Talk:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

message: Weren't the clinical scale labels eliminated with the MMPI-2?  They're not accurate to the constructs measured, and on a public page could be very misleading.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lhornemoyer (talk • contribs) 11:49, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Please improve it in any way you see fit. Jokestress 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs improvement

message: Is it true that they have to use a special scale to score the MMPI if the test is taken by a Catholic priest, otherwise the MMPI will say that he's a raving schizophrenic looney?
Alluded to at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/01-97/6/6.html , and I have heard it stated multiple times, more bluntly, that there are separate MMPI scales for the clergy.  If the MMPI is a valid tool, it should not need separate scales.  On the other hand, a few hours with Google has turned up nothing except the assertion.  Can anyone here give further information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.68.254 (talk • contribs) 
:Fremte writes: The MMPI and MMPI-2 were developed with particular reference groups.  There is no stopping anyone from researching the personality profiles of any other group and publishing their scales. That said, there is no specific "clergy scale", nor scales for other groups that are specific to a diagnosis, e.g., lawyers.  Though there is data to suggest that psychopaths and lawyers have similar personality profiles (okay that was both a joke and hopefully not too true!) Fremte 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "hopefully not too true" I vaguely remember there is a MMPI item like "it doesn't annoy me when a criminal manages it to let the court believe he is not guilty". Apokrif 21:40, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, item 263 is about "a smart lawyer". Apokrif 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: "Im not sure if this means that they have a specific test for these people,including seminary students, but it sounds like it to my untrained ear..." No, it means that they gave the same tests to people of each group, then compared the results. For example, the data would show if firefighters tend to be more or less paranoid than airline pilots. Concerning the clergy issue, they don't have a special version. However, the proctor that administers the test might point out to them that when it asks if they ever hear any disembodied voices, it doesn't count if they perceive the voice to be that of God. It may seem like this would prevent an accurate diagnosis of schizophrenia, but they can still get a good idea without using those questions. (Although some devout atheists will insist that belief in God is indicative of psychosis, it's really just indicative of groupthink.)Smw543 (talk) 08:11, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Clergy scale?

message: "it is used to measure how strongly an individual identifies with the traditional (pre-1960's) masculine or feminine role"
As (for a man) a high Scale 5 score means that he is "like a woman" (e.g. because he likes flowers), I think we should rather say that this scale measures the opposite of how somebody identifies with traditional roles. Apokrif 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scale 5 

message: After hearing a number of calls to update this particular page, I have gone ahead and started with the revisions of the first section, updating primarily the content of the test first to bring it more in line with what we actually use now. Any (constructive) commentary and criticism would be appreciated, along with links and references I may have forgotten or neglected to include. Revisions on the latter sections are forthcoming, and imput would again be appreciated. --Mavrik4 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Starting revisions 

message: A psychologist once told me that, prior to the development of MRI scanners, the MMPI was used to diagnose certain classes of brain damage.  Does anyone know anything more about this? --Carnildo 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brain damage 

message: The second paragraph starts:
"The scales on the MMPI-2 are generally interpreted in the positive direction. What this means is that while a high score on any of the Depression scales may suggest the individual is significantly more depressed than we would expect a random individual to be, a low score is not interpreted to mean the individual is significantly less depressed than the average individual."
While reading the reference 'Test interpretation and description of scales (pdf)' given at the bottom of the page
http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/~rgrieve/Personality/LectureNotes/MMPI-2Interpretation.pdf, which is a reference guide on how to score the test, I found the opposite to be true.
Could this be cited on the page itself as a reference?  LookingGlass 07:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring and interpretation 

message: It appears this link goes to the notes page from an individual lecture, and I am not sure exactly what studies this information is based on. However, it does contradict the recommendations given in the test manual, by the authors, which do not list any known empirical correlates or interpretational implications for low scores on any of the clinical scales(pg 29 - 31)(not just scale 2, and the notes page seems to have interpretations for all the clinical scales) outside of scales 5 and 0. Furthermore, although I do believe some researchers advocate interpretation of low scores on some clinical scales, this is the first time I have seen someone advocate interpreting different levels of low scores. Therefore, I would say the original paragraph is correct, that low scores are not normally interpreted; regardless of if some people ignore the recommendations of the test authors and do it anyway.
Source: Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation of the MMPI-2, Revised Edition (Butcher, Graham, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, Dahlstrom & Kaemmer, 2001)
--Mavrik4 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring and Interpretation 

