Prediction of MMPI-2 Clinical Scales for Incomplete Protocols:

Comprehensive Short-Form Analysis

F. Scott Winstanley
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan
Bradley N. Axelrod
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Detroit, Michigan
eif V. aone
Anishna!e" Comm#nity and Family Ser$ices, Sa#lt St. Marie, Michigan
%ohn A. Schin"a
Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, &ampa, Florida
'#nning (ead) MM*+,- Short Forms
Address correspondence to)
Bradley N. Axelrod. *sychology Section /00,M(,*S1. %ohn D. Dingell DVAMC. 2323 %ohn ',
Detroit, M+ 24-50,0603
7lectronic comm#nication may !e sent to) Bradley.axelrod8$a.go$
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 0
&he MM*+,- is a thoro#gh tool for personality assessment that has s#!stantial importance in the
field of ne#ropsychology. (o9e$er, there ha$e !een reported pro!lems for many ne#rologically
impaired indi$id#als 9ho do not complete the test !eca#se of the demands of its length.
+ncomplete protocols are of little $al#e 9ith no formal 9ay of scoring and interpreting the
completed items. &he follo9ing st#dy examined the clinical #tility of short,form $ersions of the
MM*+,- $alidity and clinical scales. 'a9 score correlations !et9een $ario#s short,form and
f#ll,form tests on all $alidity and clinical scales, as 9ell as mean ra9 score differences !et9een
short,form and f#ll,forms 9ere examined. &hese mean ra9 scores 9ere con$erted into &,scores
to determine ho9 acc#rately short,form $ersions can predict &,scores 9ithin : and 05 points.
&he follo9ing pro$ides loo"#p ta!les 9hich can pro$ide #sef#l scoring and interpretation
g#idelines for incomplete protocols 9ith $arying n#m!er of items completed /e.g. 045, -55, -:5,
and ;55 items completed1.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -
&he Minnesota M#ltiphasic *ersonality +n$entory,- /MM*+,-1 is one of the more pop#lar
instr#ments in psychological assessment /B#tcher, Dahlstrom, <raham, &ellegen, = >aemmer,
06461. (o9e$er, many ne#rologically impaired patients cannot handle the demands of an
ard#o#s :3? @#estionnaire, or e$en the re@#ired ;?5 items necessary for $alidity and !asic
clinical scale interpretation. +n these special circ#mstances 9hen a patient discontin#es prior to
completing ;?5 @#estions, there exists a need to sal$age some clinical interpretation of their
emotional stat#s from the o!Aecti$e test data. For this reason, $ario#s short,forms of the MM*+,
- contin#e to !e de$eloped and tested against the f#ll,item $ersion. A $ariety of interpretation
strategies ha$e !een e$al#ated regarding the #tility of these shortened $ersions. +nterpreti$e
approaches s#ch as ra9 score correlations, t9o point and high point code type congr#ence,
classification of BpathologicalC /& D 3:1 $ers#s Bnon,pathological,C and classification acc#racy
of &,scores 9ithin : and 05 &,score points, ha$e all !een e$al#ated and ha$e met 9ith fair
amo#nts of criticism.
+t sho#ld !e stated at the o#tset that literat#re pertaining to the original MM*+ clearly
come o#t opposed to shortened $ersions of the test. (atha9ay /06?:. as presented in B#tcher =
Williams, -5561 clearly pointed to concern regarding any $ersion of the MM*+ that 9o#ld !e
a!!re$iated, fearing that the loss of data points 9o#ld res#lt in loss of acc#racy. At the da9n of
the MM*+,- introd#ction, B#tcher and (ostetler /06651 presented a detailed article on MM*+
short forms, and their apparent fail#res. *rimary concerns raised incl#de decreased relia!ility,
internal consistency, and s#!se@#ent diminished $alidity. Conse@#ently, they adamantly
opposed the introd#ction, st#dy, or #se of any short form aside from #sing only the first ;?5
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ;
items. &he exception mentioned 9as to #se a data from a single scale, for research p#rposes, and
explicitly state that it 9as not the f#ll MM*+,-.
Despite the admonitions !y (atha9ay, B#tcher, and (ostetler, a fe9 st#died examining
short forms ha$e !een p#!lished explicitly to e$al#ate if f#ll $alidity and clinical scales might !e
estimated if an examinee failed to complete the entire tas". Ene of the more prominent short,
forms of the MM*+,- 9as the 045,item short,form de$eloped !y Dahlstrom and Archer /-5551.
&he protocols from the re,standardiFation sample of the MM*+,-, consisting of -,355 men and
9omen, 9ere #sed in their analysis. &heir res#lts sho9ed correlations !et9een 045,item short,
form and f#ll,form scores ranging from .?4 /scale 31 to .62 / scale1. Dahlstrom and Archer
cross,$alidated these findings on a psychiatric sample of 3;- inpatients, and yielded correlations
!et9een .4- /scale :1 to .66 /scale 01. &heir findings also re$ealed $ery small ra9 score mean
differences !et9een prorated and f#ll scale scores in !oth the $alidity and !asic clinical scales
/!et9een ; ra9 score points1. &hese res#lts 9ere prod#ced in !oth their $alidation and cross,
$alidation sample. &ho#gh this article offered e$idence to9ard #tiliFation of this 045,item short,
form $ersion, critics point o#t that linear relationships and acc#rate mean score predictions may
not !e s#fficient 9hen examining other areas of interpretation 9ith the indi$id#al protocols
/<ass = <onFaleF, -55;1.
Ether interpreti$e strategies 9here shortened $ersions of the MM*+,- ha$e recei$ed
criticism are in the code type interpretations and pea" score interpretation /<ass = <onFaleF,
-55;1. Both the original Dahlstrom and Archer st#dy /-5551, as 9ell as a similar st#dy !y <ass
and #is /-5501, re$ealed persistent lac" of code,type and pea" score congr#ence 9hen
examining indi$id#al protocols. At times, as lo9 as one,third acc#rate prediction in t9o,point
codes and only one,half pea" score congr#ence /Dahlstrom = Archer, -555. <ass = #is, -5501.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 2
Another approach of incomplete protocol interpretation is determining 9hether or not f#ll
scale scores are BpathologicalC /&D 3:1 or BnormalC /&G 3:1. +n the <ass = #is st#dy /-5501
the shortened form $ersion appeared to !e a relia!le predictor, 9ith a$erage classification
acc#racy of 44.:H. &he highest acc#racy scores 9ere on scale : /64H1, > scale /6?H1, scale ;
/62H1, and the scale /6;H1. &he poorest acc#racy rate 9as on scale 5 /??H1.
