute to be higher for females than for males: 0.75 for Korean males and 0.78 for American males, whereas it was 0.85 for Korean females and 0.81 for American females. After retranslating and revising the items with pocket-size translation accurateness problems, the final version of the Korean MMPI-ii was published in 2005.[seventy]
The published Korean MMPI-two was standardized using a Korean adult normative sample, whose demographics were similar to the 2000 Korean Demography data. Compared to the U. Southward. norm, scale means of Korean norm were significantly elevated; however, the reliabilities and validity of the Korean MMPI-2 were still constitute to be comparable with the English MMPI-2. The Korean MMPI-ii was further validated by using a Korean psychiatric sample from inpatient and outpatient facilities of Samsung National Hospital in Seoul. The internal consistency of the MMPI-2 scales for the psychiatric sample was comparable to the results obtained from the normative samples. Robust validity of the Korean MMPI-2 scales was evidenced by correlations with the SCL-90-R scales, behavioral correlates, and therapist ratings.[71]
The Korean MMPI-2 RF was published in 2011 and it was standardized using the Korean MMPI-2 normative sample with minor modifications.[72]

MMPI-2 in Hmong

[edit]

The MMPI-2 was translated into the Hmong language past Deinard, Butcher, Thao, Vang and Hang. The items for the Hmong-language MMPI-2 were obtained past translation and back-translation from the English version. After linguistic evaluation to ensure that the Hmong-language MMPI-two was equivalent to the English MMPI-2, studies to assess whether the scales meant and measured the same concepts across the unlike languages. It was found that the findings from both the Hmong-language and English language MMPI-2 were equivalent, indicating that the results obtained for a person tested with either version were very similar.[73]

See too

[edit]

  • 16PF Questionnaire
  • Diagnostic classification and rating scales used in psychiatry
  • Employment testing
  • Neuroticism Extraversion Openness Personality Inventory (NEO-PI)
  • Therapeutic assessment

Endnotes

[edit]


  1. ^

    Although elevations on other Clinical Scales, Calibration 2 subscales, Content Scales, or Supplementary Scales can help the clinician determine a more precise pregnant of the Scale 2 height.

References

[edit]


  1. ^


    Camara, W. J., Nathan, J. S., & Puente, A. E. (2000). “Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology”
    (PDF).
    Professional person Psychology: Inquiry and Practice.
    31
    (2): 141–154. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.31.two.141. Archived from the original
    (PDF)
    on 2017-03-18. Retrieved
    2014-01-03
    .



    {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors listing (link)


  2. ^


    Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (2009). “Personality assessment with the mmpi-2: historical roots, international adaptations, and current challenges”.
    Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being.
    1
    (one): 105–135. doi:x.1111/j.1758-0854.2008.01007.x.



    {{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors listing (link)


  3. ^


    Schiele, B. C.; Baker, A. B.; Hathaway, S. R. (1943). “The Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory”.
    Periodical-Lancet
    (63): 292–297. ISSN 0096-0233.



  4. ^


    Whiston, Susan C. (2013).
    Principles and applications of assessment in counseling
    (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole, Cengage Learning. p. 210. ISBN9780840028556. OCLC 798809560.



  5. ^


    Sellbom, Ben-Porath & Bagby, Martin, Yossef & R Michael (Summertime 2008). “Personality and Psychopathology: Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto the 5 Factor Model of Personality”.
    Journal of Personality Disorders.
    22
    (3): 291–312. doi:10.1521/pedi.2008.22.3.291. PMID 18540801. ProQuest 195238408.


  6. ^


    a




    b



    Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, West. K., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A, & Kaemmer, B. (1989).The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-ii (MMPI-2): Transmission for administration and scoring. Minneapolis, MN: Academy of Minnesota Printing.
  7. ^


    a




    b




    c



    Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.50., Arbisi, P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003).
    The MMPI-two Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Printing.
  8. ^


    a




    b




    c



    Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2012). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  9. ^


    “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)”.
    Psych Fundamental. 2016-05-17. Retrieved
    2018-09-17
    .