message: I know there is valid criticism of the MMPI, and I believe that the writers of this section wanted to convey the gist of the problems with the MMPI. But this section is way, WAY, WAY "POV". It needs a re-write. And so, I'm adding the POV tag to it. Please don't take offense, take it as an opportunity to tighten up this section. Proxy User (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism and controversy 

message: There's a big block of 20 references all in one place at the end of the "history" section, are all of these really necessary? It seems a bit excessive. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too many references? 

message: This is what the text implies. Looks like some edits were made without paying attention to context (WP:AGF) or is an attempt to invalidate the criticism from WSJ by dressing up an old study as new evidence (WP:SYN). Tijfo098 (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Larrabee (2005) was published after WSJ (2008)? 

message: As currently composed, this article reads like a paean to the Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). I happen to like the RF, and the bulk of the research on the instrument supports its reliability and validity. But let's not get carried away! As the plain and simple guide puts it, "Write without bias, as if you neither like nor dislike the subject", which of course reflects one of the five pillars, WP:NPOV (Neutral point of view). 
I attempted some editing, but ran out of time. Here's a bit of what I have in mind, simply to give you a sense of how we might edit the article so that it has a neutral point of view regarding the RF. Again, I think the empirical literature provides solid support for the instrument, but we can say that without superlatives and songs of praise. In addition, there is an argument to be made that well-informed interpretation of MMPI-2 profiles, including scrutiny of the Content Scales and Restructured Clinical Scales, can provide equivalent information to the RF, without sacrificing the loss of information from 70 years of MMPI/MMPI-2 research.
Here is the paragraph as currently written:
=== MMPI-2-RF ===
A new and psychometrically improved version of the MMPI-2 has been developed employing rigorous statistical methods that were used to develop the RC Scales in 2003 and used in 2008. The new MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) has been released by Pearson Assessments. The MMPI-2-RF produces scores on a theoretically grounded, hierarchically structured set of scales, including the RC Scales. The modern methods used to develop the MMPI-2-RF were not available at the time the MMPI was originally developed. The MMPI-2-RF builds on the foundation of the RC Scales, which are theoretically more stable and homogenous than the older clinical scales on which they are roughly based. Publications on the MMPI-2-RC Scales include book chapters, multiple published articles in peer-reviewed journals, and address the use of the scales in a wide range of settings.
*Arbisi, P. A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 122-128.
*Castro, Y., Gordon, K. H., Brown, J. S., Cox, J. C., & Joiner, T. E. (In Press). Examination of racial differences on the MMPI-2 Clinical and Restructured Clinical Scales in an outpatient sample. Assessment.
*Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparison of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales in a substance abuse treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4, 46-58.
*Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (In Press). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment.
*Kamphuis, J.H., Arbisi, P.A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & McNulty, J.L. (In Press). Detecting Comorbid Axis-II Status Among Inpatients Using the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
*Osberg, T. M., Haseley, E. N., & Kamas, M. M. (2008). The MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Comparative psychometric properties and relative diagnostic efficiency in young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment. 90, 81-92.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (In Press). Personality and Psychopathology: Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto the Five Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality Disorders.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 89-99.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Elevation differences between MMPI-2 Clinical and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Frequency, origins, and interpretative implications. Assessment, 13, 430-441.
*Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 196-205.
*Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L .A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B. I. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 17, 345-358.
*Sellbom. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2006). Forensic applications of the MMPI. In R. P. Archer (Ed.), Forensic uses of clinical assessment instruments. (pp. 19-55) NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Baum, L. J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a batterers' intervention program. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90. 129-135.
 The MMPI-2-RF scales rest on an assumption that psychopathology is a homogeneous condition that is additive.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., & Graham, J. R. (2005). Assessing psychopathic personality traits with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 334-343.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Stafford, K. P. (2007). A comparison of measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting. Psychological Assessment, 19, 430-436.
*Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Graham, J. R., Arbisi, P. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Susceptibility of the MMPI-2 Clinical, Restructured Clinical (RC), and Content Scales to overreporting and underreporting. Assessment, 12, 79-85.
*Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2005). Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto normal personality traits: Evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 179-187.
*Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985-1004.
*Stredny, R. V., Archer, R. P., & Mason, J. A. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of parental competency examinees. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 113-115.
*Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. A., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Kelly, P. H., & Rupp, W. M. (2007). Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14, 197-205.
And here is an incomplete draft edit--just to give you an idea of the change in tone I'm suggesting:
The University of Minnesota Press published a new version of the MMPI-2, the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), in 2008. The MMPI-2-RF builds on the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales developed in 2003, with an overriding goal of improved discriminant validity, or the ability of the test to reliably differentiate between clinical syndromes or diagnoses. Most of the MMPI and MMPI-2 Clinical Scales are relatively heterogeneous, i.e., they measure diverse groupings of signs and symptoms, such that an elevation on Scale 2 (Depression), for example, may or may not indicate a depressive disorder. The MMPI-2-RF scales, on the other hand, are much more homogeneous and designed to more precisely measure distinct symptom constellations or disorders.
(Note that you'll need to look at the wikitext to see the references. I didn't want to print out a long reflist and a notelist here.)
What do you think?  Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I made the changes I suggested many moons ago (). Please discuss here before making substantial changes to the MMPI-2-RF section. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good point Biogeographist. If I had time I would pare down the list, but that will have to wait until later. :o/ - Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reads Like a Promotion for the MMPI-2-RF 