Clearly, the 045,item short,form can !e seen relia!le 9hen trying to determine if there is
some sort of pathology, or not, on any gi$en scale of the MM*+,-. (o9e$er, the a#thors note
t9o maAor pro!lems 9ith #sing the test in this manner. &he first 9ea"ness is that e$en 9ith lo9
error rate per scale, the pro!a!ility for error in the o$erall interpretation increases as m#ltiple
scales, each 9ith indi$id#al error rates, are examined /<ass = #is, -5501. Another limitation of
this approach is that there is limited information pro$ided regarding n#m!er of symptoms,
symptom type, and symptom se$erity that can !e associated 9ith any one scale that has !een
classified as pathological. <ass = #is /-5501 gi$e an example of the interpretation one 9o#ld
ma"e if there 9ere a & of ?5 $ers#s & of 65 on the scale -. Clearly, there is m#ch more to
symptom interpretation to !e explored 9ith the latter &,score of 65. With regard to s#pplemental
interpretation, the $ery nat#re of the tas" prohi!its any #tiliFation of the (arris ingoes
s#!scales. &ho#gh not 9itho#t its merits in certain Bemergencies,C the a#thors 9arn hea$ily
against the #tiliFation of the short,form $ersion in MM*+,- interpretation. +t sho#ld !e noted that
the <ass and #is /-5501 sample 9as heterogeneo#s in its ma"e,#p /e.g., incl#ding stro"e, &B+,
other ne#rodegenerati$e disorders1.
We contend that of the m#ltiple approaches mentioned a!o$e, ra9 score and &,score
correlation and regression analysis, along 9ith classification rates 9ithin : &,score points
!et9een the short,form and f#ll,item $ersions, are the !est 9ay to extract the more salient
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age :
information from these incomplete protocols. &his partic#lar interpretation has also !een met
9ith criticism in the literat#re. Ipon re$ie9ing the fre@#ency of acc#rate score prediction #sing
the MM*+,- in their sample of -5: !rain,inA#red patients, <ass and #is /-5501 fo#nd G35H
acc#racy of prediction /JK, :&,score points1, on scales F, ;, 2, :, 3, ?, 4, 6, and 5, 9ith the 045,
item short,form $ersion. When the margin of error 9as raised to JK,05&, there 9as still an error
rate of o$er one,third of the cases 9ith scales 3, ?, and 4 /<ass = #is, -5501. Ene positi$e
aspect of the <ass = #is /-5501 st#dy, regarding #tiliFation of the short,form, 9as that there
9as an o$er 45H classification acc#racy rate 9ithin :& 9ith the scale and scale 0.
Another o$erloo"ed area is the $alidity of short,forms 9ith $arying n#m!er of items.
Dahlstrom and Archer /-5551 reportedly ran analyses for 0:5, 045, -55, -:5, and ;55 item short,
forms. By their A#dgment, the 045,item short,form appeared to pro$ide Ba maxim#m of $alid
$ariance 9ith a minim#m of time to administer the $ario#s test segmentsLC /-555, p. 0;;1.
&hey failed to report the res#lts for the other short,form comparisons. 'e,e$al#ation of those
additional short,forms is an area that all s#!se@#ent research has neglected and 9ill !e addressed
in this paper.
&he p#rpose of this st#dy 9as to f#rther preliminary research on the #tility of short,form
$ersions of the MM*+,-. &hese short,forms are not intended to replace administration of the f#ll
MM*+,-, !#t ser$e as a !asis for interpretation in special sit#ations 9hen a f#ll MM*+,- is not
completed !y a patient. Short,form $ersions consisting of 045, -55, -:5, and ;55 items 9ere
examined in !oth male and female pop#lations. As stated a!o$e, others ha$e ta"en the 045,item
short,form de$eloped !y Dahlstrom and Archer /-5551 as the B!enchmar"C for short,form
analysis and interpretation. &his st#dy 9ill attempt to examine if adding a fe9 more items to the
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 3
set /e.g. -55, -:5, or ;55 item $ersions1 9ill ma"e the #se of short,forms more $alid, and offer
clinicians their o9n choice 9ith regard to 9hat is the most parsimonio#s short,form meas#re.
METH!S
Participants
&he original data!ase consisted of -234 records. &his sample 9as ta"en from the general
psychological testing ser$ice at a large metropolitan Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center /VAMC1. After screening for in$alid profiles /F 9ith &D 055, ra9 D -51 there 9ere 06;4
cases remaining. Ef those cases, 0?2? are male and 060 female.
Proced"re
&he follo9ing proced#res 9ere performed on !oth the male only sample /nM 0?2?1 and
female only sample /nM0601. +n order to esta!lish regression e@#ations, ?5H of each sample 9as
selected as an origination gro#p. &he origination gro#p for the male only sample 9as nM 0-:?,
and for the female only, nM 02-. &hose cases 9ere #sed in esta!lishing the predicti$e regression
e@#ation.
'a9 scores from the shorter $ersion of the tests 9ere regressed onto the f#ll $ersions.
&his 9as done instead of a simple arithmetic prorating. 'easons for this are that c#rrently there
is no information that indicates 9hether all items 9ithin each scale are responded to in the same
manner. +ndi$id#als 9ho endorse depression items may respond more d#ring the latter half of
the scale as opposed to earlier, and $ice $ersa. &herefore, eliminating one half of the scale and
prorating 9o#ld fail to address the tr#e nat#re of item responses 9ithin the scale. &he regression
analysis controls for these potential differences of response rates.
7stimated ra9 scores 9ere comp#ted !y #sing the ra9 scores for the cross $alidation
sample and applying the o!tained regression e@#ations. Cross,$alidation of this e@#ation 9as
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ?
#sed on the remaining 246 cases in the male sample, and on the 26 cases in the female sample.
&he follo9ing are reported analyses for the MM*+ f#ll item set /F#ll1 $ers#s 045, -55, -:5, and
;55,item short,form $ersion of the test, for !oth male and female pop#lations.
#ES$%TS
300-item MMPI-2 for Males
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le 0. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction /p M .5:K0;M pG .5521
!et9een ra9 scores of predicti$e ;55,item short,form and the f#ll set re$ealed significant
differences only on scale ?, t /0, 2441 M -.4:4, pM .552.
