Personality Assessment With The MMPI-2 Historical Roots, International Adaptations, and Current Challenges

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2009, 1 (1), 105135 doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2008.01007.
Personality Assessment with the MMPI-2: Historical Roots, International Adaptations, and Current Challenges
James N. Butcher* and Carolyn L. Williams1
University of Minnesota, USA
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is the most widely used personality test in psychological practice. Although originally developed during the middle of the last century in the United States, its use today extends around the world. The MMPI-2 is a robust measure given its strong empirical tradition and many innovations. Recent years have seen controversial changes to this standard of psychological assessment. New scales were added in 2003 (i.e. the Restructured Clinical or RC Scales) and the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) was included in the MMPI-2 in 2007. A new instrument called the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) was released in 2008 with the RC Scales replacing the well-validated MMPI-2 Clinical Scales; 40 per cent of its items eliminated; a shortened FBS included; and most of its 50 scales introduced for the rst time. This article traces the history of the evolving MMPI-2 with special attention to its international applications, and offers a perspective on the radical departure from past MMPI-2 research represented by the RC Scales, FBS, the MMPI-2-RF, and other recent changes to this standard in the eld. Keywords: Fake Bad Scale, FBS, FBS-r, MMPI, MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, RC Scales, Restructured Clinical Scales
INTRODUCTION
Minnesota celebrated its 150th anniversary as a state in 2007, and to mark the occasion, the Minnesota Historical Society selected 150 Minnesota notables
* Address for correspondence: James N. Butcher, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Email: butch001@umn.edu 1 Each author participated in the development of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A, including many of their existing scales. Neither author receives income for their contributions to those instruments. The rst author developed a computerised interpretive system, the Minnesota Reports, for the original MMPI and updated it for the MMPI-2. His co-author on this paper is also a co-author on the Adolescent Interpretive System of the Minnesota Report and consults on the other Minnesota Reports. Each author receives royalties from the University of Minnesota Press for the Minnesota Reports. The authors provide a comprehensive disclosure statement at http:// www1.umn.edu/mmpi/disclosure.php. 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
106
BUTCHER AND WILLIAMS
and accomplishments to highlight (Roberts, 2007). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI, MMPI-2)2 was selected, which undoubtedly would have surprised its developers, psychologist Starke Hathaway and psychiatrist J.C. McKinley. In fact, writing in 1959, Hathaway described having been rejected multiple times by publishers before the University of Minnesota Press accepted the MMPI for publication in 1941 (Hathaway, 1972). The previous year, 1940, marked the rst journal articles on the MMPI, establishing its methodology and shaping the direction of clinical psychological assessment for the next 70 years (Hathaway & McKinley, 1940a, 1940b). The following year marked the publication of the instrument, then called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Schedule (Hathaway & McKinley, 1942). To date, more than 19,000 books and articles have been published on the MMPI instruments and the test is used in many settings around the world. In fact, the MMPI and MMPI-2 are among the most widely used personality measures in practice (e.g. Camara, Nathan, & Puente, 2000; Dai, Zheng, Ryan, & Paolo, 1993). Hathaway and McKinley (1940a, 1940b, 1942) originally developed the MMPI for use in medical or psychiatric clinics and its use in those settings continues (e.g. Butcher, 2006). It is also widely used outside of medical and mental health settings for personnel screening for sensitive jobs like airline pilots, police, or nuclear power plant operators (Butcher, Ones, & Cullen, 2006). There is signicant use of the MMPI-2 in forensic settings as well (e.g. Greene, 2007; Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2006), including for correctional (e.g. Megargee, 2006; Sneyers, Sloore, Rossi, & Derksen, 2007), family custody (e.g. Ezzo, Pinsoneault, & Evans, 2007), and personal injury evaluations (e.g. Butcher & Miller, 2006; Livingston, Jennings, Colotla, Reynolds, & Shercliffe, 2006).
INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MMPI AND MMPI-2

Efforts at translating and adapting the MMPI to other languages and cultures began during the post-World War II period. Such dissemination came about in several ways. Many international scholars initiated visits with MMPI researchers at the University of Minnesota: Hathaway (e.g. Nunez from Mexico) and Butcher (e.g. Jing from China) or Dahlstrom at the University of North Carolina (e.g. Hama from Japan). Pre-doctoral students and post-doctoral fellows at the University of Minnesota developed several adaptations (e.g. Gur from Israel, Emiru from Ethopia, Sarma from Latvia, Han
2 The MMPI family includes a version for adolescents, the MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992); however, it will not be covered in this article except to note that there are 16 translations of the MMPI-A and an international case book (Butcher et al., 2000) is available online at http:// www1.umn.edu/mmpi/adolescent.php
2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT WITH THE MMPI-2
107
from Korea, Pongpanich from Thailand). Finally, international scholars became involved in adaptations after attending one of the MMPI/MMPI-2 meetings or International Personality Assessment conferences sponsored by the University of Minnesota. Perhaps one of the earliest MMPI translations was undertaken by a prominent Cuban psychologist, Idelfonso Bernal del Riesgo, in consultation with Starke Hathaway, who spoke Spanish and was interested in Latin America (Quevedo & Butcher, 2005). The Cuban MMPI, released in 1951, was initially used in private practice, but came to be used in the public mental health sector even after the 1959 Cuban Revolution and the increasing inuence of Soviet psychology (Quevedo & Butcher, 2005). Other pioneering MMPI adaptations occurred in Italy by Reda in 1948 (Pancheri, Sirigatti, & Biondi, 1996), in Germany (Sundberg, 1956), and in Japan by Abe in 1955 (Butcher & Pancheri, 1976). In the years that followed, the MMPI came to be widely used in 46 countries (Butcher, 1996; Butcher & Pancheri, 1976). Butcher and Pancheri (1976) reported on MMPI adaptations in Pakistan, Israel, Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland, Belgium, Puerto Rico, Spain, and Denmark; described some of the early work on cross-national computer interpretations;3 and included an appendix of 35 MMPI adaptations. Two decades later, Butcher (1996) listed MMPI-2 adaptations into Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Flemish/Dutch, French, Greek, Hebrew, Hmong, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian, Spanish, Thai, Turkish, and Vietnamese. Interestingly, the MMPI was used and researched during the Cold War in countries like the former Soviet Union (Koscheyev & Leon, 1996), Iran (Nezami & Zamani, 1996) and, as described above, Cuba (Quevedo & Butcher, 2005). Even though these governments had disagreements with the US, psychologists in these countries used the MMPI in government-related activities such as cosmonaut selection (Koscheyev & Leon, 1996) and navy personnel screening (Nezami & Zamani, 1996). The MMPI and MMPI-2 have been adapted for Asian populations in China and Hong Kong (Cheung, Song, & Zhang, 1996), Korea (Han, 1996), and Thailand (Pongpanich, 1996). At one point, there were 15 competing translations of the MMPI in Japan (Clark, 1985). However, a single Japanese translation of the MMPI-2 was accomplished concurrently with the MMPI Restandardization Project (Shiota, Krauss, & Clark, 1996). More recently, Cheung and Butcher (2008) conducted a case study in which 15 patients from Hong Kong were administered the MMPI-2 and the protocol was processed through a computer-based interpretation program based on the US norms.