message: I just corrected a minor reference error (in this edit, 26 December 2015) and I noticed that there seems to be an excessive list of references in footnotes 22 and 23 in the MMPI-2-RF section (again, see this edit, 26 December 2015). While I am generally in favor of having ample references in Wikipedia and I try to add references to articles that I think are lacking reliable sources, in this case I wonder if some of these sources on the MMPI-2-RF could be eliminated in favor of a smaller number of good review articles? I am commenting here because this seems to be related to the promotion-like text in the MMPI-2-RF section that Mark Worthen mentioned a couple of years ago. Biogeographist (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a good point Biogeographist. If I had time I would pare down the list, but that will have to wait until later. :o/ - Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Excessive list of references?

message: The article fails to meet a quality designation of Class B on several grounds, so I decided to be bold and change it to "C". I could spend an hour typing out all the reasons it doesn't meet "B", but I really don't think that's necessary. A quick scan of the article and the Class B quality criteria will probably convince you. For easy reference, here are the "B" criteria:
The B-Class general standard: The article is mostly complete and without major problems, but requires some further work to reach good article standards.
The B-Class detailed criteria:
1. The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited. The use of either ref tags or citation templates such as cite web is not required.
2. The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. It contains a large proportion of the material necessary for an A-Class article, although some sections may need expansion, and some less important topics may be missing.
3. The article has a defined structure. Content should be organized into groups of related material, including a lead section and all the sections that can reasonably be included in an article of its kind.
4. The article is reasonably well-written. The prose contains no major grammatical errors and flows sensibly, but it certainly need not be "brilliant". The Manual of Style need not be followed rigorously.
5. The article contains supporting materials where appropriate. Illustrations are encouraged, though not required. Diagrams and an infobox etc. should be included where they are relevant and useful to the content.
6. The article presents its content in an appropriately understandable way. It is written with as broad an audience in mind as possible. Although Wikipedia is more than just a general encyclopedia, the article should not assume unnecessary technical background and technical terms should be explained or avoided where possible.
Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quality Class "C", not "B" 

message: I removed most of the material recently added, in a good faith manner, to Recent advancements in the MMPI-2 regarding the FBS scale, because of: 1) Undue weight to FBS, i.e., more content than necessary; and 2) the material lacked a neutral point of view, as it read like an argument against the FBS scale, rather than what it should be, i.e., an unbiased, objective encyclopedia article. I understand that prominent MMPI scholars disagree about the validity and utility of the FBS scale, and we should cover that debate, but in an impartial tone. Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addition of the Lees-Haley FBS (Symptom Validity) 

message: Needs to be updated with the recent release of the MMPI-3. --1000Faces (talk) 14:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  MMPI-3