*earsonNs correlations for the F and > scales, as 9ell as scales /-, 3, ?, 4, and 51 9ere all
.6: and a!o$e. &he expected scores acco#nted for at least 65H of the o$erall $ariance of the f#ll
item scores. Correlations and t,tests 9ere not performed for the scale and scales 0, ;, 2, :, and
6 !eca#se all items for these scales are incl#ded in the first ;55 items.
When ra9 scores 9ere con$erted to &,scores, 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA !et9een means of
f#ll item and short,form tests re$ealed significant differences only on scale ?, F /0, 2441 M
4.033, p M .552, eta
-
M .503 and scale 5, F /0, 2441 M 3.?26, p M .505, eta
-
M .502. &he effect siFe
on !oth scales is $ery small indicating these differences may ha$e little to do 9ith the $ariance in
n#m!er of items.
With regard to classification acc#racy, the ;55,item short,form $ersion yielded perfect
classification rates /055H1 9ithin : & on the scale, scales 0,:, and scale 6. Classification rates
9ithin : & as high as 65H and a!o$e 9ere o!ser$ed on the > scale and scale 4. &he lo9est rates
9ithin : & 9ere o!ser$ed on scales 3 /4:H1, ? /4?H1, and 5 /42H1.
250-item MMPI-2 for Males
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 4
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le -. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction !et9een mean ra9 scores of
predicti$e -:5,item short,form and the f#ll item set re$ealed no significant differences on any
$alidity or clinical scale.
All *earsonNs correlations 9ere .65 or a!o$e !et9een short,form and f#ll,form mean ra9
scores, except for scale 3 /r M. 441. Short,form scores on almost all scales acco#nted for at least
4:H to 64H of the o$erall $ariance. When ra9 scores 9ere con$erted to &,scores, 9ithin
s#!Aects ANEVA !et9een f#ll item and -:5,item short,form tests re$ealed no significant
differences on any clinical or $alidity scale.
Analysis of percentage of correctly classified indi$id#al cases on the -:5,item short,form
$ersion 9ithin :&,score points re$ealed perfect 055H classification acc#racy rates for the scale
and scales /0, -, ;, and 61. Scales 2 and : had acc#racy rates of 6:H and 63H respecti$ely. &he
F and > scale re$ealed 46H and 6;H acc#racy rates respecti$ely. Classification rates for scales
/3, ?, 4, and 51 9ere :-H, 35H, ?0H, and ?0H respecti$ely. As is represented in the literat#re,
these scales ha$e poorer classification rates !et9een JK, : &,score points.
With regard to classification rates 9ithin 05 &,score points, scales , 0,:, and 6, all had
perfect 055H classification rates. Scales F, >, 4, and 5 all had 6:H and a!o$e classification
rates 9ithin 05 &,score points. &he lo9est classification rates 9ere again fo#nd on scale 3 /40H1
and scale ? /65H1.
200-item MMPI-2 for Males
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le ;. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction !et9een predicti$e -55,item
short,form from the $alidation sample and the f#ll set are reported. *aired samples t,test
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 6
!et9een ra9 scores of -55,item short,form and f#ll item scores re$ealed no significant
differences in ra9 scores on any of the $alidity or clinical scales. When ra9 scores 9ere
con$erted to &,scores, 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA re$ealed no significant differences on any scale.
*earson correlations re$ealed all $alidity scales and se$en of the 05 clinical scales to ha$e
correlations of .65 and a!o$e /scales 0,2, ?,61. Enly fi$e of the ten clinical scales and none of
the $alidity scales acco#nted for 4:H or more of the $ariance.
With regard to classification acc#racy, the highest rates 9ithin : & 9ere o!ser$ed on
scale 0 /63H1, the scale /6;H1, and scale ; /65H1. Scales /3, ?, 4, 51 and the F scale had
classifications rates lo9er than 3:H acc#racy 9ithin : &. Consistent 9ith all other tests, 9hen
the margin is 9idened to 05 &, all classification rates 9ere ele$ated.
180-item MMPI-2 for Males
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le 2. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction !et9een ra9 scores of
predicti$e 045 item short,form from and the f#ll item set re$ealed no significant differences on
any $alidity or !asic clinical scale. &he high ra9 score correlations !et9een short,form and f#ll,
form tests on each scale are also consistent 9ith those reported !y other st#dies /Dahlstrom =
Archer, -555. <ass = #is, -550. <ass = <onFaleF, -55;1. When ra9 scores 9ere con$erted to
&,scores, 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA !et9een 045,item short,form and f#ll item tests re$ealed no
significant differences on any clinical or $alidity scale. &hese analyses 9ere not reported in the
pre$io#s st#dies.
With regard to classification acc#racy rates 9ithin : &, the highest scale 9as scale 0
/63H1. Enly t9o other scales had acc#racy rates a!o$e 45H /scales 0 and scale1. Scales /:, 3,
?, 4, and 51 had a classification rate of 35H or !elo9. E$erall poor classification acc#racy rates
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 05
9ithin : &,score points are consistent 9ith 9hat is reported else9here regarding 045,item short,
form $ersions, contin#ing to @#estion the p#rpose of setting the short,form B!enchmar"C at 045
/Dahlstrom = Archer, -555. <ass = #is, -550. <ass = <onFaleF, -55;1. &he res#lts of o#r
045,item classification rates 9ere slightly higher on most scales, !#t clearly they remain poor
predictors of f#ll,item &,scores 9ithin a reasona!le range. When the range 9as mo$ed more
li!erally to 9ithin 05 &,score points, ro#ghly ?5H of the scales 9ere 65H and a!o$e. &his is
also slightly higher than 9hat 9as fo#nd in the <ass = <onFaleF /-55;1 and <ass = #is /-5501
st#dies, !#t it is agreed that 05 &,score points in either direction is too 9ide of a range for $alid
interpretation. Classification acc#racy rates 9ere ne$er performed in the original Dalhstrom and
Archer /-5551 st#dy.
300-item MMPI-2 for Females
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le :. *aired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction !et9een o!ser$ed and estimated ra9
scores for ;55,itme short,form for the female sample re$ealed no significant differences on any
$alidity or clinical scale. When ra9 scores 9ere con$erted to &,scores, 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
!et9een means of f#ll item and short,form tests re$ealed no significant differences only on any
clinical or $alidity scale.