3 A full discussion of international computerised MMPI and MMPI-2 interpretations is beyond the scope of this article.
108
The computer-derived narratives were found to substantially match the symptoms and problems reported by the patients psychologist. The US is a multicultural society with a large and increasing population of Spanish-speaking individuals, as well as others with limited English prociency. Even though the test is widely used internationally, its appropriateness with American minorities has been questioned (e.g. Dana, 2005; Hays, 2001). Much has been written in the US about cultural factors that can affect psychological assessment and how to use the MMPI-2 with minorities (e.g. Butcher, Cabiya, Lucio, & Garrido, 2007; Garrido & Velasquez, 2006; GrayLittle, in press; Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999; Hays, 2001). In addition to the translations of the MMPI-2 in other countries, there are several versions of the instrument for use with non-English speaking people living in the US, including Vietnamese (Tran, 1996), Hmong from Laos (Deinard, Butcher, Thao, Vang, & Hang, 1996), and Spanish (Butcher et al., 2007). A successful adaptation of the MMPI-2 to another culture (either within a multicultural society like the US or across national boundaries) entails far more than just assuring a solid linguistic translation, although that is an essential process (Geisinger & Carlson, in press). Butcher and Pancheri (1976) and Butcher (1996) document the research procedures underlying the adaptation process. These include, for example, procedures for test item translations, assuring psychological equivalence of items, pretest eld studies, bilingual retest methods, development of culturally appropriate norms, and validity studies in the target culture. When such procedures are completed, the resulting adaptation of the MMPI or MMPI-2 is recognisable to experts around the world. Fowler (2008) described an experience with an MMPI adaptation on his rst visit to China in 1980 at a small psychiatric clinic in Chengdu, Sichuan province. Shortly after he arrived, the only psychologist at the clinic handed him an MMPI prole on one of their patients. Fowler was somewhat taken aback to see such a familiar American prole in this distant clinic, but after a few moments of recovery from his surprise, he proceeded to give the requested interpretation of the MMPI, carefully prefacing it with, Well if this were a patient in the United States I would say . . .. When he was through with his interpretation, the Chinese psychologist promptly said, Ah, that is just what I thought about the patient.
WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE SUCCESS OF THE MMPI AND MMPI-2?

A number of reasons can be found for the broad research attention, clinical application, and international adaptation of the MMPI instruments. First, the original developers, Hathaway and McKinley, had a unique vision, carefully selected an item pool that covered the symptoms of patients in
109
psychiatric and medical clinics, and then insisted on rigorous research to develop the MMPI scales. Hathaway and McKinley (1940a, 1940b, 1942) required that the items and the scales they incorporated into their multiphasic inventory had to demonstrate empirically the personality characteristics and symptom clusters the scales were supposed to predict. Hathaway and McKinley also recognised that the validity and utility of an individuals self-report could be compromised by test-taking attitudes. In some circumstances individuals may want to distort responses to test items in order to present a particularly virtuous presentation of self or to avoid admission of psychological problems (i.e. under-reporting). Other times individuals may want to present as psychologically disturbed (i.e. overreporting). Another major innovation of Hathaway, McKinley, and Meehl was the development of three Validity Scales to assess these test-taking attitudes on the MMPI (Bagby, Marshall, Bury, Bacchiocchi, & Miller, 2006): the L Scale that measured an unsophisticated and virtuous self-presentation; the F Scale based on the endorsement of rare or infrequent symptoms; and the K Scale, a measure of overly defensive responding (Hathaway & McKinley, 1942; Meehl & Hathaway, 1946). While other validity measures have been added to the MMPI-2 over time, the L, K, and F scales remain a standard part of an MMPI-2 evaluation and each has received substantial empirical support since their introduction in the 1940s (Bagby et al., 2006). In addition to the Validity and Clinical Scales, early developers added measures of normal personality. For example, the MMPI and MMPI-2 include measures of personality constructs such as Ego Strength (Es; Baron, 1953), Dominance (Do; Gough, McClosky, & Meehl, 1951), Responsibility (Re; Gough, McClosky, & Meehl, 1952), and Social Introversion Extraversion (Si; Drake, 1946). Hathaway and McKinleys encouragement of the leading researchers of the day to work on the MMPIs development is another crucial reason for the instruments success. Their openness to others provided a model for the eld that eventually led to the broad expansion of the instrument, not only in the US, but internationally as well. Eventually thousands of psychologists contributed external validation for the original MMPI scales and their construct validity was rmly established. Frequently, this research was the result of countless PhD theses, as in the case of the two authors of this article. Over the years, Hathaway and McKinleys empirical scale development method was augmented by other approaches to scale construction such as deductive methods, which resulted in the MMPI Content Scales (Wiggins, 1966) and the MMPI-2 Content Scales (Butcher, Graham, Williams, & Ben-Porath, 1990); or the factor-analytic approach resulting in scales such as the Welsh Anxiety and Repression scales (Welsh, 1956) and the PSY-5 scales (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995). In fact, by 1975, there were 455 scales for the original MMPI (Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1975).
110
Eventually, more scales were developed for the MMPI than there were items on the test, and included scales like the Tired Housewife, Worried Breadwinner, and Success in Baseball (Dahlstrom et al., 1975), or others that simply duplicated existing scales. Because of this proliferation of scales, Butcher and Tellegen (1978) presented guidelines for evaluating the utility of new MMPI scales. These included comparing the reliability and validity of any new scale with established, widely used MMPI scales. Only those new scales that produced scores of greater reliability and validity, or those assessing constructs not measured by existing scales, meet the criteria for new scales suggested by Butcher and Tellegen (1978). A number of authors (Butcher, Graham, & Ben-Porath, 1995; Butcher, Graham, Kamphuis, & Rouse, 2006; Butcher & Williams, 2000) continued to emphasise the importance of fully exploring the relationships of new measures with existing scales on the MMPI-2 in order to demonstrate their uniqueness and/or greater reliability and validity. Hathaway and McKinleys (1940a, 1940b, 1942) version of the MMPI lasted 50 years until an extensive program of research was completed and the MMPI-2 was published in 1989 and the MMPI-A in 1992. The MMPI Restandardization Project involved modication and expansion of the item pool; collecting a representative sample from the general population in the US for developing new norms; and collection of a broad variety of clinical and other research samples (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989; Butcher & Williams, 2000).
ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP MMPI AND MMPI-2 SHORT FORMS

Another active research area in the 1970s and 1980s involved efforts to reduce the number of items on the test, while still retaining the broad-based clinical assessment provided by the MMPI. Several short forms of the MMPI were developed, including the Mini-Mult (Kincannon, 1968), the Faschingbauer Abbreviated MMPI (FAM; Faschingbauer, 1974), and the MMPI-168 (Overall & Gomez-Mont, 1974). Short forms have also been attempted for the MMPI-2 (e.g. Dahlstrom & Archer, 2000; McGrath, Terranova, Pogge, & Kravic, 2003). Unfortunately, these shortened forms did not capture the meanings of the full MMPI scale scores (Butcher & Hostetler, 1990; Butcher, Graham, et al., 2006; Dahlstrom, 1980; Gass & Luis, 2001) and this failure to perform as alternative forms resulted in their not being widely adopted in clinical assessment. Earlier, Hathaway (1972, p. ix) had cautioned MMPI researchers about the need for at least 30 MMPI items to measure the constructs in the Clinical Scales, and, if a criterion group was not homogeneous, as with schizophrenic patients, then many more responses were required. He also
111
expressed concern about the loss of information that would result if only a part of the MMPI was administered to an individual:
If you choose to for any reason to administer only part of the test, you should be aware of how this would affect the interpretations and the consequences which you would subsequently nd through your interpretation. I, for one, would never administer only part of the test. I suspect the increment of new information would fall short . . . (Hathaway, 1975)
As noted below, concerns about the heterogeneity of the constructs underlying MMPI-2 Clinical Scales remain an issue regarding the latest attempts to shorten these scales (e.g. Gordon, 2006; Rogers & Sewell, 2006).