  10. ^


    a




    b



    Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-ii Restructured Class): Technical manual. Minneapolis: Academy of Minnesota Printing.

  11. ^

    Ben-Porath, Y. South., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-ii-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Class): Manual for assistants, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  12. ^

    University of Minnesota Printing, Exam Partition,
    MMPI-three Development Update
    (Dec 2019).

  13. ^


    Sellbom, Martin (2019). “The MMPI-ii-Restructured Class (MMPI-2-RF): Cess of Personality and Psychopathology in the 20-First Century”.
    Annual Review of Clinical Psychology.
    15
    (1): 149–177. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095701. ISSN 1548-5943. PMID 30601687. S2CID 58616743.
    The development of the MMPI-3 has been deputed by the Academy of Minnesota Press, the exam’due south publisher … The MMPI-2-RF will serve as the primary foundation for the MMPI-iii, which should include updated coverage of psychopathology and maladaptive personality traits and a new normative sample. … The MMPI-ii and MMPI-2-RF normative sample is now more than than thirty years one-time and needs to exist updated. Such updating is underway for the MMPI-three.



  14. ^


    Buchanan, Roderick D. (May 1994). “The development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory”.
    Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences.
    xxx
    (two): 148–61. doi:10.1002/1520-6696(199404)30:2<148::AID-JHBS2300300204>3.0.CO;2-9. PMID 8034964.



  15. ^

    Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule(Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, x, 249-254.

  16. ^

    Hathaway, Southward. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): III. The measurement of symptomatic low. Journal of Psychology, fourteen, 73-84.

  17. ^

    McKinley, J. C, & Hathaway, S. R. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): II. A differential study of hypochondriasis. Periodical of Psychology, ten,255-268.

  18. ^

    McKinley, J. C, & Hathaway, S. R. (1942). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): 4. Psychasthenia. Periodical of Applied Psychology, 26, 614-624.

  19. ^

    McKinley, J. C, & Hathaway, S. R. (1944). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): V. Hysteria, Hypomania, and Psychopathic Deviate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 153-174.

  20. ^


    Yossef S. Ben-Porath.
    Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. U of Minnesota Printing. ISBN978-1-4529-3290-3.



  21. ^


    Gregory, Robert (2007).
    Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications. Boston: Pearson. pp. 391–398. ISBN978-0-205-46882-9.


  22. ^


    a




    b




    Gregory, Robert (2007).
    Psychological Testing: History, Principles, and Applications – 5th ed. Boston: Pearson. p. 392. ISBN978-0-205-46882-9.



  23. ^


    “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-MMPI, MMPI-2, MMPI-A, and Minnesota Reports”.
    mmpi.umn.edu.


  24. ^


    a




    b




    c




    d



    Butcher, J.Northward., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Archer, R.P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Kaemmer, B. (1992).
    Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent Version(MMPI-A): Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  25. ^


    a




    b




    Butcher and Williams, Jim and Carolyn (1992).
    Essentials of MMPI-two and MMPI-A interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.


  26. ^


    a




    b



    Claiborn, C. D. (1995). [Review of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—Boyish.] In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The 12th mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Plant of Mental Measurements.

  27. ^

    Lanyon, R. I. (1995). [Review of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—Adolescent.] In J. C. Conoley & J. C. Impara (Eds.), The 12th mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
  28. ^


    a




    b




    c



    Merrell, K. West. (2008). Behavioral, Social, and Emotional Assessment of Children and Adolescents, Third Edition. New York, NY: Routledge.

  29. ^


    “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-RF”. University of Minnesota Press – Distributed by Pearson Assessments [formerly National Computer Systems – NCS Assessments] AKA Pearson Clinical AKA PsychCorp. Retrieved
    3 January
    2014
    .



