Running head: TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
1
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2) Test Material and Procedures
Cheri E. Smith
PSY7610 - Tests and Measurements
Capella University
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
2
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2) Introduction
In 1937, Dr. Starke R. Hathaway and Dr. John C. McKinley began developing what
would come to be known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for the Department
of Psychiatry at the University of Minnesota Hospital (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 384). In the
early 1940s, the initial version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, consisting of
566 true or false items, was published as an objective evaluation of personality and
psychopathology to ascertain the complexities of mental health issues without relying on
patient's or test takers easily manipulated self-report assessments (University of Minnesota Press,
2015). The initial MMPI had three validity scales that were built into the test in an attempt to
mitigate deceitfulness and carelessness in a test taker.
The Lie scale, L scale, contained 15 items that required parameters within set limits when
a test taker had to answer questions regarding adverse personality factors (Cohen & Swerdlik,
2018, p. 386). The Frequency/Infrequency scale, F scale, consisted of 64 items that are not
normal for law-abiding, mentally healthy individuals to answer the same as a deviant or
psychiatric patient may. The Correction scale, K scale, relates the test taker’s need to be seen in a
favorable light or defensiveness. The Cannot Say scale, ? scale, is a tally of unanswered
questions, for any number reasons. Other than clinical scales and validity scales, content scales,
supplementary scales, and Harris-Lingoes scales are used on the MMPI (Cohen & Swerdlik,
2018, p. 387). Content scales are groups of similar items married under one name such as
‘Hypomania.’ “Content scales “bring order” and face validity to groups of items, derived from
empirical criterion keying, that ostensibly have no relation to one another” (Cohen & Swerdlik,
2018, p. 387). Supplementary scales are groupings of an affluent number of scales that have been
incorporated into the MMPI since inception. The Harris-Lingoes subscales involve items placed
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
3
into subscales that are more internally consistent than other subscales utilized (Cohen &
Swerdlik, 2018, p. 387).
Due to the lack of a standard representation of the American people on the MMPI, The
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2) was created. It has 567 true or false
questions administered by mental health professionals holding a minimum of a graduate degree
to adults who are eighteen years or older with completion in approximately one and one-half
hours (Butcher et al., 1989). Concerns surrounding the ethics regarding an invasion of privacy
when the MMPI-2 is required for job applicants - job performance is not linked to test results.
The initial MMPI came under fire due to ethnic disparities (Floyd & Gupta, 2020). However,
once the shortcomings were brought to light, the MMPI verbiage was revised, replacing gender
differences with non-gendered standardized scoring and eliminating ethnic barriers (Floyd &
Gupta, 2020). The current MMPI version, MMPI-2, was released in 1989 after James N.
Butcher, W. Grant Dahlstrom, John R. Graham, Auke Tellegen, and Beverly Kaemmer tirelessly
sampled a diverse population of approximately 2600 with a minimum sixth-grade reading level
(Floyd & Gupta, 2020). "The data from MMPI-2 assessments are particularly useful in
occupational health settings in complex presentations where doubt as to what is wrong with the
patient exists. For example, the MMPI-2 should normally be able to detect unconsciously
somatizing or consciously malingering in patients. The MMPI-2 can also be used to assess
psychological stability in workers in 'high-risk' professions such as airline pilots, police or
workers in the nuclear power industry" (Drayton, 2009, p. 1). Regardless of the critics of
MMPI-2 and more recent editions, the MMPI-2 is an essential tool in determining the presence
of mental health problems, formulating divergent mental health diagnosis, and providing
correlative psychological information (Floyd & Gupta, 2020). The MMPI-2's "extensive research
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
4
base" qualifies it as a gold standard tool for an extensive diversity of settings: "Assess major
symptoms of social and personal maladjustment; Identify suitable candidates for high-risk public
safety positions; Support classification, treatment, and management decisions in criminal justice
and correctional settings; Give a strong empirical foundation for a clinician's expert testimony;
Assess medical patients and design effective treatment strategies, including chronic pain
management; Evaluate participants in substance abuse programs and select appropriate treatment
approaches; Support college and career counseling recommendations; and Provide valuable
insight for marriage and family counseling" (Pearson Education LTD, 2021). In forensic
psychology, the MMPI-2, a reliable testing measure, assesses mental disorders in varying
populations.
Test Items and Format - the Types of Scores Obtained from the Test
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2), updated 1989, was
created from a normative sample, including minorities, of 1,138 males and 1,462 females aged
18 to 80 from diverse United States communities, soon to become the gold standard (Pearson,
2021). Scoring is done by a computer program that takes raw scores and converts those scores to
T scores. Once scored, the psychologist will receive the MMPI-2 profile that consists of “scales,
subscales, profile frequency information, critical item responses, and a narrative section based on
research support and clinical utility” (University of Minnesota, 2015). T scores are created from
the raw data that each MMPI-2 scale provides. “T scores have a mean set at 50 and a standard
deviation set at 10. For example, a score of 70 is 2 standard deviations above the average score
and a score of 30 is 2 standard deviations below the average score” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p.
387). Uniform T scores provided for clinical scales restructured clinical (RC) scales, content
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
5
scales, content component scales, and PSY-5 scales. Linear T scores are provided for all other
scales.