Classification rates of the ;55 item female only short,form re$ealed 055H acc#racy
9ithin : & on scales , 0,:, and 6. &he lo9est scale 9as scale ? /?3H acc#racy 9ithin : &1. &he
remaining scales had acc#racy rates of 4:H and a!o$e.
250-item MMPI-2 for Females
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le 3. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction !et9een ra9 score female
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 00
only predicti$e -:5,item short,form and the f#ll item set re$ealed no significant differences on
any clinical or $alidity scale.
As the ta!le indicates, *earson correlations 9ere .65 or higher on all scales except for
scales 3 and 5. &his indicates predicted scores acco#nting for 4:H or more of the $ariance of the
o!ser$ed items on all !#t t9o scales. Within s#!Aects ANEVA of con$erted &,scores !et9een
-:5 item short,form and f#ll item tests re$ealed significant differences on scale 0, F /0, 241 M
:.-:4, pM .5-3, eta
-
M .566 and scale 4, F /0, 241 M 2.::?, pM .5;4, eta
-
M .54?. Classification
rates for the -:5 item female only short,form re$ealed 055H acc#racy 9ithin : & on the scale
and scales /0, -, ;, and 61. Scales 2 and : yielded moderately high rates of 64H and 62H
respecti$ely. Classification rates 9ithin the : & range 9ere poor /!elo9 ?:H1 for the F scale and
scales /3, ?, 4, and 51.
200-item MMPI-2 for Females
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales are presented in
&a!le ?. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni correction !et9een ra9 score female
only predicti$e -55 item short,form and o!ser$ed f#ll item ra9 scores re$ealed no significant
differences detected on any $alidity or clinical scale.
When mean ra9 scores 9ere con$erted to &,scores, 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA of
con$erted &,scores of f#ll item and short,form tests re$ealed significant differences on scale 0, F
/0, 241 M ?.4::, p M .55?, eta
-
M .020 and scale 4, F /0, 241 M :.445, pM .506, eta
-
M .056. &he
effect siFe on !oth scales is $ery small indicating these differences may ha$e little to do 9ith the
$ariance in n#m!er of items. Classification rates for the -55 item female only short,form
re$ealed 63H acc#racy 9ithin : & on scales 0 and -. Scales :,4 and scale 5 yielded rates of 3:H
and !elo9.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 0-
180-item MMPI-2 for Females
&he o!ser$ed and estimated ra9 scores for all $alidity and clinical scales for 045,item
short,form, females, are presented in &a!le 4. 'es#lts of paired sample t,tests 9ith Bonferroni
correction !et9een ra9 score female only predicti$e 045,item short,form and o!ser$ed f#ll,form
re$ealed no significant differences on any $alidity or clinical scale. Within s#!Aects ANEVA of
con$erted &,scores !et9een f#ll,item and short,form tests re$ealed significant differences on
scale 0, F /0, 241 M ?.4::, pM .55?, eta
-
M .020. scale 2, F /0, 241 M :.302, pM .5--, eta
-
M .05:,
and scale 4, F /0, 241 M 2.0:5, pM .52?, eta
-
M .545. +n this case as 9ell, the effect siFe on these
scales is small indicating these differences may ha$e little to do 9ith the $ariance in n#m!er of
items.
With regard to classification acc#racy rates 9ithin : &,score points, the highest acc#racy
rate 9as o!ser$ed on scales 0 /63H1 and - /65H1. &he F scale and scales /:, 3, ?, 4, 6, and 51 all
had classification acc#racy rates of 3:H and !elo9. &hese poor classification rates are similar to
9hat 9as reported !y <ass = #is /-5501, and <ass = <onFaleF /-55;1.
!ISC$SSI&
&he maAor implication of this st#dy is that there are no9 data a$aila!le to interpret
incomplete MM*+,- protocols at a n#m!er of different c#t,offs /e.g. 045, -55, -:5, and ;551.
&his is the first st#dy to report s#ch comprehensi$e analysis on all !asic clinical and $alidity
scales, for m#ltiple short,form tests. &he intent 9as to e$al#ate protocols that might res#lt from
an examinee discontin#ing early. +n other 9ords, if one 9ere to respond to only the last ;55
items of the MM*+,-, the information from these ta!les 9o#ld not o!tain.
&o #se these estimations of f#ll MM*+,- test scores, the clinician m#st first find the
appropriate gender ta!les and n#m!er of items that had !een completed. &he ra9 scores for each
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 0;
scale sho#ld !e entered as BOC in the regression e@#ations, and then add the constant to the
res#lting prod#ct. &he final total is the prorated ra9 score 9hich can then !e plotted on the
MM*+,- profile sheet. > corrections for each of the rele$ant scales m#st !e comp#ted !ased on
the o!tained prorated ra9 score for >.
&his paper pro$ided information for !oth males and females separately. (istorically,
separate norms ha$e !een de$eloped for males and females on all $alidity and clinical scales of
the MM*+,-. <i$en the differences !et9een male and female samples re$ealed in the st#dy,
partic#larly in paired samples t,tests, o!tained &,scores on partic#lar scales, 9ithin s#!Aects
contrasts of con$erted &,scores on certain scales, and &,score classification rates on m#ltiple
scales, this analysis seems 9arranted. Also, there are no means and standard de$iations to create
linear &,scores for analysis. &he ne9est non,gendered norms are #niform &,scores on all scales
/Ben,*orath = For!ey, -55;1.
Compared 9ith all other short,forms in this analysis, the ;55,item short,form had either
e@#al to or higher classification rates 9ithin : and 05 &, e@#al to or higher correlations, and
acco#nted for e@#al or more $ariance on all $alidity and clinical scales. (o9e$er, the most
parsimonio#s short,form !ased on o#r research /9eighing clinical information gained $ers#s
time sa$ed 9ith item deletion1 may !e the -:5,item short,form. &he res#lts sho9ed this short,
form had no significant differences from the f#ll,form in ra9 score paired sample t,test or 9ithin
s#!Aects ANEVA for con$erted &,scores. +n the context of administration time, the mean scores
on this $ersion sho9ed the !est ra9 score correlations and acco#nted for the most $ariance per
scale of the f#ll,form.
&he -:5,item test also sho9ed the high &,score classification rates 9ithin : &. Ipon
analyFing the data and 9eighing ho9 m#ch information is gained o$er the 045,item short,form
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 02
$ers#s the additional amo#nt of time it ta"es to complete ?5 extra items, the -:5,item short,from
is a m#ch more #sef#l and statistically $alid instr#ment. &he res#lts of this st#dy yield similar
res#lts regarding the 045,item short,form in its ina!ility to correctly classify an ade@#ate amo#nt
of cases !et9een :& and 05&,score points.
