Which of the following are true of the minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (mmpi)?

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI-2) is a 567-item true/false, self-report test of psychological function.8 As mentioned earlier, the MMPI was designed to both separate subjects into “normals” and “abnormals,” and to subcategorize the abnormal group into specific classes.9 The MMPI-2 contains 10 clinical scales that assess major categories of psychopathology and six validity scales designed to assess test-taking attitudes. MMPI raw scores are transformed into standardized T-scores where the mean is 50 and the SD is 10. A T-score of 65 or greater indicates clinically significant psychopathology on the MMPI-2. An interesting feature of the MMPI-2 is that over 300 “new” or experiential scales have been developed for the test over the years. This is made possible by the empirical keying method described earlier. Groups of items that have been shown to reliably differentiate two or more samples or populations can be added to the MMPI-2 as a clinical or supplemental scale. The addition of these scales helps sharpen and individualize the clinical interpretation of the MMPI-2 results.

The MMPI-2 validity scales are the Lie (L), Infrequency (F), correction (K), Variable Response Inventory (VRIN), True Response Inventory (TRIN), and F back (FB) scales. The L scale was designed to identify respondents who attempt to minimize pathology to the extent that they deny even minor faults to which most individuals will admit. It is commonly thought of as an unsophisticated attempt to appear healthier than one might actually be (i.e., faking good). The F scale contains items of unusual or severe pathology that are infrequently endorsed by most people. Therefore, elevation of the F scale is thought of as either a “cry for help” or a more intentional attempt to appear worse off psychologically (i.e., faking bad). Like the L scale, the K scale is purported to measure defensiveness, but data have suggested that persons with a higher level of education tend to score higher on the K scale items than the L scale items.10 A higher K scale score (more defensiveness) means that the clinical scales are likely to be lower than they should, so the MMPI-2 has a “K-corrected” formula that provides an estimation of what the clinical scales might be if the K scale were within normal limits. The K corrections were devised rationally and have not been empirically verified. The next three validity scales, VRIN, TRIN, and F(b), were added during the revision. The VRIN consists of item pairs that are expected to be answered similarly (e.g., “I feel sad most of the time” and “I consider myself to be depressed”). Too many item pairs with inconsistent answers will raise the suspicion of test invalidity. The TRIN is composed of item pairs that are not expected to be answered similarly (e.g., “I feel sad most of the time” and “I am generally a happy person”). Too many item pairs endorsed in the true direction is thought to indicate a true response bias, which can also bring the test results into question. Finally, the F(b) scale is the most recent addition and is essentially the F scale for the back half of the test. The items that make up the original F scale are all on the first half of the test, and it was observed that some patients are prone to become less invested in accurate responding as they progress through the MMPI's 567 items. An elevated F(b) scale suggests that an individual was prone to endorse less frequently rated items on the back half of the test, thus calling into question the accuracy of the results.

4.15.7.2.6 MMPI-2-RF Adapted Reports

The MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Interpretive Report (MMPI-2-RF PCIR) is the predecessor to the MMPI-3 PCIR, incorporating the same structure and features. See the discussion under “MMPI-3 Adapted Reports,” above, for a brief overview of the PCIR's content; see Corey and Ben-Porath (2014, 2018) for detailed discussion and interpretive guidance. Also, as with the MMPI-3, the Score Report can be generated from the test distributor's scoring software to include means and standard deviations for all scales using the MMPI-2-RF Police Candidate Comparison Group, but without the annotated, empirically based interpretive content available only with the PCIR.

13 What is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory?

Although there are dozens of psychometric measures used by pain psychologists in the assessment of chronic pain patients, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most commonly used tool. It is often found to be among the best predictors of outcome from pain treatment. It was originally published in 1943 and revised several times. It consists of hundreds of statements requiring the patient to indicate if the statement is true or false. There are 10 clinical scales, generally labeled just as numbers at this time, but initially labeled as: hypochondriasis, depression, hysteria, psychopathic deviate, masculinity-femininity, paranoia, psychasthenia, schizophrenia, mania, and social introversion. There are also several scales to determine the validity of the evaluation. If all the subscales are included, more than 120 MMPI-2 scales exist (clinical, validity, restructured clinical, content, content component, and supplementary).

4.11.3.1 Introduction, Development, and Structure

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3; Ben-Porath and Tellegen, 2020a, 2020b) was released in October 2020. The MMPI-3 was modeled after the MMPI-2-RF but includes new items and norms intended to address some of the aforementioned limitations of the MMPI-2-RF. Indeed, the primary objectives for developing the MMPI-3 were to update test norms to be more representative of the US population and to expand item coverage in important areas inadequately covered in the MMPI-2-RF item pool (Ben-Porath and Tellegen, 2020b).