  30. ^

    • Arbisi, P. A., Sellbom, One thousand., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Cess, ninety, 122-128.
    • Castro, Y., Gordon, K. H., Dark-brown, J. South., Cox, J. C., & Joiner, T. E. (In Press). Examination of racial differences on the MMPI-2 Clinical and Restructured Clinical Scales in an outpatient sample. Cess.
    • Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparing of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales in a substance abuse treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4, 46-58.
    • Gordon, R.M. (2006). Faux assumptions about psychopathology, hysteria and the MMPI-ii restructured clinical scales. Psychological Reports, 98, 870–872.
    • Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (In Press). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment.
    • Kamphuis, J.H., Arbisi, P.A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & McNulty, J.Fifty. (In Press). Detecting Comorbid Axis-II Status Among Inpatients Using the MMPI-two Restructured Clinical Scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
    • Osberg, T. M., Haseley, E. N., & Kamas, Thou. K. (2008). The MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Comparative psychometric backdrop and relative diagnostic efficiency in young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment. ninety, 81-92.
    • Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. Grand. (In Press). Personality and Psychopathology: Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto the Five Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality Disorders.
    • Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Correlates of the MMPI-ii Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 89-99.
    • Sellbom, G., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Elevation differences between MMPI-2 Clinical and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Frequency, origins, and interpretative implications. Assessment, 13, 430-441.
    • Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 196-205.
    • Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L .A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B. I. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-ii. Psychological Assessment, 17, 345-358.
    • Sellbom. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. South. (2006). Forensic applications of the MMPI. In R. P. Archer (Ed.), Forensic uses of clinical cess instruments. (pp. 19-55) NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
    • Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Baum, L. J., Erez, Due east., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a batterers’ intervention program. Journal of Personality Cess, 90. 129-135.


  31. ^

    • Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. South., Lilienfeld, South. O., Patrick, C. J., & Graham, J. R. (2005). Assessing psychopathic personality traits with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 334-343.
    • Sellbom, M., mylene rosa Y. S., & Stafford, K. P. (2007). A comparison of measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting. Psychological Assessment, xix, 430-436.
    • Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Graham, J. R., Arbisi, P. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Susceptibility of the MMPI-2 Clinical, Restructured Clinical (RC), and Content Scales to overreporting and underreporting. Assessment, 12, 79-85.
    • Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2005). Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto normal personality traits: Prove of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 179-187.
    • Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. Due south. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officeholder integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985-1004.
    • Stredny, R. V., Archer, R. P., & Mason, J. A. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of parental competency examinees. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 113-115.
    • Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. A., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. Due south., Kelly, P. H., & Rupp, Due west. M. (2007). Examination of the MMPI-ii Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates. Periodical of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14, 197-205.


  32. ^


    “MMPI-3 product page”.


  33. ^


    “MMPI-3 Scales”.


  34. ^


    Skeem, Jennifer L.; Polaschek, Devon Fifty. L.; Patrick, Christopher J.; Lilienfeld, Scott O. (December 2011). “Psychopathic Personality: Bridging the Gap Between Scientific Evidence and Public Policy”.
    Psychological Science in the Public Interest.
    12
    (3): 95–162. doi:10.1177/1529100611426706. ISSN 1529-1006. PMID 26167886. S2CID 8521465.



  35. ^


    “Psychopathic Deviate Scale (PD)”.
    Habit Enquiry Eye
    . Retrieved
    2021-07-08
    .



  36. ^


    “Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)”.
    Psych Cardinal. 2016-05-17. Retrieved
    2021-07-08
    .



  37. ^

    Bosch, P., Van Luijtelaar, Thousand., Van Den Noort, M., Schenkwald, J., Kueppenbender, North., Lim, Southward., Egger, J., & Coenen, A. (2014). The MMPI-two in chronic psychiatric disease. Scandinavian Periodical of Psychology, 55, 513-519.

  38. ^

    Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, Chiliad., Arbisi, P. A., McNulty, J. L., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Farther show on the validity of the MMPI-two Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Addressing questions raised past Rogers et al. and Nichols. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 148-171.

  39. ^

    Rogers, R., Sewell, K. Westward., Harrison, K. Southward., & Hashemite kingdom of jordan, Thou. J. (2006). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: A paradigmatic shift in scale evolution. Periodical of Personality Assessment, 87, 139-147.

