The MMPI-2: Development and Research Issues

  • Nathan C. Weed
  • James N. Butcher
Part of the Advances in Psychological Assessment book series (AIPA, volume 8)

Abstract

Despite the volumes of supporting research its popularity promotes, the MMPI’s prominence quickly converts into disadvantage when discussion turns to the revision of this historic personality inventory. First, there appears to be some inertia where clinical practice and research tradition is concerned. This is true whether or not a particular method of assessment or mode of therapy has a research literature to support it, but is especially pronounced when generations of users fear the destruction of an instrument which has served them well while in the process of “improvement.” Second, among those who agreed that revision of the MMPI was necessary to some degree, there existed nearly as many proposed types of revisions as there were proponents of revisions. Suggestions ranged from the conservative (a simple renorming) to the radical (a complete abandonment of its empirical roots in favor of a more “modern” approach), and vehemence was equally distributed along this continuum. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the decades of “bootstrapping” promoted by the MMPI’s popularity have tied the test’s utility to a particular set of items. There is no a priori construct explication underlying the MMPI scales which permits painless item substitution or revision. Presumably, the further a new instrument strays from the stimulus materials indicated in empirical research, the weaker our confidence in the application of empirical findings to the revised instrument.

Keywords

Test Taker Computerize Adaptive Testing Clinical Scale Validity Scale Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adler, T. (1990, April). Does the new MMPI beat the ‘classic’? APA Monitor, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
  2. Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1990, August). MMPI-2 Items. MMPI-2 News and Profiles, pp. 4–5.Google Scholar
  3. Ben-Porath, Y. S., and Butcher, J. N. (1989a). The comparability of MMPI and MMPI-2 scales and profiles. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 345–347.Google Scholar
  4. Ben-Porath, Y. S., and Butcher, J. N. (1989b). Psychometric stability of rewritten MMPI items. Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 645–653.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ben-Porath, Y. S., Slutske, W. S., and Butcher, J. N. (1989). A real-data simulation of computerized adaptive administration of the MMPI. Personality Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 18–22.Google Scholar
  6. Ben-Porath, Y. S., Waller, N. G., Slutske, W. S., andButcher, J. N. (1988). A comparison of two methods for adaptive administration of MMPI-2 content scales. Paper presented at the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  7. Bishkin, B. H., and Kolotkln, R. C. (1977). Effects of computerized administration on scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 543–549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Burisch, M. (1984). Approaches to personality inventory construction. American Psychologist, 39, 214–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Butcher, J. N. (1987). The use of computers in psychological assessment: An overview of practices and issues. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized psychological assessment (p. 3–14 ). New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  10. Butcher, J. N. ( 1989, August). MMPI-2: Issues of continuity and change. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  11. Butcher, J. N. (1990a, August). Educational level and MMPI-2 measured psychopathology: A case of negligible influence. MMPI-2 News and Profiles, p. 3.Google Scholar
  12. Butcher, J. N. (1990b). Use of the MMPI-2 in treatment planning. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., and Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. An administrative and interpretive guide. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  14. Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Williams, C. L., andBen-Porath, Y. S. (1989). Development and use of the MMPI-2 Content Scales. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  15. Butcher, J. N., Keller, L. S., and Bacon, S. F. (1985). Current developments and future directions in computerized personality assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 803–815.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Chapman, L. J., and Chapman, J. P. (1969). Illusory correlation as an obstacle to the use of valid diagnostic signs. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 4, 44–49.Google Scholar
  17. Christian, W. L., Burkhart, B. R., and Gynther, M. D. (1978). Subtle-obvious ratings of MMPI items: New interest in an old concept. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 1178–1186.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Cohen, J. (1978). Partialled products are interactions; partialled powers are curve components. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 858–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Colligan, R. C., Osborne, D., Swenson, W. M., and Offord, K. P. (1983). The MMPI: A contemporary normative study. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  20. Cronbach, L. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cronbach, L. J. (1987). Statistical tests for moderator variables: Flaws in analyses recently proposed. Psychological Bulletin, 102, 414–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Eyde, L. D., Kowal, D. M., and Fishburne, F. J., Jr. (1986, August). The validity of computer-based test interpretations of the MMPI. In A. D. Mangelsdorff (Chair), Computer-based clinical assessment for children, adults, and neuropsychological cases. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, D. C.Google Scholar