Scales 9hich consistently yielded the !est classification acc#racy rates 9ithin :&,
regardless of n#m!er of items completed, 9ere scales 0,; and the scale. *erfect classification
acc#racy rates 9ithin : & 9ere noted on scales 0,;, scale 6, and the scale, 9ith only -:5 items
completed, follo9ed !y 6:H and a!o$e acc#racy rates on scales 2 and :. Scales 9hich
consistently did not yield high classification rates on short,form $ersions 9ere scales 3,4, scale
5, and the F scale. &hese patterns 9ere o!ser$ed in !oth the male and female pop#lation.
&his paper 9o#ld !e remiss if the ne9est $ersion of the MM*+ 9ere not mentioned. &he
'estr#ct#re Form of the MM*+ /MM*+,-,'F1 9as p#!lished in -554 #sing different statistical
methodology from the MM*+,++ /Ben,*orath = &ellegen, -5541. &he intent 9as to retain the
constr#ct $alidity of the clinical scales 9hich 9ere to !e more orthogonal than o!ser$ed in the
MM*+,++. &he present st#dy addressed the traditional $alidity and clinical scales of the MM*+,
++, not the 'estr#ct#red Clinical scales or the ne9er MM*+,-,'F $ersion of the tas".
Critics state that short,forms #tiliFing correlations and regression e@#ations is ins#fficient
!eca#se it o$erloo"s the degree of a!sol#te score agreement /<ass = <onFaleF, -55;1.
(o9e$er, there appears to !e ade@#ate amo#nts of score agreement !et9een these forms,
partic#larly in the area of classification rates per scale, partic#larly in the context of sal$aging an
incomplete protocol in special circ#mstances, and not entirely replacing a :3? or ;?5 item
MM*+,- for one of these shortened $ersions.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 0:
<ass = <onFaleF /-55;1 arg#e that B#nless research has esta!lished extra test !eha$ioral
correlates for a short,form, the frequency of acc#rate indi$id#al f#ll,form prediction is essential
for determining short,form $alidity.C /p. :-31. &he c#rrent research has demonstrated that on
certain scales on certain short,forms, there is 055H agreement !et9een f#ll and short,form
amongst indi$id#al protocols, and therefore, demonstrate its clinical $alidity for #se in these
emergency sit#ations. &he MM*+,- remains an excellent tool for o!Aecti$e assessment of
personality. +nformation o!tained is too $al#a!le to !e discarded on the !asis of a semi complete
protocol, and the follo9ing research has yielded res#lts 9hich can sal$age #sef#l information
from these protocols.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 03
MA%E TA'%ES
&a!le 0) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
males only cross,$alidation sample /NM2461 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and ;55,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
2.?:/-.-?1 ::.;:/6.631 055 055
;55 *+, -./0 1 ./ 2.?:/-.-?1 ::.;:/6.631
F 6.:0/:.0?1 .6?3 3:.;4/0:.6?1 46 66.2
F;55 *+,-.-220 1 .233 6.:2/:.5;1 3:.2?/0:.:-1
> 0-.20/2.6;1 .6:? 2;.6-/05.;31 6; 055
>;55 *+,-.2220 1 .4-2 0-.2;/2.421 2;.63/05.0?1
SC0 03.:4/3.341 :6.45/0?.241 055 055
SC0,;55 *+,-./0 1 ./ 03.:4/3.341 :6.45/0?.241
SC- -6.3;/?.;-1 .664 ?2.3:/0:.631 055 055
SC-,;55 *+,-./250 - .677 -6.3;/?.;-1 ?2.32/0:.621
SC; ;5.-0/3.301 36.?2/0;.641 055 055
SC;,;55 *+, -./0 1 ./ ;5.-0/3.301 36.?2/0;.641
SC2 --.?-/3.021 :5.53/0;.-31 055 055
SC2,;55 *+,-./0 1 ./ --.?-/3.021 :5.53/0;.-31
SC: -:.-0/2.2;1 24.2-/4.?01 055 055
SC:,;55 *+,-./0 1 ./ -:.-0/2.2;1 24.2-/4.?01
SC3 0;.;2/2.:?1 .63? 30.-6/0:.601 4: 64
SC3,;55 *+,-./750 1 .448 0;.;3/2.;?1 30.;4/0:.--1
SC? --.?2/05.2:1 .6?; 2-.0;/-0.3?1 ?3 63
SC?,;55 *+,-.3830 - .765 --.2;/05.;-1P 20.24/-0.2-1PP
SC4 -:.?0/0-.331 .66; 24.3;/--.561 63 055
SC4,;55 *+,-.-320 - .435 -:.:4/0-.231 24.;6/-0.?:1
SC6 06.0-/2.4:1 24.53/00.;21 055 055
SC6,;55 *+,-./0 1 ./ 06.0-/2.4:1 24.53/00.;21
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 0?