Development of the MMPI-3 began with revisions to MMPI-2-RF RC scales to improve their distinctiveness (Ben-Porath and Tellegen, 2020a, 2020b). This was done by revising scales using development data collected with an experimental test form, the MMPI-2-RF-Expanded (MMPI-2-RF-EX). Modifications included deleting existing items and adding items from 95 trial items generated by the test authors intended to assess difficulties not well represented in the MMPI-2-RF item pool. Potential changes were evaluated in two ways. First, internal consistencies and intercorrelations with other scales were inspected in a development sample comprised of individuals from mental health, medical, and college settings (N = 1000). Second, validity for original and revised scales was contrasted in a subsample of 200 college students from the development sample. Similar processes were then employed to revise existing MMPI-2-RF SP scales. Next, new SP scales targeting constructs not adequately measured by MMPI-2-RF scales were developed. Rationally derived subsets of the 95 MMPI-2-RF-EX trial items formed seed scales that other items in the MMPI-2-RF-EX item pool could be added to based on their intercorrelations in the development sample. Associations between new scales and external criteria were inspected in the college development subsample and those with poor validity were not included on the MMPI-3.

The MMPI-2-RF H

The final product of these processes was the MMPI-3, which is comprised of 335 True/False items (Ben-Porath and Tellegen, 2020a, 2020b). These items include 239 carried over from the MMPI-2-RF, 24 reworded MMPI-2-RF items, and 72 new items from those on the MMPI-2-RF-EX. The MMPI-3 has 52 scales, including 10 Validity scales and 42 scales assessing substantive content. The Validity scales assess response styles. Substantive scales provide assessment of a test-taker's social, emotional, and behavioral functioning. They are organized into domains reflecting somatic/cognitive, emotional, thought, behavioral, and interpersonal dysfunction. Like the MMPI-2-RF, MMPI-3 substantive scales are largely arranged hierarchically, with the widest perspectives provided by H

The MMPI, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, was developed in the 1940s as a means of evaluating mental health problems in psychiatric and medical settings. The test authors considered it crucial in evaluating patients' problems to ask them about what they felt and thought. The MMPI is a self-report inventory that includes a very broad range of problems and was developed according to rigorous empirical research methods. The MMPI rapidly became the standard personality instrument in clinical settings. The MMPI was revised and modernized in 1989 and titled the MMPI-2. It is the most widely used and researched clinical personality instrument in use in the USA, and has been translated and adapted in many other languages and cultures. The MMPI-2 provides the test user with scores on a number of scales that address important clinical problem areas, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse, in addition to providing information that allows the practitioner to appraise the client's willingness and frankness to self-disclose information in the appraisal. When the client's cooperation in the assessment is assured then the MMPI-2 clinical measures can be effective in delineating the mental health symptoms and personality traits, and special problems that the client is likely to be experiencing.

MMPI-2-RF

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; Ben-Porath and Tellegen, 2008) represents a shortening and reconceptualization of the MMPI-2. Whether this restructured format represents a major advance remains a lingering controversy (Ben-Porath and Flens, 2012; Butcher and Williams, 2012). From the perspective of feigning and other response styles, however, the MMPI-2-RF lacks the breadth and depth of the MMPI-2. As an important consideration, its validity-scale interpretations are based on elevations in a normative group (i.e., nonclinical participants used in developing its norms; see Ben-Porath, 2013). However, clinical samples, as amply demonstrated with the MMPI-2, can easily have very high elevations. Moreover, the interpretations introduce subjectivity into classification; practitioners are asked to consider past history and current corroborating evidence. How this subjectivity affects accuracy and reliability remains to be empirically tested. Studies of the MMPI-2-RF are continuing to emerge. Several of the original large-scale studies have yielded somewhat disparate results (see Rogers and Bender, 2013). Two additional findings are worthy of noting. First, patients with genuine disorders can still have marked elevations on MMPI-2-RF validity scales. Second, the lack of election on the Fp-revised (Fp-r) scale indicates a high likelihood of non-feigned or genuine responding.

4.12.5.1 Historical Background

The MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) is, and has been for many years, the most widely used inventory of personality and psychopathology. To understand the 50-year history of this instrument is to understand the history of objective personality assessment for the same time period. As Craik (1986) put it, in his historical survey of personality research methods, “the MMPI came to serve as the centerpiece of this period' [post-WWII] predominant or mainstream agenda” (p. 21). Within that agenda, one can discern the operation of two separate dialectical processes over time: ongoing disputes between the developers of the MMPI and their critics and bipolar shifts in conceptualization that have occurred within the evolving conceptual and interpretive frameworks of the developers of the MMPI. The ongoing disputes reflect the fact that, because of its prominence, the MMPI came to be associated with such contentious issues as clinical versus statistical prediction (Meehl, 1954) and response styles (Wiggins, 1962). The shifts in conceptualization reflect the virtuosity and intellectual flexibility of the developers of the MMPI who were able to shift from typological categories to continuous trait dimensions; from discriminant validity of differential diagnoses to the construct validity of scales and profiles; and from denigration of self-reports to the canonization of item content (Ben-Porath, 1994).