CHANGES TO THE MMPI-2 SINCE 2001

After its publication in 1989, the transition from MMPI to MMPI-2 was relatively smooth and research continued, leading to interpretive renements, particularly with the validity scales; introduction of two new validity scales, Infrequency-Psychopathology (Fp; Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1995) and Superlative Self-Presentation (S; Butcher & Han, 1995); introduction of two new measures related to alcohol and drug problems (Weed, Butcher, McKenna, & Ben-Porath, 1992); and the development of the PSY-5 scales (Harkness et al., 1995). The MMPI-2 manual was updated to reect these and other changes (Butcher et al., 2001). However, the most recent ve years have witnessed several controversial changes to the MMPI-2 that present challenges that Hathaway cautioned about in 1959:
Because the need for tests is great, there is always a danger that research energy will be dissipated by wide and improper use of an instrument. To prevent this, it is necessary that the methods and promise of a test be sharply understood and ruthlessly evaluated. (Hathaway, 1972)
Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

With encouragement and funding from the MMPI-2 test publisher, the University of Minnesota Press, Tellegen and his colleagues sought to complete work he began shortly after the publication of the MMPI-2 in 1989 to develop a set of MMPI-2 scales within the framework of Watson and Tellegens (1985) model of Positive Affect and Negative Affect (Tellegen et al., 2003). And, in 2002, the year prior to the publication of the RC Scales monograph, Tellegen and Ben-Porath began receiving support from the University of Minnesota Press to develop a short form of the MMPI-2 based on
112
the RC Scales (this became known as the MMPI-2 Restructured Form or MMPI-2-RF; see below). Pearson Assessments (2003), the distributor of the MMPI-2, announced the inclusion of the RC Scales in one of their products, the Extended Score Report, three months prior to the release of its monograph, indicating that The RC Scales can clarify which of the Clinical Scale correlates should be emphasized . . .. Although this announcement called upon researchers to explore the utility of the RC Scales, no mention was made of plans to use the RC Scales to develop a shortened version of the test by replacing the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales with the RC Scales (Pearson Assessments, 2003). Concerns about Theoretical Assumptions of the RC Scales. Tellegen and colleagues (2003) hypothesised that the rst factor of the MMPI, identied by Welsh (1956; the well known Anxiety or A Scale), was the MMPI-2 equivalent of the Pleasantness-versus-Unpleasantness (PU) axis in Watson and Tellegens (1985) personality model. They renamed Welshs (1956) construct, Demoralization, and the following were included among their hypotheses (Tellegen et al., 2003): 1. The MMPI-2 Clinical Scales have a signicant number of items measuring Demoralization. 2. Demoralization is a clinically relevant construct that warrants separate measurement. 3. Demoralization is not an essential part of any of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales. 4. Removal of Demoralization items from the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales will result in more valid scales than the original versions that have dened the MMPI-2 since the 1940s. With this theoretical basis, they began a series of steps to identify Demoralization items and remove them from the Clinical Scales. According to them, the purpose of the RC Scales was to attempt to preserve the core constructs of the Clinical Scales and improve their effectiveness by reducing item overlap, reducing scale intercorrelation, eliminating the so-called subtle items (that is, items without content validity), and improving convergent and discriminant validity. Tellegen et al. (2003) did not include a rationale for the selection of the rst authors model of personality as the guide for their work, they did not describe other competing models, nor did they mention criticisms of the Watson and Tellegen model in the literature (Ranson, Nichols, Rouse, & Harrington, in press). Others, however, have pointed to aws in this approach and the resulting RC Scales (e.g. Butcher, Hamilton, Rouse, &
113
Cumella, 2006; Caldwell, 2006; Gordon, 2006; Nichols, 2006; Ranson et al., in press; Rogers & Sewell, 2006; Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, & Jordan, 2006). For example, Rogers and Sewell (2006, pp. 176177) described the RC Scales as a radical retrotting of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and Rogers et al. (2006) cautioned against the use of the RC Scales in professional practice. Gordon (2006) indicated that the RC Scales are based on false assumptions about psychopathology (i.e. that consistent items are needed to assess all psychopathologies), pointing to complex diagnostic conditions like Hysteria, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder that are better understood with a psychodynamic formulation recognising internal conicts and contradictions. He indicates that a simplistic behavioral approach with an insistence on more internally consistent and distinct scales does not produce more external validity or useful measures for many of the complex disorders found in clinical practice. The differing types of psychopathology mentioned by Gordon (2006) are not the only examples of complex diagnostic categories that share symptoms across discrete disorders. Medicine also provides examples similar to the relationship of Demoralization to the constructs underlying the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales. Consider the example of back pain. Its presentation could indicate visceral (e.g. kidney stone; tumor), muscular skeletal (e.g. herniated disk; muscle strain), psychogenic problems, or a combination of one or more problems. Even though it is a symptom for all these specic diagnoses, back pain remains an integral part of the description of each of these individual diseases or conditions. There are multiple other examples in medicine: shortness of breath is a key diagnostic sign for several diseases affecting the lungs and heart or it could indicate a broken rib; numbness and/or tingling hands could indicate carpal tunnel syndrome, myocardial ischemia, or a stroke; and fever is another non-specic, but key, symptom (or item to use a psychometric term) of many different diseases. It would represent a fundamental departure from standard medical care to remove symptoms like back pain, shortness of breath, numbness/tingling hands, or fever from the diagnostic assessment of the various diseases or injuries in which these symptoms are part of the clinical picture, and instead consider those symptoms as part of a stand-alone diagnostic entity. Such a departure in standard practice would have to be supported by extensive, independently replicated research that unequivocally demonstrated the superiority of the radically different approach. Yet, the developers of the RC Scales and its offshoot, the MMPI-2-RF, have been arguing for such a radical procedure with regard to the eight MMPI-2 Clinical Scales: the statistical removal of items (i.e. symptoms) they dened as measuring demoralization (which is better known as Welshs A, an MMPI-2 construct rst identied in 1956) from each of the Clinical Scales, and putting these items into a separate scale they call Demoralization.
114
Methodological Issues and Findings. Despite their name, which implies a close link to the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales, the Restructured Clinical Scales are not simply shortened or alternative forms of the Clinical Scales (Butcher, Hamilton, et al., 2006; Nichols, 2006; Rouse, Greene, Butcher, Nichols, & Williams, 2008; Simms, Casillas, Clark, Watson, & Doebbeling, 2005), even though the RC Scales replace the Clinical Scales in the new MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). As Simms and colleagues (2005, p. 357) explained:
Also, despite the temptation to do so, it also is apparent that the RC scales cannot be interpreted on the basis of previous empirical studies of the original scales; the RC scales represent new measures whose meanings now must be determined empirically.
Rogers and Sewell (2006, p. 177) also expressed concern about the recommendation by the authors of the RC Scales to use them to rene interpretations of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales:
This recommendation is lacking in both conceptual and empirical foundation. Conceptually, the RC scales are fundamentally different from the clinical scales in their focus and coverage. With such core differences, RC scales cannot be used to clarify clinical scales. Empirically, RC scales would need to demonstrate incremental validity before their use in augmenting traditional interpretations.
There are three major problems regarding studies of the utility of RC Scales in MMPI-2 assessments: 1. The developers did not follow long-established guidelines for evaluating the utility of new MMPI or MMPI-2 scales. 2. The RC scales do not capture the constructs of the original MMPI clinical scales to a degree that they can provide useful information about them. 3. The RC scales appear to have low sensitivity to clinical symptoms and psychopathology. As noted above, there are established procedures for evaluating newly developed MMPI measures (Butcher et al., 1995; Butcher, Graham, et al., 2006; Butcher & Tellegen, 1978; Butcher & Williams, 2000). These include a thorough comparison of the proposed new scales with extant MMPI-2 scales to determine if the proposed scales are unique or demonstrate greater reliability or validity than the extant scales. Such comparisons utilising the complete set of MMPI-2 scales (e.g. the Content Scales, PSY-5, Supplementary) were not included in the RC manual, which instead was limited exclusively to comparisons with the Clinical Scales (Tellegen et al., 2003). These
115
comparisons are also missing from most of their later studies, again with the focus on comparing the RC Scales only to the Clinical Scales (e.g. Arbisi, Sellbom, & Ben-Porath, 2008; Forbey & Ben-Porath, 2008; Handel & Archer, 2008; Sellbom & Ben-Porath, 2005; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory, 2008). However, a recent study raises signicant concerns about this limiting of comparisons of the RC Scales only to their parent Clinical Scales. Rouse et al. (2008) used 49 samples across the various settings in which the MMPI-2 is used (e.g. mental health, forensic, medical, personnel, general population) with a total of 78,159 subjects to determine the relationship of the RC Scales with extant MMPI-2 scales. For over half the RC Scales, the correlations across 49 samples from Rouse et al. (2008, Table 3) are strong enough to conclude that the RC Scales are alternative forms of several extant MMPI-2 scales with rich empirical foundations: is redundant with MMPI-2 Content Scale Health Concerns (HEA; RC1 Mean correlation = .90). is redundant with MMPI-2 Content Scale Cynicism (CYN; Mean RC3 correlation = .91). is redundant with Supplementary Scale Anxiety (A; Mean corre RC7 lation = .88). is redundant with MMPI-2 Content Scale Bizarre Mentation RC8 (BIZ; Mean correlation = .89). is redundant with Supplementary Scale Anxiety (A; Mean RCd correlation = .92). In general, Rouse et al. (2008, Tables 2 and 3) report that the remaining four RC Scales (RC2, RC4, RC6, RC9) are more closely related to other existing and well-validated MMPI-2 scales than to their parent clinical scales: was more closely related to the PSY-5 Scale Introversion/Low RC2 Positive Emotionality (INTR; Mean correlation = .78) than its parent
Scale 2 (Mean correlation = .70). RC4 was more closely related to the Supplementary Scale Addiction Acknowledgment Scale (AAS; Weed et al., 1992; Mean correlation = .78) than its parent Scale 4 (Mean correlation = .52). RC6 is more closely related to PSY-5 Scale Psychoticism (PSYC; Mean correlation = .76) than its parent Scale 8 (Mean correlation = .60). RC9 is more closely related to the Supplementary Scale Hostility (HO; Cook & Medley, 1954; Mean correlation = .66), than its parent Scale 9 (Mean correlation = .63).