After the MMPI-2 is scored, raw data is converted to normalized T scores on a 30 to 120
scale, where T scores above 65 are clinically significant (Axelrod, 2016). With such a wide range
of clinically significant T scores, interpretation is left open to the psychologist who can use
codetypes that have been created throughout the life of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. “A codetype is when two scales demonstrate significantly high T scores'' (Axelrod,
2016). T scores that are less than 50 are clinically insignificant. Excluding zero and five,
codetypes that are five T score points below or above the clinical scale ahead or behind it is
significant. With test-retest reliability of 0.50 to 0.80, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI) has the greatest reliability with markedly disturbed individuals, especially
those suffering from hypochondriasis.
The ten clinical scales are Hypochondriasis (Hs), Depression (D), Hysteria (Hy),
Psychopathic Deviate (Pd), Masculinity-Femininity (Mf), Paranoia (Pa), Psychasthenia (Pt),
Schizophrenia (Sc), Hypomania (Ma), and Social Introversion (Si) (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p.
385). Three different descriptors are available for use on the clinical scales: Harris-Lingoes
subscale, content and content component scales, and restructured clinical (RC) scales. Hs T
scores 55 to 64 lean toward complaints of no energy, whining, and demanding; T scores that are
65 to 74 may reflect stress and chronic pain; T≥75 suggests extreme health complaints, even
delusions and possibly chronic pain (University of Minnesota, 2015). The depression scale T
score 55 to 64 indicates an introvert, minimal self-confidence, life dissatisfaction, or loss of
interest in life; T of 65 to 74 reflects moderate depression and worry; T score≥75 lends to severe
depression, suicidal ideations, and feelings of worthlessness. Harris-Lingoes subscales may
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
6
apply: D1 is subjective depression, D2 is psychomotor retardation, D3 is physical
malfunctioning, D4 is mental dullness, and D5 is brooding (University of Minnesota, 2015). The
Hy scale with T scores 55 to 64 correlates to denial, self-centeredness, immaturity; T of 65 to 74
relates to chronic pain and stunted knowledge of causes of pain; T score≥75 may be conversion
disorder, perceived health problems caused by stress, and chronic pain. The Harris-Lingoes
subscales are Hy1 equal to denial of social anxiety, Hy2 is equal to the need for affection, Hy3
equates to lassitude malaise, Hy4 is somatic complaints, and Hy5 is inhibition of aggression
(University of Minnesota, 2015). Scale 4, Pd, with T scores 55 to 64 relate to extroverted,
energetic, self-centered, and superficial relationships; T scores of 65 to 74 are rebellious,
nonconforming, impulsive, creative, angry, irritable, and poor work history; T score≥75 equates
to antisocial behavior and trouble with the law (University of Minnesota, 2015). The
Harris-Lingoes scales are Pd1 is family discord, Pd2 is authority problems, Pd3 is social
imperturbability, Pd4 is social alienation, and Pd5 is self-alienation (University of Minnesota,
2015). Mf is broken down into a male and female scale with a T of 45 to 64 reflects interests
similar to most men/women, and a T score≥75 means lacks traditional male interests/rejects
traditional feminine roles (University of Minnesota, 2015). Scale 6 is paranoid with the first T
scale of 55 to 64 meaning overly sensitive, guarded, distrustful, guarded, or angry; T of 65 to 74
equates to sensitivity to others opinions, resentful, blames others, mistrusting, argumentative, and
a paranoid style; T score≥75 indicates psychotic symptoms and delusions of persecution
(University of Minnesota, 2015). The Harris-Lingoes Pa1 is persecutory ideas, Pa2 is poignancy,
and Pa3 is naivete. The Pt scale T scores of 55 to 64 may be seen as uncomfortable, anxious,
tense, insecure, shy, no self-confidence, and introverted; T scores of 65 to 74 indicate moderate
anxiety, depression, fatigue, insomnia, bad dreams, and perfectionism; T score≥75 reflects
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
7
extreme psychological turmoil, intruding thoughts, inability to concentrate, and
obsessive-compulsive symptoms (University of Minnesota, 2015). The eighth scale, Sc T score
of 55 to 64, reflects a limited interest in other people, feelings of inadequacy, and insecurity; R
scores of 65 to 74 is a schizoid lifestyle, unusual beliefs, confusion, fearful, sadness, excessive
fantasy, and daydreaming (University of Minnesota, 2015). Harris-Lingoes is an Sc1 of social
alienation, Sc2 is emotional alienation, Sc3 is cognitive lack of ego mastery, Sc4 is conative lack
of ego mastery, Sc5 is defective inhibition lack of ego mastery, and Sc6 is bizarre sensory
experiences (University of Minnesota, 2015). Ma scale nine with a T score of 55 to 64 is active,
energetic, extroverted, rebellious, and impulsive; T score 65 to 74 lends to excessive energy,
lacks direction, impulsive, conceptual disorganization, and low frustration tolerance; T score≥75
means manic symptoms, hallucinations, confusion, delusions of grandeur, and flight of ideas
(University of Minnesota, 2015). Harris-Lingoes Ma1 is amorality, Ma2 is psychomotor
acceleration, Ma3 is imperturbability, and Ma4 is ego inflation (University of Minnesota, 2015).