  40. ^

    Archer, R. P. (2006). A perspective on the Restructured Clinical (RC) Calibration projection. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 179-185.
  41. ^


    a




    b




    c




    d




    e




    f




    1000




    h




    i




    Ben-Porath, Yossef (2012). “Transitioning to the MMPI-two-RF: The Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales”.
    Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press. pp. 39–96.



  42. ^

    Graham, J.R. (2011).
    MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and Psychopathology. Oxford.
  43. ^


    a




    b




    Butcher, J; Graham, J; Williams, C; Ben-Porath, Y (1990).
    Evolution and use of the MMPI-2 content scales. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.



  44. ^


    Hathaway, South; McKinley, J; MMPI Restandardization Committee (1989).
    MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: transmission for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: Academy of Minnesota Press.



  45. ^


    Graham, John (1990).

    MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology
    . New York: Oxford Academy Press. ISBN978-0-19-506068-iii.



  46. ^

    Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi, P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003).
    The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN2.
    An MMPI handbook: Vol. I. Clinical interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  47. ^

    Caldwell, A. B. (1988).
    MMPI supplemental scale manual. Los Angeles: Caldwell Report.
  48. ^


    a




    b




    c




    d




    east




    f




    g




    h




    i



    Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. 50., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology V (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales.
    Psychological Assessment, 7, 104.

  49. ^


    “MMPI-2 Scales”.
    University of Minnesota Press. University of Minnesota Printing. Retrieved
    24 April
    2015
    .



  50. ^

    Egger, J. I., De Mey, H. R., Derksen, J. J., & van der Staak, C. P. (2003). Cross-cultural replication of the v-factor model and comparison of the NEO-PI-R and MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales in a Dutch psychiatric sample.
    Psychological Assessment, xv, 81.

  51. ^


    Ben-Porath, Yossef (2012).
    Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. U of Minnesota Press. pp. 126–129.



  52. ^


    Handel, Richard W. (2016-12-01). “An Introduction to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent-Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF)”.
    Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings.
    23
    (four): 361–373. doi:10.1007/s10880-016-9475-6. ISSN 1068-9583. PMID 27752979. S2CID 4196007.


  53. ^


    a




    b




    c




    d




    Archer, Robert; Handel, Richard; Ben-Porath, Yossef; Tellegen, Auke (2016).
    Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – Adolescent Restructured Form: Administration, Scoring, Interpretation, and Technical Manual. Minneapolis, MN: Academy of Minnesota Press. pp. 15–25.


  54. ^


    a




    b



    Archer, R. P., Handel, R. West., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2016). MMPI-A-RF: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Boyish-Restructured Grade: Administration, Scoring, Interpretation, and Technical Manual. Minneapolis: Academy of Minnesota Printing.

  55. ^

    Archer, R. P. (2016). Assessing Adolescent Psychopathology: MMPI-A/MMPI-A-RF. New York: Routledge.

  56. ^

    i.e.Pearson’southward Qualifications policy, http://www.pearsonclinical.com/psychology/qualifications.html

  57. ^


    “MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Calibration (FBS)”.
    Pearson Assessments. Pearson Clinical Psychology. Retrieved
    19 May
    2014
    .



  58. ^


    Butcher, James N.; Gass, Carlton South.; Cumella, Edward; Kally, Zina; Williams, Carolyn 50. (2008). “Potential for Bias in MMPI-2 Assessments Using the Fake Bad Calibration (FBS)”.
    Psychological Injury and Law.
    1
    (3): 191–209. doi:10.1007/s12207-007-9002-z. S2CID 143783118.



  59. ^


    Ben-Porath, Yossef S.; Greve, Kevin Due west.; Bianchini, Kevin J.; Kaufmann, Paul Chiliad. (2009). “The MMPI-ii Symptom Validity Scale (FBS) is an Empirically Validated Measure of Overreporting in Personal Injury Litigants and Claimants: Answer to Butcher et al. (2008)”.
    Psychological Injury and Law.
    2
    (1): 62–85. doi:10.1007/s12207-009-9037-4. S2CID 143732509.