Figure 1 for men and Figure 2 for women dramatically demonstrate the remarkably close relationships of the RC Scales with the above extant
116
120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
RC Scales MMPI-2 Scales
Welsh A 55 RCD 59
HEA 70 RC1 73
INTR 55 RC2 60
CYN 50 RC3 50
AAS 51 RC4 51
PSYC 50 RC6 51
A 51 RC7 52
BIZ 51 RC8 52
HO 49 RC9 46
FIGURE 1. MMPI-2 RC Scales plotted with Redundant or Most Highly Correlated MMPI-2 scales: Chronic pain men (n = 104). Note: Rouse et al. (2008) demonstrated redundancies with RC1 and HEA; RC3 and CYN; RC7 and A; RC8 and BIZ. The remaining RC Scales were more closely related to the MMPI-2 scales in this table (i.e. RC2 and INTR; RC4 and AAS; RC6 and PSYC; and RC9 and Ho) than they were to their parent Clinical Scale. Source: Rouse et al. (2008).
MMPI-2 scales that replicates across genders, with the exception of a little more divergence for women showing for RC2 and INTR. Figures 1 and 2 are plotted using the data from the chronic pain sample (n = 104 men; n = 316 women) included among the 49 samples used by Rouse et al. (2008). We selected the chronic pain sample (Caldwell, 1998)4 because of the relative homogeneity of symptom presentation on the MMPI-2 by patients in this medical setting (Arbisi & Seime, 2006). Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and Sellbom (2008) challenge these ndings about the scale intercorrelations and reliabilities of the RC Scales in the 49 samples examined by Rouse et al. (2008), suggesting instead that their studies,
4
The authors are grateful to Alex Caldwell for granting us use of this data set.

120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
117
RC Scales MMPI-2 Scales
Welsh A 53 RCd 56
HEA 66 RC1 68
INTR 44 RC2 59
CYN 47 RC3 48
AAS 51 RC4 51
PSYC 49 RC6 51
A 53 RC7 49
BIZ 50 RC8 51
HO 47 RC9 46
FIGURE 2. MMPI-2 RC Scales plotted with Redundant or Most Highly Correlated MMPI-2 scales: Chronic pain women (n = 316). Note: Rouse et al. (2008) demonstrated redundancies with RC1 and HEA; RC3 and CYN; RC7 and A; RC8 and BIZ. The remaining RC Scales were more closely related to the MMPI-2 scales in this table (i.e. RC2 and INTR; RC4 and AAS; RC6 and PSYC; and RC9 and Ho) than they were to their parent Clinical Scale. Source: Rouse et al. (2008).
particularly ones on validity, are more informative, even though the RC monograph (Tellegen et al., 2003) does not include HEA, CYN, A, BIZ, INTR, AAS, PSYC, or Ho in any of their analyses. A subsequent study did examine the incremental validity of the RC Scales in private practice settings and included the Content Scales (Sellbom, Graham, & Schenk, 2006); and another included A, HEA, INTR, CYN, and BIZ (but not AAS, PSYC, or Ho) in a correlate study using a college counseling sample (Sellbom, BenPorath, & Graham, 2006). The incremental validity study was not conclusive about the superiority of the RC Scales over the corresponding extant scales. For example, in the private practice setting, the magnitude of the incremental prediction was small for RC1 over HEA, RC1 was more strongly correlated with Panic/Anxiety than would be expected from previous research, and RC3 did not add incrementally to CYN in the prediction of
118
Paranoia/Mistrust (Sellbom, Graham, & Schenk, 2006, p. 204). In the college counseling sample, the authors were not able to sufciently explore the convergent validity of RC3 or RC8 due to a lack of relevant criterion measures (Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2006, p. 97). Rogers et al. (2006, p. 145) indicated that the Tellegen et al. (2003) data on convergent and discriminant validity are complex and difcult to interpret. These researchers suggested that items associated with demoralization should also be removed from the external criteria in validity studies of the RC Scales. They also questioned some of the individual decisions made to eliminate important aspects of the Clinical Scales (e.g. removal of identity problems and alienation from Sc). And they pointed to the Tellegen et al. (2003) report of low correlations between RC4 and criminal justice involvement (.06 for women and .16 for men), but relatively high correlations with substance abuse (.55 and .47, respectively). This is consistent with the Rouse et al. (2008) ndings of the stronger association of RC4 with the substance abuse measure AAS, compared with the broader construct measured by Pd (Scale 4) that has been demonstrated empirically since the inception of the MMPI in the 1940s. The conclusions of Rogers and Sewell (2006) and Simms et al. (2005) that the RC Scales differ fundamentally from the Clinical Scales is most clearly illustrated by the drastic change to Hy with its restructuring and the resulting RC3 (Butcher, Hamilton, et al., 2006; Gordon, 2006; Nichols, 2006). The Hy scale is a well-established construct for understanding medical/ psychological conditions such as chronic pain (Arbisi & Seime, 2006). In fact, Hathaway (1972, p. xiv) had this to say about the utility of Hy as part of the 13/31 code type:
Working psychologists cannot yet afford the luxury of throwing away a tool for its lack of constructural quality. For practical decisions, the MMPI offers its modest validities with an occasional bonus in a few high-probability correlates . . . even an amateur reader of MMPI proles who sees a code 13 . . . can for a moment feel professional identity in giving a little interpretive statement about the modal person who produces such a prole . . . He is, for example, rather safe if he asks what disablement the person developed when he encountered a period of psychological stress.
Yet, RC3 does not address these constructs. Rather, the RC authors changed the scale by dropping most of the somatic items and reversing its scoring direction. So, RC3 actually measures a different construct than the somatisation, denial, and other issues captured by the Hy construct. RC3 is a measure of cynicism, which is already well captured with the MMPI-2 Content Scale Cynicism (see above). The cynicism construct has been a major component in understanding the factor structure of MMPI items for some
119
time, as unveiled in factor analytic studies such as the large item factor analysis conducted by Johnson, Butcher, Null, and Johnson (1984). A nal concern is that the RC Scales may be less sensitive in identifying psychopathology than the Clinical Scales. Thus, a psychologist can reach different, and potentially conicting, interpretations when using the RC Scales in place of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales or if they use the RC Scales to alter interpretive statements based on the Clinical Scales. For example, the studies by Rogers et al. (2006) and Wallace and Liljequist (2005) reported that almost half of their clinical cases have normal limits RC Scales, compared with around a third for the Clinical Scales. This can be illustrated with the data from the same chronic pain sample (n = 104 men; n = 316 women) used in Figures 1 and 2, and reported in Rouse et al. (2008). Figures 3 and 4 present the mean MMPI-2 T scores for men and women, respectively, for the Clinical Scales and RC Scales. The MMPI-2 Clinical Scales perform as expected for these subjects in this chronic pain treatment setting (i.e. both genders show clinical elevations on Scales Hs, D,
120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 RC Scales Clinical Scales
Welsh A 55 RCd 59
Hs 74 RC1 73
D 70 RC2 60
Hy 73 RC3 50
Pd 60 RC4 51
Pa 58 RC6 51
Pt 64 RC7 52
Sc 63 RC8 52
Ma 50 RC9 48
FIGURE 3. (n = 104).