The Si T score of 55 to 64 means shy, timid, lacks self-confidence; T 65 to 74 means introverted,
depressed, guilty, lacks interest, submissive, compliant, and emotionally compliant (University
of Minnesota, 2015). Si subscales: Si1 is shyness, self-consciousness, Si2 is social avoidance,
and Si3 is an alienation of self and others (University of Minnesota, 2015). “Of the
non-K-corrected standard clinical scales, RBS was most strongly correlated with scale eight - Sc
- at 0.75, followed by scale seven - Pt - at 0.72” (Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007,
p. 201).
Twelve of the fifteen content scales have content component scales. The content
component scales are only relevant if the parent content scale is ＞60 if there is a 10 T score
difference between component scales, and emphasize correlates of a higher scale (University of
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
8
Minnesota, 2015). The fears subscales are generalized fearfulness (FRS1) has 12 items, and
multiple fears (FRS2) have ten items. The depression subscales are lack of drive (DEP1) - 12
items, dysphoria (DEP2) - 6 items, self-depreciation (DEP3) - 7 items, and suicidal ideations
(DEP4) - 5 items. Health concerns subscales consist of gastrointestinal symptoms (HEA1) - 5
items, neurological symptoms (HEA2) - 12 items, and general health concerns (HEA3) - 6 items.
Two bizarre mentation subscales are psychotic symptomatology (BIZ1) - 11 items and
schizotypal characteristics (BIZ2) - 9 items. There are two anger subscales: explosive behavior
(ANG1) - 7 items and irritability (ANG2) - 7 items. The cynicism subscales are misanthropic
beliefs (CYN1) - 15 items and interpersonal suspiciousness (CYN1) - 8 items. Housed under the
antisocial practices subscales are antisocial attitudes (ASP1) - 16 items and antisocial behaviors
(ASP2) - 5 items. There are two type-A subscales: impatience (TPA1) - 6 items and competitive
drive (TPA2) - 9 items. The low self-esteem subscales are self-doubt (LSE1) - 11 items and
submissiveness (LSE2) - 6 items. The two social discomfort subscales are introversion (SOD1) 12 items and shyness (SOD2) - 7 items. The family problems subscale consists of family discord
(FAM1) - 12 items and familial alienation (FAM2) - 5 items. Finally, the two negative treatment
subscales are low motivation (TRT1) - 11 items and inability to disclose (TRT2) - 5 items
(University of Minnesota, 2015). Content scores that are T＞64 are considered significant.
The nine restructured clinical scales are demoralization (RCdem), somatic complaints
(RC1som), low positive emotions (RC2lpe), cynicism (RC3cyn), antisocial behavior (RC4asb),
ideas of persecution (RC6per), dysfunctional negative emotions (RC7dne), aberrant experiences
(RC8abx), and hypomanic activation (RC9hpm) (University of Minnesota, 2015).
“The MMPI–2 content scales are organized around four themes: internal symptoms;
external or aggressive tendencies; a devalued view of the self; and general problem areas”
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
9
(Butcher, Hass, Greene, & Nelson, 2015, p. 56). A minimum of two subscales is housed under
each of the fifteen content scales known as the content component scales. The fifteen content
scales are anxiety (ANX) - 23 items, fears (FRS) - 23 items, obsessiveness (OBS) - 16 items,
depression (DEP) - 33 items, health concerns (HEA) - 36 items, bizarre mentation (BIZ) - 24
items, anger (ANG) - 16 items, cynicism (CYN) - 23 items, antisocial practices (ASP) - 22 items,
type A behavior (TPA) - 19 items, low self-esteem (LSE) - 24 items, social discomfort (SOD) 24 items, family problems (FAM) - 25 items, work interference (WRK) - 33 items, and negative
treatment indicators (TRT) - 26 items (University of Minnesota, 2015). The personality
psychopathology five (PSY-5) scales are aggressiveness (AGGR), psychoticism (PSYC),
discontraint (DISC), negative emotionality/neuroticism (NEGE), and introversion/low positive
emotionality (INTR) (University of Minnesota, 2015).
There are supplementary scales on the MMPI-2: generalized emotional distress scales,
broad personality characteristic scales, behavioral dyscontrol, gender role, and the personality
psychopathology five. The personality psychopathology (PSY-5) scales equate to a domain in
section three of the DSM-5. The PSY-5 are aggressiveness and equates to antagonism,
psychoticism carries the same name, disconstraint is disinhibition, neuroticism/negative
emotionality is negative affectivity, and introversion/low positive emotionality relates to
detachment in the DSM-5 section III (University of Minnesota, 2015).
Validity is the soundness of a test, the extent that a test measures what it advertises to
measure. Content validity addresses how well a test indicates the behavior that it was intended.
Criterion validity gauges how scores one variable predict a score on a similar variable. Construct
validity is a standard that measures what actually should be measured. Error variance is a result
of external sources that are outside of the test taker's ability. "Validity scales can show how
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
10
accurate the test is, as well as to what degree answers may have been distorted” (Cherry, 2020).
There are three overall areas that validity may fall under: measures of completeness and
consistency, self-favorable scales, and self-unfavorable scales. The validity scales that assess
protocol validity are VRIN, TRIN, F, Fb, Fp, L, K, and S.