The dialectical processes just described were enacted by a remarkably diverse group of scientists/practitioners whose program of clinical research had its roots in the unique combination of behavioral, biological and psychometric thinking that prevailed at the University of Minnesota in the 1930s and 1940s (Meehl, 1989). Stark R. Hathaway was an originator of the MMPI, a mentor for successive generations of Minnesota students and a merciless critic of his own instrument (e.g., Hathaway, 1972). Paul E. Meehl—learning theorist, philosopher of science, psychoanalyst, and taxonometrician—is a legend in his own time, the principal theorist of the MMPI, and arguably the major figure in the field of personality assessment since the late 1950s. W. Grant Dahlstrom is the Talmudic scholar of the MMPI, whose meticulous organizations of that vast literature have informed and influenced generations of clinicians and researchers (e.g., Dahlstrom & Dahlstrom, 1980; Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1972–1975; Welsh & Dahlstrom, 1956). James N. Butcher is a distinguished editor, scholar, and researcher who is principal author of the revised MMPI (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), the new MMPI content scales (Butcher, Graham, Williams, & Ben-Porath, 1990), the adolescent version of the MMPI (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992), and the MMPI automated clinical report (Butcher, 1993).

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Questionnaire Studies (U.S. World War II and Korean Prisoners of War)

Psychological or Behavioral Stability

For some positions, prospective employers will wish to be assured that all reasonable efforts have been made to identify and assess relevant psychopathology in the applicant. Such testing is complex and invariably involves collaboration with a licensed psychologist trained in psychometric testing methods. The potential employer normally is not interested in classification, etiology (causation), methods of diagnoses, and other facets of abnormal psychology, as interesting as they may be. The employer’s goal is to authorize relevant tests that can identify abnormal traits that could lead to dangerous or otherwise unacceptable work performance from such employee. For example, an employer might be considered unethical if candidates for employment as armed officers or for executive protection work are not screened for mental disorders.

A licensed psychologist with experience in personnel selection typically has many psychological instruments from which to choose as part of a behaviorally oriented screening process. Two widely used include the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) and the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF).

The MMPI-2 (the ‘2’ indicates a major new version introduced in 1982) is a self-report test of 567 true–false questions. The MMPI was developed in the 1940s to assess psychological adjustment problems in mental health settings. It evolved empirically by establishing true–false questions that separated groups of individuals: one with known psychiatric problems (e.g., anxiety, depression, and schizophrenia) and the other “normals.”17 Uses of the MMPI include preemployment screening, evaluation for promotion, performance assessment, disability evaluation, and return-to-work evaluation. MMPI is also used experimentally to explore how personality factors are related to job success.

An individual taking the MMPI answers true–false questions, which are assigned T-score values on different scales (e.g., scale 1, hypochondriasis; scale 2, depression; and so on). Profiles are then drawn for comparisons to normals; these profiles can be created for highly specific employment circumstances. The MMPI-2 includes an updated normative sample for seven regions of the United States, eliminates gender and sexual orientation language, and is balanced for demographic characteristics.

The value of the MMPI-2 as a screening instrument has been widely recognized. The psychologists J.N. Butcher and S.A. Coelho describe the scales that are valuable in evaluating candidates for law enforcement and protection employment:

Thus, it appears that common personality problems to be wary of in selection of police and security personnel include applicants who are impulsive, superficial, overactive, manipulative, easily frustrated, and immature. These personality traits are likely to show up in pre-employment screening as elevation on scales 9 (mania), 4 (psychopathic deviate), 3 (hysteria), or 1 (hypochondriasis).18

Under the ADA, MMPI-2 is considered to be a medical test and, therefore, should be administered only after a conditional job offer has been given to the applicant. MMPI-2 test results should not be placed in an employee’s personnel file due to ethical requirements mandating confidentiality of psychological and medical information. They should be filed separately and securely. MMPI-2 results should not be used solely as a basis to deny individuals employment consideration. Proper interpretation – conducted by a licensed psychologist – requires a review of the results in the context of an individual’s life history and assessment of current behavioral functioning.19

A newer MMPI-2-RF was published in 2008, and contains only 338 true–false questions. This newer psychological instrument was developed to shorten the time required for completion (usually 30–50 min). As a newer test, the research literature on its validity is evident. The employers’ professional psychologists will likely describe the strengths and weaknesses of the newer form.

A person taking the MMPI (or any psychological instrument) may decide to overreport (exaggerate) or underreport (deny) a behavior being assessed by the test. MMPI-2 includes four validity scales intended to measure a person’s test-taking attitude and tendency to fake results. One validity scale tests for lies, another identifies a quality of randomly selecting answers, a third scale identifies randomness only in the last half of the test, and the fourth identifies people with profiles in the normal range but who actually have signs of psychopathology. This design of the MMPI has made it attractive in numerous workplace applications.

Another psychological personality test used extensively for security employment in the United States and Canada is the 16PF, currently in its fifth edition. The 16PF has been the subject of more than 4000 published research articles. Like the MMPI-2, the 16PF requires professional users to have had graduate training in psychological test interpretation. Also like the MMPI-2, the 16PF is considered part of a “screen out” assessment strategy for psychopathological potentials. The state of California currently requires it in the selection of all state police officers. The 16PF, which is composed of 185 items, is faster to administer than the MMPI-2. Testing can be self-administered through a reusable booklet or via computer interface.

But such psychological tests are only part of a screening process. J.M. Fabricatore, a psychologist who critiques such psychological instruments, emphasizes the importance of considering testing results as only one factor in an employment decision:

Every security administrator/selection executive/chief of police would dearly love to have a 10-min. unfakable psychological test that costs $3, can be scored in 30 seconds, be interpreted by a non-professional, is ADA/EEOC invulnerable, and has a predictive validity of 0.99. The difficult and complex truth is that selecting applicants for security/law enforcement assignment is always a human judgment.20

The 16PF questionnaire has 185 questions that usually can be answered in 25–35 min. Many employers schedule prospective employees to take a personality assessment online. Results are analyzed by an interpretative report.

Personality

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)33 is by far the most commonly used objective measure of personality, and it is similarly the most commonly used measure for the evaluation of psychological functioning of patients with pain. A recently revised version, known as the MMPI-2-RF, consists of 338 true-false items that are used to derive scores on: 3 higher-order scales; 9 restructured clinical scales; 8 validity scales; 14 somatic/cognitive and internalizing scales; 11 externalizing, interpersonal, and interest scales; and 5 personality psychopathology scales.33 The most recent version of the MMPI has several advantages over previous versions: it is based on more modern views of psychopathology, it has fewer items and therefore lower patient burden, and its normative sample is more representative of the U.S. population. Additionally, the restructured clinical scales have reduced intercorrelations with respect to the original scales and have demonstrated validity in predicting pathology with more accuracy while using fewer items than the original scales. However, the MMPI-2-RF has not been examined in patients with chronic pain.

Significant concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of the previous versions of the MMPI (MMPI or MMPI-2) for use in the assessment of patients with chronic pain.60 Differences observed on the clinical scales between pain and nonpain samples have been demonstrated to more likely reflect disease status than psychological functioning.61 An extensive research effort has focused on the identification of reliable subgroups of patients with chronic pain based on their MMPI profiles. The sum of this literature suggests that even though reliable subgroups can be identified despite evidence that the subgroups differ in terms of behavioral correlates of the experience of pain, it has yet to be demonstrated in a compelling fashion that the MMPI has value in characterizing patterns of coping with chronic pain over and above data derived from pain-specific measures.62,63 No information is available to indicate whether these issues have been alleviated (or exacerbated) by the significant revisions of the MMPI-2-RF. Results in patients with chronic pain should be interpreted with caution until further studies are able to validate the MMPI-2-RF in chronic pain populations.

The Millon Behavioral Health Inventory (MBHI)34 was developed to assess the psychological functioning of patients with medical conditions. This 150-item measure contains eight scales designed to assess the respondent’s interaction style (e.g., cooperation), six scales that assess the respondent’s response to illness (e.g., pain treatment responsivity), and six scales that assess the presence of psychosocial stressors (e.g., social alienation). Questions are posed in a true/false format. A respondent’s answers are scored by comparison with the base rate in the normative sample, which consisted of patients with a variety of medical illnesses.

The MBHI has been demonstrated to have substantial reliability and validity indices. It may have advantages relative to the MMPI-2-RF for use in the assessment of patients with pain conditions as a function of its relative brevity and the fact that it was developed and normed on medical as opposed to psychiatric populations. However, to date, studies have failed to demonstrate the predictive validity of the scale in studies of psychological interventions,64 surgical interventions,65 or multidisciplinary treatment66 of patients with chronic pain.