MMPI-2 Clinical Scales plotted with RC Scales: Chronic pain men
Source: Rouse et al. (2008).

120
120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30
RC Scales Clinical Scales
Welsh A 53 RCd 56
Hs 72 RC1 68
D 68 RC2 59
Hy 74 RC3 48
Pd 59 RC4 51
Pa 58 RC6 51
Pt 61 RC7 50
Sc 61 RC8 51
Ma 50 RC9 46
FIGURE 4. MMPI-2 Clinical Scales plotted with RC Scales: Chronic pain women (n = 316). Source: Rouse et al. (2008).
and Hy or what is known as the 1-2-3 code type). However, the mean RC Scales prole for these same subjects is within the normal range with the exception of an elevation on RC1. Missing from this interpretive picture are the well-known elevations on Scale 2 and 3, and the resulting 1-2-3 code type with its empirically determined correlates. The RC Scales under-represent the psychopathology found in chronic pain patients on the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales. As noted above, this RC Scale artifact probably results from the removal of many symptoms through the purging of demoralization items. Symptoms of demoralization are part of this clinical construct.
The Fake Bad Scale

In January 2007, the MMPI publisher and distributor announced the addition of the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) to the MMPI-2 standard scoring materials (Pearson Assessments, 2007). The FBS was developed by Lees-Haley, English, and Glenn (1991) to evaluate individuals claiming personal injuries.
121
It is based on its authors premise that many psychologists and plaintiffs attorneys coach clients in advance of independent medical evaluations to create false claims. Prior to 2007, individual psychologists made the decision whether to score the FBS and include it in their MMPI-2 interpretations. Now, however, the MMPI-2 Extended Score Report includes the FBS on the validity scales prole with the well-established MMPI-2 Validity Scales across all settings. The FBS was added to the MMPI-2 without a test manual or manual supplement providing information to assist in psychologists use of the scale (e.g. item/scale membership, scored direction, endorsement frequencies by gender, T-score conversion tables). Instead of a manual or supplement, the distributors and publishers websites included brief statements (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) recommending raw score cut-offs for interpretation of the FBS and referred users to a book chapter by Greiffenstein, Fox, and Lees-Haley (2007) for more information on using the FBS. Over time, the website statements have changed in notable ways (i.e. a discrepancy in cut-off raw score recommendations on the publishers and distributors websites was eliminated; the scales name was changed from Fake Bad Scale to Symptom Validity Scale). Test users were not alerted to these changes, either with an erratum or other indication of a revision, which may cause confusion for those downloading the statements at different times. Methodological Issues. The development of the FBS did not follow the research standards set by Hathaway and others for MMPI scale development. Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally, and Williams (2008, p. 2) described numerous methodological aws in the scale construction procedures used by Lees-Haley et al. (1991), including inadequate description of item selection procedures; lack of independent and empirical verication of the rationally selected items; lack of explicit and independently veried criteria to classify subjects into credible versus malingering groups; no information about the population from which the subjects were selected; use of small samples that can lead to unstable ndings; lack of descriptive information, other than mean age and sex; and failure to consider sex differences, or other key differences (e.g. disability status, health or mental health problems) in responding to the selected items. The FBS was developed originally to identify malingering of emotional distress by personal injury claimants. Now, however, proponents claim it can identify exaggerated claims of disability (what has been called somatic or cognitive malingering) in forensic neuropsychological evaluations (e.g. BenPorath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b; Greiffenstein et al., 2007; Larrabee, 1998; Pearson Assessments, 2007). However, methodological problems are evident in work subsequent to the original scale development article. For example, Larrabee (1998) based his recommendation to use the FBS to identify
122
somatic malingering of brain injury claimants using a convenience sample of 12 of his patients, 100 per cent of whom he identied as malingerers. He had no comparison or control group, but Larrabee (1998) concluded that the FBS was a more accurate measure of malingering than the F Scale (an MMPI-2 validity scale in use since the original MMPI was developed) because the FBS identied 11 of his patients as malingerers, whereas the F Scale only identied three of his patients as malingerers. Butcher et al. (2008) provide additional information about the methodological problems with the FBS. They suggest that the FBS could be more aptly named the Litigated Personal Injury Scale, given that most of the empirical studies of the FBS are based on discriminations of litigating personal injury cases from non-litigating controls. Butcher et al. (2008) also describe concerns about item biases, particularly for women and persons with disabilities, and high false positive rates across various patient samples (see also, Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003). The false positive rates for women in a tertiary care inpatient unit for eating disordersa group that is extremely unlikely to malinger given the clinical nature of their disorders and their close observation by a large multi-disciplinary treatment teamranged from 11 per cent using the cut-off raw score of 29 or higher currently recommended by the publisher (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) or 62 per cent using the cut-off suggested by Lees-Haley et al. (1991). Another recent study also found substantial gender effects (Dean et al., 2008), calling into question the practice of using the same raw score cut-offs for women and men (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) or non-gendered T-Scores (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; see below). Response to the FBS by the Courts and Media. Use of the FBS as part of an MMPI-2 evaluation is coming under increasing scrutiny by the courts and the media (Armstrong, 2008; Hsieh, 2008a, 2008b; Morris, 2008) because it is being used for high stakes decision-making (e.g. Should an individual be compensated for a brain injury or is the person malingering? Should an insurance company pay for mental health treatment/hospitalisation or is the individual feigning a psychological disorder? Does this veteran have psychological or brain injuries resulting from his war experiences, thus being eligible for benets?). Either Frye or Daubert standards are used in US courts to determine whether a test can be used as part of expert witness testimony (Pope et al., 2006). Until recently, the scientic soundness of the MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A and their underlying methodologies, scales, and interpretive statements was widely accepted in expert witness testimony in US courthouses (Pope et al., 2006). However, in the last two years the FBS has failed four Frye challenges in Florida (Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al., 2007; Stith v. State Farm Insurance, 2008; Vandergracht v. Progressive Express et al., 2007; Williams v.
123
CSX Transportation, Inc., 2007) resulting in its exclusion from expert witness testimony. Judge Hoys ruling in August 2008 in Stith v. State Farm Insurance illustrates the concerns:
The evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the FBS is not an objective measurement of malingering, exaggerating or over reporting of symptoms. The FBS is inherently unreliable because it scores points in malingering, exaggerating or over reporting when a patient has true symptoms of physical injury or physical distress. The FBS has the signicant potential to negatively impact persons with true disabilities. The evidence presented showed that the test is biased against women because they tend to score higher on the FBS than men, particularly when they have veriable injuries.
In addition to the four Frye hearings, use of the FBS as a measure of malingering did not fare well in a recent California jury trial (Hsieh, 2008a). In this case, the injured womans attorney challenged the psychologists conclusions in cross-examination that his client was malingering based on her FBS score. The psychologist revealed that many FBS items were symptoms that could be found in patients with chronic pain, sleep disturbances, and emotional distress. After three hours of deliberation the jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. While it is appropriate for psychologists to research controversial MMPI-2 scales, publishers and distributors should err on the side of caution before adding measures like the FBS to an assessment standard that affects the practice of all psychologists using the MMPI-2. If publishers go forward with such a controversial change, then it remains incumbent on them to provide a manual or supplement, not simply a brief website statement, fully describing the psychometric properties of the scale. And, if questions are raised about bias against groups of people (e.g. women, persons with disabilities, persons with psychological problems like PTSD or somatisation), then surely psychologists must be made aware of those concerns.