Housed under the measures of completeness and consistency are the CNS, TRIN, and
VRIN (Gordon, 2011). CNS is the cannot say scale which is a total of the items not answered. If
there are ten or more items not answered, then the psychologist should be concerned or
extremely concerned if there are twenty or more unanswered items (Gordon, 2011). High CNS
scores can be a result of lack of cooperation, defensiveness, lack of insight, reading difficulties,
obsessiveness, and confusion (University of Minnesota, 2015). TRIN stands for the true response
inconsistency scale and contains 23 items. Scores 13 or greater or five or less can be a sign of
severe psychopathology (Gordon, 2011). T scores greater than 50 will be followed by the letter T
or the letter F and will read as TRIN≥80T, orTRIN≥80F evaluates fixed responses (University of
Minnesota, 2015). The variable response inconsistency scale (VRIN) with scores of 13 or more,
may be invalid or proof of inconsistent responses possibly due to personality inconsistencies
(Gordon, 2011). If VRIN≥80 the client’s profile is uninterpretable and a score of VRIN<40
points to hypervigilance, ultimately evaluating random responses (University of Minnesota,
2015).
There are five scales under the self-favorable scale: lie scale (L) with 15 items,
defensiveness (K) with 30 items, superlative self-presentation (S) with 50 items, positive
malingering (Mp) with 26 items, and social desirability (Sd) with 33 items (Gordon, 2011). The
L scale is a “tendency to create a favorable impression as a response bias, conventional, rigid,
moralistic, repression, denial, and insightless” (Gordon, 2011) with greater than 5 reflecting a
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
11
high score and less than 3 equating to a minimal score. The K scale “assumes psychopathology”
with defensiveness, “insightlessness, intolerance, dogmatism and being controlled” reflected by
greater than 22 scores or a very low score (Gordon, 2011). “High scores are common with
individuals who are well adjusted and well educated, and tend to be in control of their lives”
(Gordon, 2011). The S scale is composed of five subscales: belief in human goodness, serenity,
contentment with life, patience and denial of irritability and anger, and denial of moral flaws
(Gordon, 2011). “If the person is high functioning, a high score accurately measures ego
strength, however, if the person’s history does not support claims of superior adjustment, and
T>65, consider a faking to look good bias” (Gordon, 2011). The Mp scale measures an attempt at
giving off a favorable impression. “If T greater than 60, and L and/or K are also high, there is
likely to be a conscious attempt to fake to look good” (Gordon, 2011). If high scores, greater
than a T of 65,the Sd scale is then “associated with claims of assertiveness, confidence, and
virtuousness” (Gordon, 2011).
The subscales that fall under the self-unfavorable scale are the infrequency scale (F) with
60 items, back F scale (Fb) with 40 items, dissimulation scale (Ds) with 58 items and the
infrequency-psychopathology scale (Fp) with 27 items. “Very high scores (T> 90) commonly
found with psychotic patients. High scores (>T70), best measure of overall psychopathology,
resentment, acting out, moodiness. Low scores (T<45), possible fake good profile” (Gordon,
2011). “If Fb is above T99, and F is not high, then the individual may have randomly responded
to the latter part of the test. This is more likely than the other possible interpretation, namely that
the testee decompensated toward the end of the test from having taken such a long self-report”
(Gordon, 2011). Scores greater than T of 65 reflect exaggeration measuring neurotic symptoms.
“If T-score Fb＞ T-score F + 20, then a significant change in responding occurred” (University of
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
12
Minnesota, 2015). The Fp “Scores between T71 and T113 may be exaggerated, unless the
psychopathology is obviously severe; scores greater than T113 suggest exaggeration” (Gordon,
2011). “If Fp≥100 and VRIN＜70 and TRIN＜70, then there is an intentional overreporting. If F
is elevated and Fp＜70, the elevated score on F likely reflects severe pathology, distress, or
unintentional overreporting. Fp＞70 and ＜100 reflects the degree of exaggeration of symptoms”
(University of Minnesota, 2015). “The internal consistency for response bias scale (RBS) was
calculated separately in the development and validation samples, each producing an alpha
coefficient of 0.76. Correlations between the RBS scale and other MMPI-2 validity measures in
the test battery were moderately strong, ranging from 0.36 for Fp, 0.65 for the FBS, 0.67 for F
and Fb, and 0.75 for the Meyers validity index” (Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007,
p. 201). In a study conducted by Wygant, Sellbom, Gervais, Ben-Porath, Stafford, Freeman, and
Heilbronner (2010, p. 750), RBS is related to psychotic symptoms within criminality confines
much the same as F and Fr are interrelated to psychopathology.
Created from MMPI-2 items, the fake bad scale (FBS) which is a symptom validity
measure, was originally created for use in forensic psychology (University of Minnesota, 2015).
The 43 item FBS, renamed the Symptom Validity Scale (SVS), was created to determine
“inconsistent responses, overreporting of somatic or cognitive symptoms” (University of
Minnesota, 2015), unusual beliefs, and deviant attitudes. FBS raw scores exceeding 22 reflect
symbolic concerns regarding validity of self-reporting health issues whereas raw scores greater
than 28 raise critical concerns regarding self-reporting symptoms (University of Minnesota,
2015). A T≥100 is predictive of a low false positive estimate, indicating an unreasonable display
of cognitive impairment (University of Minnesota, 2015). “The alpha coefficients of the FBS and
the MMPI-2 validity, clinical, and content scales ranged from 0.47 to 0.85. With the personal
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
13
injury sample having the highest alpha values, coefficients tend to be slightly lower for women
than for men.. However, this does not mean that “somatic malingering” is assessed by the FBS.