SC5 ;2.52/00.4-1 .6:: 35.:;/0;.;?1 055 055
SC5,;55 *+,-.5230 1 .867 ;;.3;/00.531 35.53/0-.:-1PP
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 04
&a!le -) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
males only cross,$alidation sample /NM2461 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and -:5,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
2.?: /-.-?1 .662 ::.;:/6.631 055 055
-:5 *+,-./240 - ./82 2.?2/-.-:1 ::.-6/6.461
F 6.:0/:.0?1 .623 3:.;4/0:.6?1 ?; 6:
F-:5 *+,-.6/20 1 .44/ 6.35/2.6:1 3:.32/0-.-61
> 0-.20/2.6;1 .6-? 2;.6-/05.;31 43 66
>-:5 *+,-.6-30 1 -.327 0-.;:/2.?;1 2;.45/6.621
SC0 03.:4/3.341 .66? :6.45/0?.241 055 055
SC0,-:5 *+,-./2-0 1 .-47 03.:6/3.3?1 :6.40/0?.2?1
SC- -6.3;/?.;;1 .662 ?2.3:/0:.631 055 055
SC-,-:5 *+,-./360 - .62- -6.30/?.-41 ?2.35/0:.431
SC; ;5.-0/3.301 .66; 36.?2/0;.641 055 055
SC;,-:5 *+,-.//30 1 -.368 ;5.-2/3.351 36.40/0;.6:1
SC2 --.?-/3.021 .6?4 :5.53/0;.-31 6: 055
SC2,-:5 *+,-.-220 1 .-54 --.34/:.601 26.64/0-.?31
SC: -:.-0/2.2;1 .6:5 24.2-/4.?01 63 055
SC:,-:5 *+,-./240 1 -.3-3 -:.0:/2.041 24.;0/4.--1
SC3 0;.;2/2.:?1 .445 30.-6/0:.601 :- 055
SC3,-:5 *+,-.6530 1 3.-82 0;.;0/;.6;1 30.-5/0;.?51
SC? --.?2/05.2:1 .6:0 2-.0;/-0.3?1 35 65
SC?,-:5 *+,-.5/40 1 .52- --.35/05.5:1 20.4;/-5.431
SC4 -:.?0/0-.331 .6?; 24.3;/--.561 ?0 6:
SC4,-:5 *+,-.3460 1 -.555 -:.?0/0-.--1 24.3;/-0.;;1
SC6 06.0-/2.4:1 .64? 24.53/00.;21 055 055
SC6,-:5 *+,-./220 1 .278 06.0;/2.451 24.56/00.--1
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age 06
SC5 ;2.52/00.4-1 .60? 35.:;/0;.;?1 ?0 6:
SC5,-:5 *+,2.2440 - ./83 ;;.65/05.?61 35.;3/0-.061
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -5
&a!le ;) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
males only cross,$alidation sample /NM2461 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and -55,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
2.?: /-.-?1 .6;6 ::.;:/6.631 6; 66.4
-55 *+,-.-860 1 .64/ 2.??/-.--1 ::.2:/6.?01
F 6.:0/:.0?1 .6-5 3:.;4/0:.6?1 32 60
F-55 *+,-.36-0 1 -.2/2 6.:-/2.?51 3:.20/02.:-1
> 0-.20/2.6;1 .602 2;.6-/05.;31 45 66
>-55 *+,-.3550 1 -.36- 0-.;-/2.361 2;.?2/6.4:1
SC0 03.:4/3.341 .64? :6.45/0?.241 63 055
SC0,-55 *+,-.-8/0 1 -.-72 03.3;/3.3-1 :6.6-/0?.;;1
SC- -6.3;/?.;;1 .6?0 ?2.3:/0:.631 43 055
SC-,-55 *+,-.-620 1 6.-42 -6.3-/?.031 ?2.?0/0:.351
SC; ;5.-0/3.301 .636 36.?2/0;.641 65 055
SC;,-55 *+,-./4-0 1 3.652 ;5.-;/3.261 36.45/0;.?-1
SC2 --.?-/3.021 .6:; :5.53/0;.-31 4; 66.3
SC2,-55 *+,-.2//0 1 6.835 --.3;/:.?01 26.43/0-.;;1
SC: -:.-0/2.2;1 .4:5 24.2-/4.?01 ?2 66
SC:,-55*+,-.-870 1 8.5-3 -:.04/;.?31 24.;?/?.201
SC3 0;.;2/2.:?1 .4:6 30.-6/0:.601 2: 45
SC3,-55 *+,-.3760 1 3.2-8 0;.-;/;.451 35.6-/0;.-;1
SC? --.?2/05.2:1 .62- 2-.0;/-0.3?1 :3 43
SC?,-55 *+,-.5770 1 -.676 --.30/6.641 20.4:/-5.?01
SC4 -:.?0/0-.331 .6:3 24.3;/--.561 :6 65
SC4,-55 *+,-.53/0 1 2.33/ -:.3:/00.661 24.:-/-5.6-1
SC6 06.0-/2.4:1 .46: 24.53/00.;21 ?; 63
SC6,-55 *+,-.2450 1 6.6/3 06.-0/2.261 24.-3/05.261
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -0
SC5 ;2.52/00.4-1 .460 35.:;/0;.;?1 32 6;
SC5,-55 *+,2.5240 1 2.264 ;;.45/05.4;1 35.-:/00.:?1
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age --
&a!le 2) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
males only cross,$alidation sample /NM2461 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and 045,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
2.?: /-.-?1 .6-; ::.;:/6.631 44 66
045 *+,-.2-30 1 .645 2.?6/-.0?1 ::.:-/6.:-1
F 6.:0/:.0?1 .60- 3:.;4/0:.6?1 3- 60
F045 *+,-.8-40 1 -.2-2 6.:4/2.361 3:.35/02.2?1
> 0-.20/2.6;1 .652 2;.6-/05.;31 ?6 66
>045 *+,-.8280 1 -.-54 0-.;2/2.341 2;.?6/6.4;1
SC0 03.:4/3.341 .64? :6.45/0?.241 63 055
SC0,045*+,-.-8/0 1 -.-72 03.3;/3.3-1 :6.6-/0?.;;1
SC- -6.3;/?.;;1 .635 ?2.3:/0:.631 ?6 66
SC-,045 *+,-.-540 1 6.7// -6.3-/?.001 ?2.3;/0:.261
SC; ;5.-0/3.301 .635 36.?2/0;.641 42 66.4
SC;,045*+,-./520 1 8.763 ;5.03/3.2-1 36.3:/0;.:41
SC2 --.?-/3.021 .62; :5.53/0;.-31 ?6 66.3
SC2,045*+,-.2-20 1 3.6/5 --.:6/:.321 26.?6/0-.041
SC: -:.-0/2.2;1 .?;- 24.2-/4.?01 35 62
SC:,045*+,-.-230 1-/./64 -:.0?/;.-31 24.;:/3.2-1
SC3 0;.;2/2.:?1 .4:6 30.-6/0:.601 2: 45
SC3,045 *+,-.3760 1 3.2-8 0;.-;/;.451 35.6-/0;.-;1
SC? --.?2/05.2:1 .6;6 2-.0;/-0.3?1 :; 43
SC?,045 *+,-.44/0 1 -.4-5 --.:3/05.501 20.?2/-5.?31
SC4 -:.?0/0-.331 .6:- 24.3;/--.561 35 4?