The MMPI-2-RF
In August 2008 the University of Minnesota Press and Pearson Assessments released a new version of the MMPI-2, called the MMPI-2-RF, that reduced the existing 567-item MMPI-2 booklet to a 338-item measure with 50 scales (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). The publisher cited the positive reception of the RC Scales by many test users and researchers as the rationale for supporting the development of a new form of the MMPI-2 with the RC Scales at its core (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008, p. xi). However, as Geisinger and Carlson (in press) have pointed out, test developers are required to provide evidence that scores are equivalent across
124
different forms of the test. In the section above about the RC Scales, we indicated that they are not alternative or equivalent forms of their parent Clinical Scales, and described multiple concerns raised by independent researchers about what, in fact, they measure, and whether they covered the same broad domains of psychopathology as in the MMPI-2. Of the remaining 42 MMPI-2-RF scales (i.e. those other than the eight RC Scales), seven are revisions of extant MMPI-2 Validity Scales (i.e. VRIN-r, TRIN-r, F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, L-r, and K-r) and ve are revisions of the PSY-5 scales (i.e. AGGR-r, PSYC-r, DISC-r, NEGE-r, and INTR-r). Therefore, almost two-thirds of the MMPI-2-RF is made up of measures being introduced for the rst time. This presents a particularly challenging task of providing evidence of equivalence across the different forms of a test when a test has been changed so drastically as has the MMPI-2-RF. The PSY-5 Scales are the only other clinically relevant set of MMPI-2 scales that were revised and included in the MMPI-2-RF. Given that two of the ve constructs measured by the PSY-5 Scales may already be captured by two of the RC Scales (Rouse et al., 2008), this is an interesting choice since the goals were to develop a comprehensive set of scales to provide an exhaustive assessment of the clinically relevant variables in the MMPI-2 item pool using the fewest items possible. (See above for a description of the strong associations between RC2 and the PSY-5 INTR and RC6 and the PSY-5 PSYC.) Questions about the Revised PSY-5 Scales. The MMPI-2-RF Manual indicates that Harkness and McNulty (2007) independently revised the PSY-5 Scales.5 Presumably, Harkness and McNulty (2007) should include sufcient details about the revision process for test users to determine if the revised PSY-5 Scales are equivalent to their originals, since this information is not included in the test manual. However, quite simply put, Harkness and McNulty (2007), a chapter in a book said to be edited by Butcher, does not exist. There is a similarly titled book edited by Butcher (2006) with a chapter by Harkness and McNulty (2006), but there is no mention in that chapter of any revision of the PSY-5 Scales or any data that would establish the equivalence of the MMPI-2-RF versions of the PSY-5 Scales with the originals (Harkness & McNulty, 2006). The MMPI-2-RF manual refers test users to a technical manual for more information about the revised PSY-5 and other MMPI-2-RF scales (BenPorath & Tellegen, 2008; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). In the case of the revised PSY-5 Scales, a one-paragraph summary describes the revision
5 This citation in the MMPI-2-RF manual is: Harkness, A.R., & McNulty, J.L. (2007). An overview of personality: The MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five scales (PSY-5). In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Pathways to MMPI-2 use: A practitioners guide to test usage in diverse settings. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
125
process used by Harkness and McNulty (2007), an appendix includes external correlate information for the revised scales, and a data table from ve clinical samples shows that the strongest correlate of each original PSY-5 Scale is its MMPI-2-RF counterpart. No other details are provided comparing the psychometric performance of the revised PSY-5 Scales with the originals to help psychologists determine their equivalence. The citation for the development of the PSY-5 Scales in the technical manual is an unpublished presentation (Harkness & McNulty, 2007), and it is unclear if test users will have sufcient access to it and if the materials from it will be sufciently detailed. Concerns about Non-Gendered T-Scores. Another major departure is the use of non-gendered T-scores for deriving MMPI-2-RF interpretive statements (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). The MMPI-2-RF combined gender normative sample was formed by randomly eliminating 324 women from the MMPI-2 normative sample (n = 1,138 men; n = 1,462 women). The approach of using the same T-score distribution for both men and women is contrary to Hathaway and McKinleys (1940a, 1940b, 1942) work with the original MMPI and with the development of MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989; Butcher et al., 2001). Hathaway and McKinley (1940b, p. 85) reported that normal women endorsed more items than men, noting, for example, in their description of the development of the Depression Scale:
The most constant difference, however, is that between sexes. At present the authors are not willing to interpret this difference but it may be due to some general bias in response that is not particularly related to depression.
They dealt with these observed sex differences by using norms in which women were compared with women and men with men for the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales. And, with the exception of the FBS and the new MMPI-2-RF scales, all future MMPI-2 scale development researchers presented separate norms for men and women. Non-gendered T-scores were developed to meet concerns about using gender-based norms in personnel screening (Ben-Porath & Forbey, 2003; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). Although these non-gendered norms have been readily available in clinical and research settings for ve years, they have not been widely used in professional practice for MMPI-2 interpretations other than their limited use in some personnel selection settings. Furthermore, psychologists are given the option to suppress reporting of these nongendered norms for their individual patients in several MMPI-2 products distributed by Pearson Assessments to avoid possible interpretation conicts. Gender Bias on the FBS-r. The differential responses of men and women to the FBS items provides a contemporary example of Hathaway and
126
McKinleys (1940b) concerns about a general bias in response styles of men and women that is not related to the construct purportedly being measured by the scale. Proponents of the FBS and FBS-r claim that elevations on the FBS and FBS-r are related to over-reporting of symptoms that have at various times been described as emotional distress or somatic or cognitive symptoms related to brain injury (e.g. Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b, 2008; Greiffenstein et al., 2007; Lees-Haley et al., 1991; Larrabee, 1998; Pearson Assessments, 2007). As described above, the FBS, especially since its adoption into the MMPI-2, is being used for high stakes decisions that signicantly impact peoples well-being. Sex differences in responses to the FBS items have been extensively reported in the literature (e.g. Butcher et al., 2003; Butcher et al. 2008; Dean et al., 2008; Greiffenstein et al., 2007). Butcher et al. (2008) reported that the MMPI-2 T-score equivalent of the recommended FBS raw score cut-off of 29 or higher for identifying non-credible responding on the MMPI-2 (BenPorath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) for women is 87, but for men it is 95, close to a full standard deviation higher. Furthermore, they described item-level biases in the FBS content (e.g. MMPI-2 normative women were more likely to report hot ushes13% versus 2% for menand not excessively using alcohol21% for women versus 44% for men) that contribute to womens higher scores given the scored direction for these items. Those two example items from Butcher et al. (2008) were dropped from the 30-item FBS-r version of the Fake Bad Scale, although they remain on the MMPI-2 version of the FBS. Unfortunately, though, almost half of the FBS-r items (i.e. FBS-r item numbers 36, 45, 55, 88, 99, 133, 141, 162, 187, 189, 193, 234, 247, 261) show item endorsement differences between the MMPI-2 normative men and women of ve percentage points or higher (mean = 8.7; range 518). In addition to reporting non-gendered T-scores exclusively in the MMPI-2-RF Manual, only mean raw scores for the combined gender sample are reported. Test users are referred to Appendix D of the Technical Manual for genderbased norms, although only mean T-score values are reported, not raw scores. Descriptive statistics by sex for raw scores that would facilitate an understanding of the impact of the differential response rates for men and women to the FBS-r items are not provided. Furthermore, that is true for all the scales introduced in the MMPI-2-RF, the combined gender sample is used to generate raw score means and standard deviations, which does not allow users to determine whether Hathaway and McKinleys (1940b) observations about differential responding by men and women on MMPI scales is an issue on the MMPI-2-RF. Hathaways Challenge. This has been a brief description of some of the immediate concerns regarding the introduction of the MMPI-2-RF into clini 2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of Applied Psychology.