An alpha of 0.8 may simply mean that people in this population consistently report somatic
symptoms, which in itself does not mean they are malingering” (Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, &
McNulty, 2008, p. 859).
Incorporated into the MMPI-2-RF are the restructured clinical (RC) scales that reflect a
vast upgrade in discriminant and convergent validity with discriminant validity displaying the
greatest improvement in measuring non-affect variables (University of Minnesota, 2015). The
removal of a “common variance associated with demoralization” humbles “intercorrelations
among the RC scales” (University of Minnesota, 2015). Uniform T scores are used as a measure,
with T scores greater than 65 indicating clinical significance, and interpretable low RC3
(cynicism) scale whereas all other RC scales displaying a low score are of no significance. RC3
scores ＜40 indicate an individual that is gullible, naive, and overly trusting (University of
Minnesota, 2015). RCd (demoralization) T score≥75 suggests emotional turmoil, overwhelming
feelings, and nonexistent coping skills for current problems. T score≥75 on the RC1 (somatic
complaints) displays tangible health concerns. Elevated RC2 (low positive emotions) scores are
indicative of depression, social withdrawal, and insecurity, with an elevated RC4 (antisocial
behavior) T score reflecting antisocial behavior, legal difficulties, and poor achievement
(University of Minnesota, 2015). With T scores ＞75, RC6 may present as paranoid, suspicious,
and delusional. Increased RC7 T scores reflect anxiety, guilt, and insecurity. RC8 (aberrant
experiences) T scores ≥75 reflect possible schizophrenia, delusional disorder, or schizoaffective
disorder; T scores within the 65-74 range may indicate schizotypal characteristics (University of
Minnesota, 2015). On RC9 (hypomanic activation), T scores ≥75 suggests a current episode of
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
14
manic or hypomanic. “There were moderate correlations between RBS and RC demoralization
(0.68), RC1 (somatic complaints, 0.67), and RC2 (low positive emotions, 0.60)” (Gervais,
Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007, p. 201).
Outside of its use as a personality instrument, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory primary use was to assist in psychiatric diagnosis in adolescents of 14 years and older
(Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 384). The MMPI provided computer scoring for only a handful of
the supplementary scales, however computerized scoring could be completed via software
purchased, transmitted to scoring clearinghouse electronically, or mailed in with a returned
digital scoring guide (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 387-388). “Computer output may range from
a simple numerical and graphical presentation of scores to a highly detailed narrative report
complete with analysis of scores on selected supplementary scales” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018,
p. 388). Hand scoring of the original MMPI was possible, however, it was a labor intensive
process. Scoring required taking raw scores from test takers and turning the raw scores in linear
T scores (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p.390). The MMPI was offered online, by disc, paper and
pencil, audio version, or index cards (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 387) without time constraints
for completion. Difficulty came in interpreting results from the original MMPI due to diagnostic
complication with comorbidities.
The MMPI-2’s main claim to fame is directed at an equal representation of a control
group. “Approximately 14% of the MMPI items were rewritten to correct grammatical errors and
to make the language more contemporary, nonsexist, and readable. Items thought to be
objectionable to some test takers were eliminated. Added were items addressing topics such as
drug abuse, suicide potential, marital adjustment, attitudes toward work, and Type A behavior
patterns” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 388). There are 394 items that are the same as the original
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
15
MMPI, with 66 rewritten items, and 107 added items. In order to sit for this instrument, an
individual must be at least 18 years old with a sixth grade reading level. The MMPI-2 can be
administered by paper and pencil, online, or audio-cassette, taking 60 to 90 minutes on average
to complete (University of Minnesota, 2015). The MMPI-2 maintained the names for the 10
clinical scales and the three original validity scales. Added to the MMPI-2 were content
component scales and additional validity scales: Back-Page Infrequency (Fb), True Response
Inconsistency (TRIN) and Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018,
p. 389). The Fb scale was designed to detect random or inconsistent patterns of answers. “The
TRIN scale is designed to identify acquiescent and non-acquiescent response patterns” (Cohen &
Swerdlik, 2018, p. 389) since all items require a true or false answer meaning if one item is true
then the opposite of that item should be false. Along the same lines is the VRIN, where
synonyms or antonyms are paired in order to identify “indiscriminate response patterns” (Cohen
& Swerdlik, 2018, p. 389). Since the MMPI-2’s inception, two additional validity scales have
been added: S scale and the FBS. The design of the S scale created a way to “detect
self-presentation in a superlative manner” (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 389). The Faking Bad
scale (FBS) was designed for use in personal injury claims, later for malingerers in the military.
Once the MMPI-2 has been provided to a test taker and subsequently completed, scoring is the
same as with the original MMPI, online, mail-in, or a labor intensive by hand. The MMPI-2 uses
raw data to create linear T scores regarding the validity scales, supplementary scales, and Scales
5 (Masculinity–Femininity) and 10, sometimes referred to as 0 (Social Introversion) of the
clinical scales (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 390). Uniform T scores (UT scores) are used on the
other eight clinical scales (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 390). Electronically scoring the MMPI-2
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
16
is not only cost-effective, as it is labor intensive to score by hand, but provides raw and T scores
as well as a list of critical items (University of Minnesota, 2015).
The MMPI-2, the original version and newer versions, “have a long history of use in
forensic settings” being “the most widely administered objective personality test in forensic
evaluation” (Wygant et al., 2010, p. 745). The MMPI-A is not suitable for adolescents because it
takes a suitable and repeatable set of norms. The MMPI-2-RF scales listed previously were an
improvement on the MMPI-2 just like the MMPI-2 was a vast improvement on the MMPI.
Regardless of the critics of MMPI-2 and more recent editions, the MMPI-2 is an essential tool in
determining the presence of mental health problems, formulating divergent mental health
diagnosis, and providing correlative psychological information (Floyd & Gupta, 2020). There are
minimum qualifications for using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2
(MMPI-2), a graduate-level course in psychological testing and a graduate-level course in
psychopathology (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1942) must be passed.
Pearson and its subsidiaries provide three qualification levels: Level A, Level B, and Level C. To
purchase and/or administer the MMPI-2, a Level C qualification must be attained by proper
documentation. Learning to administer and score the MMPI-2 is difficult for beginning-level
psychodiagnostician. However, “comfort with use of the MMPI with adults and select clinical
populations likely is an ongoing, but potentially quite rewarding, professional process for
practitioners” (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1942). Pearson offers four
online training modules: gaining access to Q-global, signing in and setting up your account,
managing sub-accounts, and how to generate reports. Additionally, scoring and reporting options
are available online as well as a mock sample of a scored MMPI-2 extended score report
(Pearson Education LTD, 2021).
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
17
Fair and Appropriate Materials
The MMPI-2 is available in English, Spanish, French Canadian, and Hmong ensuring
availability in many areas of the world. The test requires a fifth to sixth grade reading level,
thereby not excommunicating individuals that have a less than par education. Concerns
surrounding the ethics regarding an invasion of privacy when the MMPI-2 is required for job
applicants - job performance is not linked to test results. The initial MMPI came under fire due to
ethnic disparities (Floyd & Gupta, 2020). However, once the shortcomings were brought to light,
the MMPI verbiage was revised, replacing gender differences with non-gendered standardized
scoring and eliminating ethnic barriers (Floyd & Gupta, 2020). “Approximately 14% of the
MMPI items were rewritten to correct grammatical errors and to make the language more
contemporary, nonsexist, and readable. Items thought to be objectionable to some test takers
were eliminated. Added were items addressing topics such as drug abuse, suicide potential,
marital adjustment, attitudes toward work, and Type A behavior patterns” (Cohen & Swerdlik,
2018, p. 388).
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory is under a continuous state of review
and therefore modifications are made regularly to ensure that the MMPI-2, MMPI-A,
MMPI-2-RF, and MMPI-3 are up to standards with needed or provided accommodations. When
the original Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory was released, it was designed for use
as “an aid to psychiatric diagnosis with adolescents and adults 14 years of age and older” (Cohen
& Swerdlik, 2018, p. 384). Standard 7.2 in Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing
(2014, p. 126) states, "The population for whom a test is intended and specifications for the test
should be documented. If normative data are provided, the procedures used to gather the data
should be explained; the norming population should be described in terms of relevant
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
18
demographic variables; and the year(s) in which the data were collected should be reported."
Though the 7.2 standard may have been applicable in the past, that is not so in the current day.
Personality assessments are often used in hiring practices. However, “one type of protection that
the ADA provides to the disabled is in the form of restrictions against employment
discrimination” (Gonzales-Frisbie, 2006). If a personality test is part of a medical exam, it is
prohibited by the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 (ADA). Prospective employers "shall not
conduct a medical examination or make inquiries of a job applicant as to whether such applicant
is an individual with a disability or as to the nature or severity of such disability” (Department of
Justice, n.d.). The American Board of Internal Medicine (2021) committed that “psychological
and psychiatric conditions refer to disturbances in emotions and/or behavior that cause clinically
significant distress and interfere with adaptive functioning, including vocational and/or social
functioning.” As such, the American Board of Internal Medicine (2021) requires pre-submittance
of a completed accommodation request form, a signed verification and release form, a personal
statement, a professional report, and a comprehensive psychological evaluation. The
MMPI-2-RF is considered a medical examination and as such cannot be administered prior to
employment. The ADA provides the following accommodation guidelines for this instrument:
extended time, verbal prompts for the vision impaired, Braille test booklets, scribes to record
answers, enhanced screen readers, distraction free room, wheelchair accessible testing stations,
and certain medications with prior approval (Department of Justice, n.d.).
Use of Technology
Along with technology came many spare of the moment concessions. The MMPI-2 uses a
computer program to calculate raw scores and turn them into T scores. Once the MMPI-2 has
been provided to a test taker and subsequently completed, scoring is the same as with the original
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
19
MMPI, online, mail-in, or a labor intensive by hand. The MMPI-2 uses raw data to create linear
T scores regarding the validity scales, supplementary scales, and Scales 5
(Masculinity–Femininity) and 10, sometimes referred to as 0 (Social Introversion) of the clinical
scales (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 390). Uniform T scores (UT scores) are used on the other
eight clinical scales (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2018, p. 390). Electronically scoring the MMPI-2 is not
only cost-effective, as it is labor intensive to score by hand, but provides raw and T scores as
well as a list of critical items (University of Minnesota, 2015). The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2) is administered by paper and pencil, Q-global, or Q-local to
18 years old and older with a minimum fifth-grade reading level (Pearson Education LTD, 2021).