  23. Eyde, L. D., Kowal, D. M., andFishburne, F. J., Jr. (1987, August). Clinical implications of validity research on computer-based interpretations of the MMPI. In A. D. Mangelsdorff (Chair), Practical test user problems facing psychologists in private practice. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Fishburne, F. J., Jr., Eyde, L. D., and Kowal, D. M. ( 1988, August). Computer-based test interpretations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory with neurologically impaired patients. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta.Google Scholar
  25. Gough, H. G. (1947). Simulated patterns on the MMPI. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 42, 215–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Graham, J. R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Graham, J. R., and Ben-Porath, Y. S. ( 1990, June). Congruence between the MMPI and MMPI-2 codetypes: Empirical data and theoretical issues. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Symposium on Recent Developments of the MMPI (MMPI-2). Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  28. Graham, J. R., and Butcher, J. N. (1988). Differentiating schizophrenic and major affective disordered inpatients with the revised form of the MMPI. Paper presented at the 23rd Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in the Use of the MMPI, St. Petersburg, FL.Google Scholar
  29. Greene, R. L. (1980). The MMPI. An interpretive manual. New York: Grune and Stratton.Google Scholar
  30. Hathaway, S. R., and McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Holden, R. R., andJackson, D. N. (1979). Item subtlety and face validity in personality assessment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47, 459–468.Google Scholar
  32. Keller, L. S., and Butcher, J. N. (1990). Use of the MMPI-2 with chronic pain patients. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  33. Koss, M. P., and Butcher, J. N. (1973). A comparison of psychiatric patients’ self report with other sources of clinical information. Journal of Research in Personality, 7, 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lubinski, D., andHumphreys, L. G. (1990). Assessing spurious “moderator effects”: Illustrated substantivelywith the hypothesized (“synergistic”) relation between spatial and mathematical ability. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 385–393.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. McCrea, R. R., and Costa, P. T., Jr. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 81–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Meehl, P. E. (1945). The dynamics of “structured” personality tests. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 296–303.Google Scholar
  37. Meehl, P. E. (1954). Clinical versus statistical prediction: A theoretical analysis and a review of the evidence. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Moreland, K. L. (1987). Computerized psychological assessment: What’s available. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized psychological assessment (pp. 26–49 ). New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  39. Saunders, D. R. (1956). Moderator variables in prediction. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 209–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Slutske, W. S., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Roper, B., Nguyen, P., and Butcher, J. N. (1990, June). An empirical study of the computer adaptive MMPI-2. Paper presented at the 25th Annual Symposium on Recent Developments of the MMPI (MMPI-2). Minneapolis, MN.Google Scholar
  41. Tellegen, A. M. ( 1988, August). Derivation of Uniform T-scores for the restandardized MMPI. Symposium presentation at the 96th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. Atlanta, GA.Google Scholar
  42. Tellegen, A. M. (1989, August). New Uniform T-scores for the MMP1–2: Methodological issues. Paper presented at the 97th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. New Orleans, LA.Google Scholar
  43. Weed, N. C., Ben-Porath, Y. S., and Butcher, J. N. (1990). Failure of the Wiener-Harmon MMPI subtle scales as predictors of psychopathology and as validity indicators. Psychological Assessment A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 281–285.Google Scholar
  44. Weed, N. C., and Han, K. (1991). Evaluating indicators of MMPI-2 profile validity. Manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar
  45. Weiss, D., and Vale, C. D. (1987). Computerized adaptive testing for measuring abilities and other psychological variables. In! N. Butcher (Ed.), Computerized psychological assessment (pp. 325–343 ). New York: Basic.Google Scholar
  46. Wiener, D. N. (1948). Subtle and obvious keys for the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 164–170.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Wiggins, J. S., Goldberg, L., and Appelbaum, M. (1971). MMPI Content Scales: Interpretive norms and correlations with other scales. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 37, 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nathan C. Weed
    • 1
  • James N. Butcher
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations