Download MMPI-II Test Review

Running Head: TEST REVIEW OF MMPI-II
Test Review of the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-II
Monika Monson
University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee
1
TEST REVIEW OF MMPI-II
2
Test Review of the Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-II
The Minnesota Multi-Phasic Personality Inventory-II (MMPI-II) is the revised version of
the MMPI, created in the 1930’s by psychologist Starke R. Hathaway and psychiatrist J.C.
McKinley at the University of Minnesota. Facing much scrutiny regarding an insufficient norm
group that perpetuated test bias, the original MMPI underwent revision in the 1980’s. The
revised version was constructed by J.N. Butcher, W.G. Dahlstrom, J.R. Graham, A. Tellegan,
and B. Kaemmer, all from the University of Minneapolis, Minnesota (Butcher, 1994). Following
its release in 1989, the MMPI-II has been common tool used by mental health professionals and
clinical psychologists to diagnose and treat mental illnesses (Cherry, 2012). The MMPI-II is a
personality inventory consisting of 567 test questions that lasts between 60 and 90 minutes. The
assessment allows the test administrator to make inferences about the test taker’s personal and
social maladjustment. Results of the test also enable the examiner to determine the severity of
impairment, outlook on life, methods of problem solving, typical mood states, likely diagnoses,
and possible problems in treatment (Graham, 2000).
The MMPI-II was created as a revision to the seemingly-archaic original assessment from
the 1930’s. A more modern view of personality was incorporated, and the necessary and
sufficient test items were developed. The inventory’s use in a clinical setting has provided
mental health professionals the opportunity to scrutinize a client’s personality, and any
psychopathology that may be present. The goal of the MMPI-II is to assess the client’s current
psychological state by examining various constructs of personality including thoughts, feelings,
perceptions, and typical mood states (Graham, 2000). The results of the assessment have been
used for clinical evaluations and the development of treatment plans. Ten clinical subscales were
TEST REVIEW OF MMPI-II
3
developed to address the various clinical diagnoses potentially discovered by the MMPI-II.
These subscales are major categories of abnormal human behavior and include Hypochondriasis
(Hs), Depression (D), Hysteria (Hy), Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), Masculinity/Femininity (Mf),
Paranoia (Pa), Psychasthenia (Pt), Schizophrenia (Sc), Hypomania (Ma), and Social Introversion
(Si). Each subscale has a specific set of items presented on the test. Cutoff scores have been
established for each subscale, so if the participant responds to specific questions in a certain
manner, then a clinical diagnosis may ensue. The above clinical scales of abnormal human
behavior offer a comprehensive approach to discerning any mental health illnesses in a client.
However, it may be difficult and inappropriate for clinicians to offer an accurate diagnosis
simply following the MMPI-II results given the vast overlap among symptoms of each scale.
Symptoms for an individual suffering from Schizophrenia (Sc) may be similar to those exhibited
by an individual with Depression (D). Although the MMPI-II presents several pertinent
categories or scales of mental health abnormalities, it is necessary that further evaluation and
observation be conducted before developing a diagnosis and treatment plan.
One of the fundamental reasons for creating a revised version of the original MMPI was
the insufficient norm group. The original norming sample comprised of participants between the
ages of 16 and 65 with an eighth grade education level, mainly married, and living in small rural
areas of Minnesota (Butcher, 1994). This specific nature of the population in the norm sample
perpetuated testing bias against those of various ethnicities and education levels. With an
increase in education following the GI Bill and World War II, and an increasingly diverse
population, a re-standardization of the norming sample was imperative. In preparation for the
revision of the MMPI, the new norming sample included participants between the ages of 18 to
TEST REVIEW OF MMPI-II
4
84 and was largely representative of the 1980 census in terms of marital status, socioeconomic
status, and ethnic diversity (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989). An
updated lexicon and restandardization of the norming sample was implemented to ensure a more
modern measurement of the personality construct.
Since a personality assessment would not be valid if the test taker did not present him or
herself honestly, the test creators were forced to develop validity scales. In order to address the
validity of the MMPI-II, four scales were constructed to scrutinize the test taker’s attitude or
approach to taking the assessment. The four validity scales are the L (lie) scale, the F
(infrequency) scale, the K (correction) scale, and the ? (cannot say) scale (Framingham, 2011).
The L scale is intended to discern whether the participant is answering questions honestly. It
consists of 15 items that are common human faults, and if the participant answers in accordance
to the items, then they are assumed to be exaggerating their virtues (Framingham, 2011). The F
scale consists of 60 items that intend to examine whether the participant has answered questions
inconsistently or contradictive (as if randomly filling out the assessment) (Framingham, 2011).
The K scale is designed to identify psychopathology in the participant. The scale is comprised of
30 items that examine self-control and interpersonal skills (Framingham, 2011). The fourth and
final scale, the ? scale, is simply the number of items the participant did not answer.