SC4,045*+,-.5740 1 6.425 -:.3;/00.6:1 24.2?/-5.4:1
SC6 06.0-/2.4:1 .436 24.53/00.;21 3? 62
SC6,045,*+,-.66-0 1 6.425 06.02/2.-:1 24.05/6.621
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -;
SC5 ;2.52/00.4-1 .4?? 35.:;/0;.;?1 35 46
SC5,045 *+,2.7730 1 2.527 ;;.?3/6.6?1 35.-5/00.-41
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -2
FEMA%E TA'%ES
&a!le :) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
females only cross,$alidation sample /NM261 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and ;55,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
:.;:/-.;21 :4.:2/00.-31 055 055
;55 *+,-.///0 1 ./// :.;:/-.;21 :4.:2/00.-31
F ?.65/2.2:1 .633 32.:3/0:.-61 65 64
F;55 *+, -.-830 1 .628 ?.?3/2.-01 32.56/02.231
> 02.5-/:.;-1 .6:? 2?.45/00.301 65 055
>;55 *+,-.2370 1 .226 0;.45/2.461 2?.;-/05.341
SC0 0:.30/3.-21 :2.?-/0:.201 055 055
SC0,;55 *+,-.///0 1 ./// 0:.30/3.-21 :2.?-/0:.201
SC- ;5.:0/?.0-1 .664 ?5.4?/02.;;1 055 055
SC-,;55 *+,-./-40 - .-8/ ;5.26/?.5;1 ?5.4;/02.021
SC; ;0.;:/3.:41 36.:6/0;.651 055 055
SC;,;55 *+,-.///0 1 ./// ;0.;:/3.:41 36.:6/0;.651
SC2 --.26/3.2;1 :5.35/02.--1 055 055
SC2,;55 *+,-.///0 1 ./// --.26/3.2;1 :5.35/02.--1
SC: ;;.?0/2.541 22.:2/6.661 055 055
SC:,;55 *+,-.///0 1 ./// ;;.?0/2.541 22.:2/6.661
SC3 0;.04/2.061 .6:: :6.6:/02.051 44 63
SC3,;55 *+,-.--80 1 .8-7 0;.54/2.-31 :6.35/02.;;1
SC? -0.03/6.:61 .6?; ;?.5?/04.601 42 055
SC?,;55 *+,-.35-0 - -.2-2 -0.-?/6.401 ;?.-4/06.;:1
SC4 -0.44/0-.-01 .66; 2-.:6/-5.:41 64 055
SC4,;55 *+,-.-240 - -.64- -0.40/0-.;21 2-.24/-5.401
SC6 0?.4-/:.;31 2?.50/0-.:41 055 055
SC6,;55 *+,-.///0 1 ./// 0?.4-/:.;31 2?.50/0-.:41
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -:
SC5 ;2.-6/00.051 .6;4 :?.40/00.?;1 44 64
SC5,;55 *+,-.5270 - .566 ;;.35/05.;41 :?.54/05.6?1
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -3
&a!le 3) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
females only cross,$alidation sample /NM261 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and -:5,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
:.;:/-.;21 .660 :4.:2/00.-31 055 055
-:5 *+,-./220 1 ./66 :.;;/-.0:1 :4.2?/05.;31
F ?.65/2.2:1 .6;0 32.:3/0:.-61 3? 62
F-:5 *+,-.6-50 1.767 4.56/2.2;1 3:.--/0:.-21
> 02.5-/:.;-1 .6;- 2?.45/00.301 45 64
>-:5 *+,-.6240 1 -.666 0;.33/2.?;1 2?.5-/05.;-1
SC0 0:.30/3.-21 .66? :2.?-/0:.201PP 055 055
SC0-:5 *+,-./2501 ./38 0:.?3/3.;51 ::.05/0:.:31
SC- ;5.:0/?.0-1 .66- ?5.4?/02.;;1 055 055
SC-,-:5 *+,-./380 - .648 ;5.;:/?.561 ?5.:2/02.-?1
SC; ;0.;:/3.:41 .66- 36.:6/0;.651 055 055
SC;,-:5 *+,-.//501 -.637 ;0.-6/3.351 36.24/0;.6?1
SC2 --.26/3.2;1 .642 :5.35/02.--1 64 055
SC2,-:5 *+,-.-320 - .283 --.:5/3.241 :5.3-/02.;;1
SC: ;;.?0/2.541 .6:0 22.:2/6.661 62 055
SC:,-:5 *+,-./2601 2.822 ;;.46/;.?;1 22.64/6.0:1
SC3 0;.04/2.061 .42? :6.6:/02.051 :0 43
SC3,-:5 *+,-.65701 6.825 0;.;3/;.3?1 35.:2/0-.;?1
SC? -0.03/6.:61 .6:2 ;?.5?/04.601 3? 62
SC?,-:5 *+,-.52-01 .7/2 -0.;4/6.351 ;?.26/04.6;1
SC4 -0.44/0-.-01 .6?- 2-.:6/-5.:41PP 36 63
SC4,-:5 *+,-.83/01 .52/ --.?3/0-.031 22.54/-5.:01
SC6 0?.4-/:.;31 .66; 2?.50/0-.:41 055 055
SC6,-:5 *+,-./2401 ./22 0?.?:/:.0?1 23.4:/0-.0;1
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -?
SC5 ;2.-6/00.051 .4?4 :?.40/00.?;1 ?0 63
SC5,-:5 *+,2.6880 - -.522 ;2.52/05.;;1 :?.:2/05.6-1
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -4
&a!le ?) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
females only cross,$alidation sample /NM261 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and -55,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
:.;:/-.;21 .60: :4.:2/00.-31 4- 055
-55 *+,-./450 1 .335 :.-2/-.5-1 :4.5-/6.?01
F ?.65/2.2:1 .6-; 32.:3/0:.-61 36 62
F-55 *+,-.3220 1 -.276 4.0;/2.;31 3:.;?/02.6?1
> 02.5-/:.;-1 .654 2?.45/00.301 ?3 055
>-55 *+,-.3440 1 -.833 0;.4?/2.:21 2?.2?/6.651
SC0 0:.30/3.-21 .665 :2.?-/0:.201PP 63 055
SC0-55 *+, -.-360 1 .77- 0:.6?(6.33) ::.35/0:.3;1
SC- ;5.:0/?.0-1 .6?4 ?5.4?/02.;;1 63 055
SC-,-55 *+,-.-860 1 2.2/6 ;5.04/3.441 ?5.-5/0;.421
SC; ;0.;:/3.:41 .632 36.:6/0;.651 44 055
SC;,-55 *+,-./870 1 3.7/8 ;0.;3/3.251 36.3-/0;.:-1
SC2 --.26/3.2;1 .634 :5.35/02.--1 44 64
SC2,-55 *+,-.-760 1 6.232 --.5;/:.621 26.:4/0;.0:1
SC: ;;.?0/2.541 .?42 22.:2/6.661 :6 65
SC:,-55 *+,-.-240 1 5.522 ;2.5;/;.231 2:.;-/4.2?1
SC3 0;.04/2.061 .422 :6.6:/02.051 :: 4-
SC3,-55 *+,-.3880 1 6.4/- 0;.-0/;.221 35.5:/00.:41
SC? -0.03/6.:61 .622 ;?.5?/04.601 :6 6-
SC?,-55 *+,-.5780 1 -.862 -0.2;/6.251 ;?.:6/04.::1
SC4 -0.44/0-.-01 .6:: 2-.:6/-5.:41PP 3: 43
SC4,-55 *+ , -.5420 1 -.54- -;.0;/00.421 22.?5/06.6?1
SC6 0?.4-/:.;31 .6;- 2?.50/0-.:41 42 64
SC6,-55 *+, -.-740 1 6.256 04.55/2.?51 2?.22/00.521
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age -6
SC5 ;2.-6/00.051 .424 :?.40/00.?;1 30 62
SC5,-55 *+, 2.5-20 1 2.64/ ;2.;-/6.-;1 :?.42/6.?31
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ;5
&a!le 4) Means, standard de$iations of ra9 scores, correlations, and con$erted &,scores for
females only cross,$alidation sample /NM261 for F#ll MM*+,- /o!ser$ed1 and 045,item short,
form /predicted1.