  60. ^


    Williams, Carolyn L.; Butcher, James N.; Gass, Carlton Due south.; Cumella, Edward; Kally, Zina (2009). “Inaccuracies About the MMPI-2 Simulated Bad Calibration in the Reply by Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, and Kaufman (2009)”.
    Psychological Injury and Law.
    2
    (2): 182–197. doi:10.1007/s12207-009-9046-3. S2CID 144695016.



  61. ^


    Gass, Carlton S.; Williams, Carolyn L.; Cumella, Edward; Butcher, James North.; Kally, Zina (2010). “An Cryptic Measure of Unknown Constructs: The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (a.g.a. Symptom Validity Scale, FBS, FBS-r)”.
    Psychological Injury and Law.
    three
    (1): 81–85. doi:x.1007/s12207-009-9063-2. S2CID 144642776.



  62. ^


    Gass, Carlton S.; Odland, Anthony P. (2012). “MMPI-2 Revised Form Symptom Validity Scale-Revised (MMPI-2-RF FBS-r; likewise known every bit Fake Bad Calibration): Psychometric characteristics in a nonlitigation neuropsychological setting.)”.
    Periodical of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology.
    34
    (6): 561–570. doi:10.1080/13803395.2012.666228. PMID 22384793. S2CID 24986442.



  63. ^


    Gass, Carlton Due south.; Odland, Anthony P. (2014). “MMPI-2 Symptom Validity (FBS) Scale: Psychometric characteristics and limitations in a Veterans Diplomacy neuropsychological setting.)”.
    Applied Neuropsychology: Developed.
    21
    (2): ane–8. doi:10.1080/09084282.2012.715608. PMID 24826489. S2CID 8424957.



  64. ^

    McCreary, C., & Padilla, Due east. (1977). MMPI differences amidst black, Mexican-American, and white male person offenders.
    Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(one), 171-172.

  65. ^


    “Available Translations — University of Minnesota Press”.
    upress.umn.edu
    . Retrieved
    8 February
    2020
    .


  66. ^


    a




    b




    Cheung; Song; Zhang (1996). “The Chinese MMPI – ii: Inquiry and Applications in Hong Kong and the China”. In Butcher, J (ed.).
    International Adaptations of the MMPI – 2: Research and Clinical Applications. University of Minnesota Printing. pp. 137–161.



  67. ^


    Cheung, F; Leong, F; Ben-Porath, Y (2003). “Psychological Assessment in Asia: Introduction to the Special Department”.
    Psychological Assessment.
    15
    (3): 243–247. doi:ten.1037/1040-3590.15.iii.243. PMID 14593824.



  68. ^


    Han, K (1993).
    The use of the M MPI-ii in Korea: Inventory adaptation, equivalence evaluation, and initial validation. Academy Microfilms International.



  69. ^


    Han (1996). “The Korean MMPI-2.”. In Butcher, JAmes (ed.).
    International Adaptations of the MMPI – 2: Research and Clinical Applications. University of Minnesota Printing. pp. 88–136.



  70. ^

    Kim, J., Han, K., Lim, J., Lee, J., Min, B., & Moon, Yard. (2005).
    Korean MMPI-2 user manual. Seoul, Korea: Maumsarang.

  71. ^

    Han, M., Moon, K., Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2011).
    Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-two Transmission. Revised Edition. Seoul, Korea: Maumsarang.

  72. ^

    Han, K., Moon, M., Lee, J., & Kim, J. (2011).
    Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form Manual.
    Seoul, Korea: Maumsarang.

  73. ^


    Deinard; Butcher; Thao; Vang; Hang (1996). “Development of a Hmong translation of the MMPI-ii.”. In Butcher, James (ed.).
    International Adaptations of the MMPI – ii: Research and Clinical Applications. University of Minnesota Press. pp. 194–205.


External links

[edit]

  • MMPI-2, Pearson Website
  • Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI): An Introduction
  • MMPI-A (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Boyish)
  • MMPI Research Projection



Mmpi Self-inventory Tests Were Originally Used to Diagnose Disorders

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Multiphasic_Personality_Inventory

Popular:   When Should You Refuse to Accept Food in a Shipment