The MMPI-II has been has been highly scrutinized for its reliability. There has been
much research assessing whether the assessment produces consistent results across the various
validity and clinical scales. Since there are several scales within the MMPI-II assessment, it is
difficult to pinpoint a specific reliability coefficient for the entire inventory. Matz, Altepeter, and
Perlman (1992) presented reliability data on the MMPI-2, as they examined the temporal
TEST REVIEW OF MMPI-II
5
stability and internal consistency of the MMPI-2 in a sample of 128 students. Moderate to high
stability coefficients were obtained with alpha coefficients ranging from .39 to .91 across the
four validity scales. The MMPI-II manual also conveyed a moderate coefficient for test-retest
reliability (Butcher, et al., 1989). While looking at the aforementioned clinical scales, the manual
presents a range from the lowest reliability of .67 on the Paranoia (Pa) scale to the highest of .92
on the Social Introversion (Si) scale (Butcher, et al., 1989). Although research has indicated
moderate reliability coefficients across the validity and clinical scales, one concern is that there
is much overlap within the content areas of the theoretical construct. Items may also be used for
the scoring of several different scales, causing a large inter-scale correlation. Given the concerns
regarding reliability, it is imperative that the assessment results be combined with further
observation and evaluation before issuing any clinical diagnoses.
The creation of several different validity scales allows for the clinician to receive a more
accurate portrayal of the participant’s motivations for certain answers. If the participant scores
high on the L scale, then it can be assumed that he or she was trying to convey him or herself in a
more favorable manner. Much research has been conducted to determine the general validity of
the MMPI and MMPI-II. Results from the Hiller, Rosenthal, Bornstein, Berry, & Brunell-Neuleib
(1999) meta-analysis were based on 2,276 Rorschach tests and 5,007 MMPI’s. A mean validity
coefficient of 0.29 was reported for the Rorschach and 0.30 for the MMPI. Hiller and his colleagues
concluded that the validity coefficients for the two instruments were comparable but also that the
validity for these instruments is “about as good as can be expected” for personality tests. In a study
conducted by McNulty, Graham, Ben-Porath, and Stein (1997), results from the MMPI-II were
compared between African-American and Caucasian individuals from a community mental health
facility. According to the report, correlations between MMPI-II results and patient description forms
TEST REVIEW OF MMPI-II
6
were not significantly different, indicating that the assessment produced relatively valid results. The
restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2 have been found to have better validity than the basic
clinical scales (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Despite the research stating that the MMPI-II is a relatively
valid personality assessment, the issues concerning reliability cause researchers to be a bit skeptical
about the validity as well. Since there is so much overlap between content areas within the test, it is
difficult to achieve high reliability. That being said, a test must have reliability to be valid because if
a test does not consistently produce valid results, then it is not considered to be a valid measurement.
Given the vast nature of the personality construct, it is often difficult to produce a reliable
and valid assessment. However, the MMPI and its updated version, the MMPII-II, have been utilized
by clinicians and mental health professionals to aid in diagnoses and treatment plan development.
The test creators implemented ten clinical scales to discern any mental health pathology, and also
four validity scales to understand the participant’s motivations for certain responses. Although this
may present a more comprehensive approach to understanding mental health abnormalities, it is
somewhat confusing to those who are not clinically-trained. This can result in difficulty in
administering the assessment, since the test administer must be well-versed in the psychopathological
field. Another issue is that the somewhat-concerning reliability and validity information point to the
necessity of other observation and evaluation before offering an accurate diagnosis. Since mental
health diagnosis is a life-changing experience, it is absolutely imperative that the clinician utilizes
multiple forms of information before developing any sort of accommodations.
References
Butcher, J. (1994) Psychological assessment of airline pilot applicants with the MMPI-2. Journal of
Personality Assessment 62(1) p. 31-44
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A, & Kaemmer, B. (1989).The Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring.
University of Minnesota Press: Minneapolis, MN.
Cherry, Kendra. (2012). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: MMPI-2 history and use
of the MMPI-2. Retrieved on November 24, 2012, from
http://psychology.about.com/od/psychologicaltesting/a/ammpi.htm
Framingham, J. (2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Psych Central.
Retrieved on November 24, 2012, from http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/minnesota
multiphasic-personality-inventory-mmpi/
Graham, John R. (2000) MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. 3rd edition, revised.
Oxford University Press: NY.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009) Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 5th edition. John Wiley & Sons,
Inc.: NJ.
Hiller, Jordan B.; Rosenthal, Robert; Bornstein, Robert F.; Berry, David T. R.; Brunell-Neuleib,
Sherrie. (1999) A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity.
Psychological Assessment 11 (3) p. 278-296.
Matz, P., Altepeter, T., Perlman B. (1992) MMPI-2 reliability with college students. Journal of
Clinical Psychology 48(3), p. 330-334.
McNulty, J.L., Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S. & Stein, L.A. (1997) Comparative validity of MMPI
2 scores of African American and Caucasian mental health center clients. Psychological
Assessment, 9 p. 464-470.