#e(ression Mean /Std.De$.1 *earsonNs Mean/Std.De$.1
Scale E)"ation 'a9 Scores r /ra91 &,scores H: & H05&
:.;:/-.;21 .433 :4.:2/00.-31 ?4 64
045 *+, -.-2/0 1 .368 :.0-/0.601 :?.23/6.0?1
F ?.65/2.2:1 .600 32.:3/0:.-61 3: 62
F045 *+, -.8620 1 -.222 4.-;/2.2-1 3:.36/0:.-51
> 02.5-/:.;-1 .46; 2?.45/00.301 ?2 64
>045 *+,-.8550 1 -.622 0;.60/2.201 2?.::/6.3-1
SC0 0:.30/3.-21 .665 :2.?-/0:.201PP 63 055
SC0,045 *+,-.-360 1 .77- 0:.6?/3.;;1 ::.35/0:.3;1
SC- ;5.:0/?.0-1 .636 ?5.4?/02.;;1 65 055
SC-,045 *+,-.-7/0 1 6.82- ;5.-:/?.001 ?5.;2/02.;01
SC; ;0.;:/3.:41 .6:2 36.:6/0;.651 42 64
SC;,045 *+,-./370 1 2.35/ ;0.0:/3.2-1 36.04/0;.:?1
SC2 --.26/3.2;1 .6:4 :5.35/02.--1PP ?3 055
SC2,045 *+, -.-420 1 3.272 -0.42/:.321 26.03/0-.2?1
SC: ;;.?0/2.541 .3:- 22.:2/6.661 :? 42
SC:,045*+, -./470 1 -3.248 ;2.26/;.551 23.22/?.;:1
SC3 0;.04/2.061 .422 :6.6:/02.051 :: 4-
SC3,045 *+, -.3880 1 6.4/- 0;.-0/;.221 35.5:/00.:41
SC? -0.03/6.:61 .6;3 ;?.5?/04.601 30 62
SC?,045 *+,-.4530 1 -.7-4 -0.;4/6.;61 ;?.:5/04.:-1
SC4 -0.44/0-.-01 .620 2-.:6/-5.:41PP :? 4-
SC4,045 *+ ,-.4880 1 -.72- -;.54/00.4:1 22.3;/06.641
SC6 0?.4-/:.;31 .65- 2?.50/0-.:41 3: 64
SC6,045 *+, -.2820 1 6.728 0?.46/2.2;1 2?.06/05.251
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ;0
SC5 ;2.-6/00.051 .4-- :?.40/00.?;1 26 62
SC5,045 *+, 6.--20 1 2.277 ;2.03/6.041 :?.3?/6.?51
Psignificance 9ith Bonferroni correction.
PPsignificance 9ithin s#!Aects ANEVA
SC refers to QScaleQ
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ;-
#EFE#E&CES
Ben,*orath, R. S. = For!ey, %. D. /-55;1. Non-gendered norms for the MMPI-. Minneapolis)
Ini$ersity of Minnesota *ress.
Ben,*orath, R.S., = &ellegen, A. /-5541. MMPI--!F (M"nnesota Mult"phas"c Personal"ty
In#entory- !estructured Form)$ Manual for adm"n"strat"on, scor"ng, and "nterpretat"on.
Minneapolis) Ini$ersity of Minnesota *ress.
B#tcher, %. N., Dahlstrom, W. <., <raham, %. '., &ellegen, A., = >aemmer, B. /06461.
Minnesota M#ltiphasic *ersonality +n$entory /MM*+,-1) Man#al for administration and
scoring, Minneapolis, MN) Ini$ersity of Minnesota *ress.
B#tcher, %. N., = (ostetler, >. /06651. A!!re$iating MM*+ item administration) What can !e
learned from the MM*+ for the MM*+,-S Psycholog"cal %ssessment$ % &ournal of
'onsult"ng and 'l"n"cal Psychology, , 0-,-0.
B#tcher, %. N., = Williams, C. . /-5561. *ersonality assessment 9ith the MM*+,-) (istorical
roots, international adaptations, and c#rrent challenges. %ppl"ed Psychology$ (ealth and
)ell-*e"ng, , 05:,0;:.
Dahlstrom, W. <., = Archer, '. *. /-5551. A shortened $ersion of the MM*+,-. %ssessment, +,
0;0,0;?.
Friedman, A. F., e9a", '., Nichols, D. S., = We!!, %. &. /-5501. Psycholog"cal assessment
,"th the MMPI-. a9rence 7arl!a#m Assoc.) N%.
<ass, C. S., = <onFaleF, C. /-55;1. MM*+,- short,form proposal) CAI&+EN. %rch"#es of
'l"n"cal Neuropsychology, -., :-0,:-?.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ;;
<ass, C. S., = #is, C. A. /-5501. MM*+,- short,form) *sychometric characteristics in a
ne#ropsychological setting. %ssessment, ., -0;,-06.
e$y, *. /063?1. &he correction of sp#rio#s correlation in e$al#ation of short,form tests.
&ournal of 'l"n"cal Psychology, 3, /01, 42,43.
MM*+,- Short,Forms
*age ;2