127
cal practice. It is not a comprehensive review, as we received the MMPI-2-RF materials for the rst time one week before the present article was due. We urge potential users of the MMPI-2-RF to evaluate carefully the trade-off of around half an hour of test administration time with the loss of well-established MMPI-2 measures like the Clinical, Content, and Supplementary Scales that have been the standard in the eld. As with the many other changes to the MMPI and MMPI-2, including its numerous international adaptations, Hathaways challenge to sharply understand and ruthlessly evaluate this new product is in order.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
Over the past 70 years, the MMPI instruments have been adapted into other languages and cultures, researched extensively, and used in settings very diverse from the University of Minnesota Hospitals where they were developed originally to improve the health and well-being of their patients. The MMPI-2 has been so successful because of its rich empirical tradition and the research efforts of thousands of psychologists. There should be no halo effect for new versions of this standard. A test must have its own substantial research base or its equivalence to its predecessor be rmly established. Psychologists must carefully evaluate the last ve years of changes to the MMPI-2 and critically examine the research supporting claims that the RC Scales are a major improvement over the Clinical Scales and capture the full range of psychopathology measured by them; that the Fake Bad Scale and its variants should be used to discredit an individuals self-report on the MMPI-2 (and/or his or her performance on neuropsychological tests and/or his or her reports of symptoms associated with brain injury); and that the MMPI-2-RF is a viable alternative to a standard MMPI-2 assessment. It is important to understand the nature of the constructs assessed by these new measures and how they differ from well-established MMPI-2 scales. High stakes measures like the MMPI instruments must be free of unintended biases that can be introduced into psychological assessments due to methodological aws in scale development and a lack of attention to details in the underlying research studies. Othersthe courts and the mediaare looking over psychologists shoulders to see if we still adhere to the rigorous standards of our predecessors.
REFERENCES
Arbisi, P.A., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). An MMPI-2 infrequency scale for use with psychopathological populations: The Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale, F(p). Psychological Assessment, 7, 424431.
128
Arbisi, P.A., & Seime, R.J. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in medical settings. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 273299). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Arbisi, P.A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric patients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 122129. Armstrong, D. (2008, March 5). Personality check: Malingerer test roils personalinjury law. Wall Street Journal, p. 1. Bagby, R.M., Marshall, M.B., Bury, A., Bacchiocchi, J.R., & Miller, L. (2006). Assessing underreporting and overreporting styles on the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 3969). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Baron, F. (1953). An ego strength scale which predicts response to psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 327333. Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Forbey, J.D. (2003). Non-gendered norms for the MMPI-2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2007a). MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Retrieved 3 September 2007, from http://www.upress.umn.edu/tests/mmpi2_fbs.html Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2007b). MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Retrieved 3 September 2007, from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/resources/fbs.html Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2RF: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N. (1996). International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N. (Ed.). (2006). MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Butcher, J.N., Arbisi, P.A., Atlis, M.M., & McNulty, J.L. (2003). The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale: Does this scale measure somatic malingering and feigned emotional distress? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 473485. Butcher, J.N., Cabiya, J., Lucio, E.M., & Garrido, M. (2007). Assessing Hispanic clients using the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Butcher, J.N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Manual for the restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2. An administrative and interpretive guide. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N., Ellertsen, B., Ubostad, B., Bubb, E., Lucio, E., Lim, J. et al. (2000). International case studies on the MMPI-A: An objective approach. Retrieved 8 October 2008, from http://www1.umn.edu/mmpi/adolescent.php Butcher, J.N., Gass, C.S., Cumella, E., Kally, Z., & Williams, C.L. (2008). Potential for bias in MMPI-2 assessments using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Psychological Injury and the Law. Advanced online publication. Retrieved 14 July 2008. doi:10.1007/s12207-007-9002-z Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). Methodological problems and issues in MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 320329.
129
Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Tellegen, Y.S., Dahlstrom, W.G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring (revised edn.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Kamphuis, J., & Rouse, S. (2006). Evaluating MMPI-2 research: Considerations for practitioners. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 1538). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Williams, C.L., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1990). Development and use of the MMPI-2 Content Scales. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N., Hamilton, C.K., Rouse, S.V., & Cumella, E.J. (2006). The deconstruction of the Hy scale of MMPI-2: Failure of RC3 in measuring somatic symptom expression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 199205. Butcher, J.N., & Han, K. (1995). Development of an MMPI-2 scale to assess the presentation of self in a superlative manner: The S Scale. In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 2550). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Butcher, J.N., & Hostetler, K. (1990). Abbreviating MMPI item administration: Past problems and prospects for the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 1222. Butcher, J.N., & Miller, K. (2006). Personality assessment in personal injury litigation. In A. Hess & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (2nd edn., pp. 140167). New York: Wiley. Butcher, J.N., Ones, D.S., & Cullen, M. (2006). Personnel screening with the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 381 406). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Butcher, J.N., & Pancheri, P. (1976). Handbook of cross-national MMPI research. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N., & Tellegen, A. (1978). MMPI research: Methodological problems and some current issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 620 628. Butcher, J.N., & Williams, C.L. (2000). Essentials of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A clinical interpretation (2nd edn.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Butcher, J.N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Archer, R.P. et al. (1992). Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents: MMPI-A. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Caldwell, A.B. (1998). MMPI-2 data research le for pain patients. Unpublished raw data. Caldwell, A.B. (2006). Maximal measurement or meaningful measurement: The interpretive challenges of the MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 193201. Camara, W.J., Nathan, J.S., & Puente, A.E. (2000). Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(2), 141154.
130
Cheung, F., & Butcher, J.N. (2008). Cross-cultural application of the MMPI-2 and the adaptation of the Minnesota Report Computer System for the MMPI-2 in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, China: Chinese University of Hong Kong. Cheung, F.M., Song, W., & Zhang, J. (1996) The Chinese MMPI-2: Research and applications in Hong Kong and the Peoples Republic of China. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 137161). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Clark, L.A. (1985). A consolidated version of the MMPI in Japan. In J.N. Butcher & C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 95130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Cook, W.W., & Medley, D.M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 123139. Dahlstrom, W.G. (1980). Altered forms of the MMPI. In W.G. Dahlstrom & L.E. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI (pp. 386393). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Dahlstrom, W.G., & Archer, R.P. (2000). A shortened version of the MMPI-2. Assessment, 7, 131137. Dahlstrom, W.G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom L.E. (1975). An MMPI handbook: Volume 1. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Dai, X.Y., Zheng, I.X., Ryan, J.I., & Paolo, A.M. (1993). Applications of psychological testing in Chinese clinical psychology and comparisons with American data. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 4750. Dana, R. (2005). Multicultural assessment: Principles, applications, and examples. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al., Case #05-4320 (Hillsborough County, Florida, 2007). Dean, A.C., Boone, K.R., Kim, M.S., Curiel, A.R., Martin, D.J., Victor, T.L. et al. (2008). Examination of the impact of ethnicity on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Fake Bad Scale. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 1, 17. Deinard, A.S., Butcher, J.N., Thao, U.D., Moua Vang, S.H., & Hang, K. (1996). Development of a Hmong translation of the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 194205). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Drake, L.E. (1946). A social I-E scale for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 5154. Ezzo, F.R., Pinsoneault, T.B., & Evans, T.M. (2007). A comparison of MMPI-2 proles between child maltreatment cases and two types of custody cases. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 2943. Faschingbauer, T.R. (1974). A 166 item short form for the group MMPI: The FAM. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 645655. Forbey, J.D., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a nonclinical setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 136141. Fowler, R.D. (2008, September). Personal communication.