The 567 true or false questions, administered by mental health professionals holding a minimum
of a graduate degree, may take the respondent approximately ninety minutes to complete. The
MMPI-2 can be completed individually in a group setting and does not need to be completed in
one sitting. Available scoring is provided on Q-global scoring and reporting, Q local software,
hand-scoring, or by a mail-in service (Pearson Canada Assessment, Inc., 2021). Pearson
Assessments provides availability to the MMPI test materials, manuals, and interpretations,
among other items (Pearson Canada Assessment, Inc., 2021). The fee associated with MMPI
materials starts at $13.40 and increases depending on what items are chosen.
Synthesis of Findings
The MMPI-2's "extensive research base" qualifies it as a gold standard tool for an
extensive diversity of settings. Since the appearance of the original MMPI, thousands of research
studies have been done and published that attest to the validity and reliability of the instrument.
Reliability is the uniformity of a test measure to yield the same results that are free from error.
The MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF provided reliability scores greater than 0.80 for predicting the client’s
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
20
early termination of mental health services, forensic soundness, mood and anxiety disorders, and
psychological injury. Validity is the degree that a test measures what it claims to measure. The
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2) and Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory - 2 - RF (MMPI-2-RF) maintain predictive validity, concurrent validity,
face validity, content validity, discriminant validity, and convergent validity for premature
terminators of mental health treatment, and use as part of a forensic assessment. The MMPI-2 is
based on a culturally diverse norm group supported by stringent retests studies covering a vast
territory of behaviors and behavioral predictors. Any psychologist or psychiatrist should have
undergone ample training in the graduate years resulting in a familiarity with the instrument.
The MMPI-2 is a complex diagnostic tool that should only be given, scored, and
interpreted by a trained and licensed psychologist or psychiatrist. When the MMPI-2-RF was
made available, it undercut the MMPI-2 with 338 items implying that less time would be needed
to complete the MMPI-2-RF. Also, the MMPI-2 is one of the longest personality assessment tests
on the market.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2), though a lengthy and
complex instrument, to use, even for licensed psychologists and psychiatrists. However, due to
its extensive use, diverse norm group, extensive research base, empirically supported therapy,
and test-retest credibility, the MMPI-2 has become the gold standard personality assessment
instrument in various settings. The test items have been researched numerous times by many
researchers, graduate students, and nay-sayers, always providing empirical results that support
the validity of long-term psychotherapy. “The Si scale was found to be the most stable with a
retest correlation of .74, after a 30-year period. After 5 years, 1072 men showed high stability on
their scores. MMPI/MMPI-2 Changes 5 Test-retest correlations for the clinical scales averaged
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
21
.66. Scales Si (.85), Pt (.83) and A (.86) were highly stable, and Pa (.55) was the least stable
clinical scale” (Gordon, 2001). Additionally, the MMPI-2 is based on complex personality traits.
Pearson
(https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/P
ersonality-%26-Biopsychosocial/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory-2/p/100000461.h
tml?tab=training), the University of Minnesota
(https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/mmpi-2/mmpi-2-training-slides), and Dr. Robert M
Gordon (https://www.mmpi-info.com/mmpi) are great resources for the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory original and all revisions.
Standard 7.4 in Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (2014, p. 126)
states,
"Test documentation should summarize test development procedures, including descriptions and
the results of the statistical analyses that were used in the development of the test, evidence of
the reliability/precision of scores and validity of their recommended interpretations,and methods
for establishing performance cut scores." Accordingly, the instruction book and interpretative
strategies assist in recommendations for mental illness, forensic, custody cases, counseling, and
other uses. Standard 7.7 remarks "Test documents should specify user qualifications that are
required to administer and score a test, as well as the user qualifications needed to interpret the
test score accurately" (American Educational Research Association, American Psychological
Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, p. 127) Standard 7.7
qualifications are explained on the above-mentioned Pearson website, which must comply before
the purchase of the MMPI-2 instrument. "When test scores are used to make predictions about
future behavior, the evidence supporting those predictions should be provided the test user"
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
22
(American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, p. 129) remarks Standard 7.12 in Standards for
Educational and Psychological Testing. In keeping with etiquette, the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory, in all versions, provides interpretative scores and narratives based
empirically on an “individual's personality, symptoms and behavior based solely on his or her
responses to MMPI-2 items” (University of Minnesota, 2015).
The MMPI-A, for use in adolescence and teenagers, leaves much to be desired. As can be
read in Standard 7.0, "Information relating to tests should be clearly documented so that those
who use tests can make informed decisions regarding which test use for specific purpose, how to
administer the chosen test, and how to interpret test scores" (American Educational Research
Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in
Education, 2014, p. 125). Due to lack of research and little to no norm group, it is almost
impossible to expect accurate results according to Standard 7.0 in Educational and
Psychological Testing Standards. Standard 7.2 states, "The population for whom a test is
intended and specifications for the test should be documented. If normative data are provided,
the procedures used to gather the data should be explained; the norming population should be
described in terms of relevant demographic variables; and year(s)in which the data were
collected should be reported"(American Educational Research Association, American
Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education, 2014, p. 126),
creating the same problems as Standard 7.0. In Standards for Educational and Psychological
Testing (2014, p. 126), Standard 7.4 states, "Test documentation should summarize test
development procedures, including descriptions and the results of the statistical analyses that
were used in the development of the test, evidence of the reliability/precision of scores and
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
23
validity of their recommended interpretations,and methods for establishing performance cut
scores." Again, due to the lack of norm groups, proper research, and test-retest applicability, the
MMPI-A comes under fire as lacking in any and all applicable areas.