131
Garrido, M., & Velasquez, R. (2006). Interpretation of Latino/Latina MMPI-2 proles: Review and application of empirical ndings and cultural-linguistic considerations. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 477504). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Gass, C.S., & Luis, C.A. (2001). MMPI-2 Short Form: Psychometric characteristics in a neuropsychological setting. Assessment, 8(2), 213219. Geisinger, K.F., & Carlson, J.F. (in press). Standards and standardization. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality and clinical assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Gordon, R.M. (2006). False assumptions about psychopathology, hysteria and the MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales. Psychological Reports, 98, 870872. Gough, H.G., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P.E. (1951). A personality scale for dominance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 360366. Gough, H.G., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P.E. (1952). A personality scale for social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 7380. Gray-Little, B. (in press). The assessment of psychopathology in racial and ethnic minorities. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality and clinical assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Greene, R.L. (2007). Forensic applications of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles (pp. 7396). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Greiffenstein, M.F., Fox, D., & Lees-Haley, P.R. (2007). The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale in detection of noncredible brain injury claims. In K. Boone (Ed.), Detection of noncredible cognitive performance (pp. 210235). New York: Guilford Press. Hall, G.C.N., Bansal, A., & Lopez, I.R. (1999). Ethnicity and psychopathology: A meta-analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 research. Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 186197. Han, K. (1996). The Korean MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 88136). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Handel, R.W., & Archer, R.P. (2008). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales with mental health patients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 239249. Harkness, A.R., & McNulty, J.L. (2006). An overview of personality: The MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 7397). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Harkness, A.R., & McNulty, J.L. (2007, August). Restructured versions of the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA. Harkness, A., McNulty, J., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment, 7, 104114. Hathaway, S.R. (1972). Foreword to the First Edition. In W.G. Dahlstrom, G.S. Welsh, & L.E. Dahlstrom (Eds.), An MMPI handbook: Volume I: Clinical interpretation: A revised edition (p. xi). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
132
Hathaway, S.R. (1975, February). Comment on MMPI abbreviated forms. In Who owns test items? Present confusions and anxieties about 1984. Symposium on Recent Developments in the Use of the MMPI, St Petersburg, FL. Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1940a). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249254. Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1940b). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota) III. The measurement of symptomatic depression. Journal of Psychology, 14, 7384. Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1942). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Schedule manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Hays, P. (2001). Addressing cultural complexities in practice: A framework for clinicians and counselors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Hsieh, S. (2008a, April 7). Defense experts are using controversial malingering test. Lawyers USA, pp. 1, 32. Hsieh, S. (2008b, May 19). Plaintiff turns tables on Fake Bad Scale. Lawyers USA, pp. 1, 29. Johnson, J.H., Butcher, J.N., Null, C., & Johnson, K. (1984). Replicated item level factor analysis of the full MMPI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 105114. Kincannon, J. (1968). Prediction of the standard MMPI scale scores from 71 items: The Mini-Mult. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 319 325. Koscheyev, V.S., & Leon, G.R. (1996). The Russian translation and preliminary adaptation of the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 385394). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Larrabee, G.J. (1998). Somatic malingering on the MMPI and MMPI-2 in personal injury litigants. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 179188. Lees-Haley, P.R., English, L.T., & Glenn, W.J. (1991). A Fake Bad Scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203210. Livingston, R.B., Jennings, E., Colotla, V.A., Reynolds, C.R., & Shercliffe, R.J. (2006). MMPI2 Code-type congruence of injured workers. Psychological Assessment, 18, 126130. McGrath, R.E., Terranova, R., Pogge, D.L., & Kravic, C. (2003). Development of a short form for the MMPI-2 based on scale elevation congruence. Assessment, 10(1), 1328. Meehl, P.E., & Hathaway, S.R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30(5), 525564. Megargee, E.I. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in criminal justice and correctional settings. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Morris, J. (2008, July/August). Smoke and mirrors: Warning: Concealing product dangers and funding of science by industry may be hazardous to the health of hundreds of thousands of workers. Mother Jones, 26, 2829, 8283. Nezami, E., & Zamani, R. (1996). The Persian MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptation of the MMPI-2 (pp. 506522). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
133
Nichols, D.S. (2006). The trials of separating bath water from baby: A review and critique of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 121138. Overall, J.E., & Gomez-Mont, F. (1974). The MMPI-168 for psychiatric screening. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 315319. Pancheri, P., Sirigatti, S., & Biondi, M. (1996). Adaptation of the MMPI-2 in Italy. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 416441). Minneapolis. MN: University of Minnesota Press. Pearson Assessments. (2003). The University of Minnesota Press and Pearson Assessments introduce the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales [Press Release]. Retrieved 29 January 2003 from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/news/ pr012203.htm Pearson Assessments. (2007). FBS (Symptom Validity Scale) added to MMPI-2 standard scoring materials: Scale helps identify non-credible reporting [Press Release]. Retrieved 11 January 2007 from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/news/ pr011107.htm Pongpanich, L. (1996). Use of the MMPI-2 in Thailand. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 162174). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Pope, K.S., Butcher, J.N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in court (3rd edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Quevedo, K.M., & Butcher, J.N. (2005). The use of MMPI and MMPI-2 in Cuba: A historical overview from 1950 to the present. International Journal of Clinical and Health Psychology, 5(2), 335347. Ranson, M., Nichols, D.S., Rouse, S.V., & Harrington, J. (in press). Changing or replacing an established personality assessment standard: Issues, goals, and problems, with special reference to recent developments in the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality and clinical assessment. New York: Oxford University Press. Roberts, K. (2007). Minnesota 150: The people, places, and things that shape our state. St Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society. Rogers, R., & Sewell, K.W. (2006). MMPI-2 at the crossroads: Aging technology or radical retrotting? Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 175178. Rogers, R., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., & Jordan, M.J. (2006). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales: A paradigmatic shift in scale development. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 139147. Rouse, S.V., Greene, R.L., Butcher, J.N., Nichols, D.S., & Williams, C.L. (2008). What do the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales reliably measure? Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 435442. Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2005). Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales onto normal personality traits: Evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 179187. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Bagby, R.M. (2008). Personality and psychopathology: Mapping the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales onto the ve factor model of personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 291312.
134
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Baum, L.J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured (RC) scales in a batterers intervention program, Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 129135. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Graham, J.R. (2006). Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 8999. Sellbom, M., Graham, J.R., & Schenk, P.W. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a private practice setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 194205. Shiota, N.K., Krauss, S.S., & Clark, L.A. (1996). Adaptation and validation of the Japanese MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 6787). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Simms, L.J., Casillas, A., Clark, L.A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B.N. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the Restructured Clinical scales of MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 17, 345358. Sneyers, M., Sloore, H., Rossi, G., & Derksen, J.J.L. (2007). Using the Megargee system among Belgian prisoners: Cross-cultural prevalence of the MMPI-2 based types. Psychological Reports, 100, 746754. Stith v. State Farm Mutual Insurance, Case No. 50-2003 CA 010945AG (Palm Beach County, Florida, 2008). Sundberg, N.D. (1956). The use of the MMPI for cross-cultural personality study: A preliminary report on the German translation. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 52, 281283. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008). MMPI-2-RF technical manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J., Arbisi, P., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2: Restructured clinical (RC) scales. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Sellbom, M. (2008). Construct validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Reply to Rouse, Greene, Butcher, Nichols, and Williams. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 435442. doi: 10.1080/00223890802248695 Tran, B.N. (1996). Vietnamese translation and adaptation of the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 175193). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Vandergracht v. Progressive Express et al., Case #02-04552 (Hillsborough County, Florida, 2007). Wallace, A., & Liljequist, L. (2005). A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales. Assessment, 12, 290294. Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 219235. Weed, N.C., Butcher, J.N., McKenna, T., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1992). New measures for assessing alcohol and drug abuse with the MMPI-2: The APS and AAS. Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(2), 389404.
135
Welsh, G.S. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G.S. Welsh & W.G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 264281). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Wiggins, J.S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(22 Whole No. 630). Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case #04-CA-008892 (Hillsborough County, Florida, 2007).

Personality Assessment With The MMPI-2 Historical Roots, International Adaptations, and Current Challenges

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Personality Assessment With The MMPI-2 Historical Roots, International Adaptations, and Current Challenges

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2009, 1 (1), 105135 doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2008.01007.

BUTCHER AND WILLIAMS

INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MMPI AND MMPI-2