In closing, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory in all versions, except the
MMPI-A, has been normed to a diverse ethnical background of Americans. The MMPI-2,
MMPI-2-RF, and MMPI-3 have survived constant research, test-retest correlations, updates, and
scrutiny to emerge at the top of the list as the gold standard in personality assessments. After the
original MMPI was published with notice taken to subsequent gender wording, the MMPI-2
pulled from a diverse ethnic and socioeconomic background of Americans to accomplish the feat
of number one. Of even more credibility is the use of the MMPI-2 in the forensic world.
Research was conducted on thousands of cases so that a customized forensic report with an
objective narrative could be generated in the following areas “child, custody, personal injury,
personal injury (neurological), pretrial criminal, general corrections, and
competency/commitment” (Pearson, 2021).
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
24
References
American Board of Internal Medicine (Ed.). (2021). Request an accomodation. Retrieved from
https://www.abim.org/certification/exam-information/testing-accommodations-disabilities/reques
t-an-accommodation/psychological-psychiatric.aspx
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National
Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological
testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association. Retrieved from
https://platform.virdocs.com/r/s/0/doc/578859/sp/225487313/mi/671416144?cfi=%2F4%2F4&m
enu=table-of-contents
Axelrod, J. (2016, May 17). Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI). Retrieved
from
https://psychcentral.com/lib/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-mmpi#Development-o
f-the-MMPI
Butcher, J. N., Arbisi, P. A., Atlis, M. M., & McNulty, J. L. (2008). The construct validity of the
Lees-Haley fake bad scale does this scale measure somatic malingering and feigned emotional
distress? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23(7-8), 855-864. doi:10.1016/j.acn.2008.10.001
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1942).
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 [2001 Manual Revision]. Retrieved from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.library.capella.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=6&sid=cfa9db22-6856-41
1f-b210-4e97b3aa6842%40sessionmgr4008&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1
zaXRl#AN=test.11157&db=mmt
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B.
(1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Retrieved from
https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Pe
rsonality-%26-Biopsychosocial/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory-2/p/100000461.ht
ml
Butcher, J. N., Hass, G. A., Greene, R. L., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Using the MMPI-2 in forensic
assessment. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Doi: org/10.1037/14571-001
Cherry, K. (2020, March 25). The History and Use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory. Retrieved from
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-27955
82
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
25
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. (2018). Psychological testing and assessment: An introduction to
tests and measurements (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Retrieved from
https://capella.vitalsource.com/#/books/1260303195/cfi/6/40!/4/2/2@0:0
Department of Justice (Ed.). (n.d.). Information and technical assistance on the Americans with
disabilities act. Retrieved from https://www.ada.gov/2010_regs.htm
Drayton, M. (2009). The Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2 (MMPI-2).
Occupational Medicine, 59(2), 135-136. doi:10.1093/occmed/kqn182
Floyd, A. E., & Gupta, V. (2020, May 14). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557525/
Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Wygant, D. B., & Green, P. (2007). Development and
validation of a response bias scale (RBS) for the MMPI-2. Assessment, 14(2), 196-208.
doi:10.1177/1073191106295861
Gonzales-Frisbie, J. (2006). Personality tests in jeopardy: An evaluation of the seventh circuit's
decision in Karraker v. Rent-a-center and its impact on the future use of personality tests in
pre-employment screening. Retrieved from
https://www.law.upenn.edu/journals/jbl/articles/volume9/issue1/Gonzales-Frisbie9U.Pa.J.Lab.&
Emp.L.185(2006).pdf
Gordon, R. M. (2001). MMPI/MMPI-2 changes in long-term psychoanalytic psychotherapy.
Issues in Psychoanalytic Psychology, 23(1-2), 59-79. Retrieved from
https://82852df7-090b-4de1-9006-749ed59483f1.filesusr.com/ugd/7a4e25_2109a8dd416a4c328
bf82a10fc611688.pdf
Gordon, R. M. (2011). Validity scales: MMPI-info. Retrieved from
https://www.mmpi-info.com/validity-scales
Pearson (Ed.). (2021). Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-2. Retrieved from
https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/Store/Professional-Assessments/Pe
rsonality-%26-Biopsychosocial/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory-2/p/100000461.ht
ml?tab=product-details
Pearson Education LTD. (2021). Q Local Scoring and Reporting Software Official Minisite.
Retrieved from
https://www.pearsonclinical.co.uk/Q-Local/Q-Local-Scoring-and-Software.aspx?tab=5
University of Minnesota Press. (2015, September 04). MMPI History. Retrieved from
https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/bibliography/mmpi-history
TEST MATERIAL AND PROCEDURES EVALUATION
26
Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Gervais, R. O., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Stafford, K. P., Freeman, D. B.,
& Heilbronner, R. L. (2010). Further validation of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF response bias
scale: Findings from disability and criminal forensic settings. Psychological Assessment, 22(4),
745-756. doi:10.1037/a0020042