Talk:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Needs improvement

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)

I think this really needs work... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.151.42.178 (talk • contribs) . 01:02, 20 February 2006

Please improve it in any way you see fit. Jokestress 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The article could use information about how the test works. I vaguely remember from a psychology 101 class I took a few years ago that the results are based entirely off empirical evidence or something(I guess as opposed to however that guy came up with his inkblot test)?RadioYeti 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, personality tests such as the MMPI go through a rigorous empirical process to develop. A few bored personality psych graduate students could probably provide a good overview.

The reference to Annie Murphy Paul, a former senior editor of Psychology Today, should really be qualified. It's useful to point out the criticisms of personality tests, but a blanket statement that these tests are unreliable and invalid is neither fair nor true. Especially with the MMPI. Again, we need some people to weigh in that have some training in this area. Ms. Paul, despite being editor of Psychology Today, has no training in the field. She has a degree in journalism. And, Psychology Today really isn't a good or reputable source. It's basically Cosmo with psychobabble. We would be better off citing peer reviewed journals that emphasize scientific rigor (e.g., the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).

I just spent some time over the last couple of days formatting the information a bit differently, and adding content for the clinical and validity scales. I can add more on the content scales and a few other basics from literature about the test if desired... Minvaren (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I must be honest, I was surfing around Wikipedia and I came across the part of this article that mentions the "fake bad" scale. I get that it's fake, and it's bad, but I have two questions lingering: is it really called the "fake bad scale"?, and if not, "What is/was the scale actually called by the people who proposed it?". I doubt anyone would falsify a scale and call it "fake bad", but I have no idea after seeing the article what it should be called, and "fake bad" is used so many times in that section I have it on repeat in my head like it's a record. If someone could find what its' actual name is, I'd be more than glad to edit it. --Blackraven1425 (talk) 09:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Clergy scale?

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)

"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)

Actually, item 263 is about "a smart lawyer". Apokrif 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

- 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:

The Minnesota Report: Revised Personnel System, 3rd Edition Interpretive Report (Product Number 51442) This report presents the following MMPI-2 scales:

   * Validity and Clinical Scales — profiled
   * Superlative Self-Presentation Subscales — scale scores reported only
   * Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes and Social Introversion subscales) — scale scores reported only
   * Content Scales — profiled
   * Content Component Scales — scale scores reported only
   * Supplementary Scales — profiled (includes the PSY-5 scales — scale scores reported only)

In addition, the report compares the profile data to data from occupation-specific research samples and provides occupation-specific mean profiles. The occupations that are considered in the interpretation are:

   * Nuclear Power Facility
   * Law Enforcement
   * Airline Pilots
   * Medical and Psychology Students
   * Firefighters/Paramedics
   * Seminary Students
   * Other

Note: Air Traffic Controller was discontinued in 2001." from: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/tests/mmpi_2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.206.184 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"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)

There are several layers of MMPI-X reports offered by Pearson. There is one with the basic scales, one with all the extended scales, and "interpretive" reports (and several more). The interpretive reports use artificial intelligence (using the term loosely here) to analyze the scales scores and generate text describing how they should be interpreted. They look something like the report that a psychologist might generate after studying the results, though it would be professionally irresponsible to cut and paste from one of these reports - you need to factor in the context of the subject. The special reports listed above (law enforcement, airline pilots...)are referring to special interpretive reports created for those industries. No special scales, but the contexts are important. Law enforcement personnel as a group are famously similar to "sociopaths" (4-9's for MMPI geeks), though the scales are not as elevated. Knowing that a subject is being considered for a law enforcement occupation changes the interpretation of the results - what's normal and desired for a cop would probably rule you out as a seminary student, and vice versa. Headhunterdave (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Scale 5

"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)

Starting revisions

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)

Any chance of some references, external links to the test itself? LookingGlass 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting to the references now. You can always just Google the journal articles I cite in the blocks of text I write myself. I am trying to find free web-available versions of these articles, but most of the journals they are printed in require a subscription and are not available for free to the public (although they are available for free at most university research libraries). As for a link to the test, that's probably not going to happen; the test is copywrited and the test material is thus protected. Unless this was a request for a link to the official page of the test publisher, which I will add shortly.--Mavrik4 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Brain damage

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)

This is true not necessarily of the MMPI but of the older neuropsychological tests, such as the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. These tests were originally created to help identify the location of a lesion in the brain based on the subject's impaired performance on a particular task. Psychmama (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In the early days of the MMPI there was great optimism that the strategy of empirical scale development had potential for all kinds of serendipitous discovery about human behavior and illness. One manifestation of that optimism was development of a scale named Caudality, designed to localize brain damage. I am not familiar with the research (if any) on this scale, but that it never gained popular use is a pretty good indication that it was a failure. I doubt that clinicians ever used the MMPI for diagnosis of brain damage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NathanWeed (talk • contribs) 06:15, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Scoring and interpretation

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)

From D. Scale 2: Depression(D)

...
4) T-Scores > 65 (marked elevation) are indicative of individuals who:
        a. display depressive symptoms
                  1. especially if T-Score > 70
        b. feel blue, unhappy, and dysphoric
        c. are quite pessimistic about the future
        d. have self-deprecatory and guilt feelings
        e. may cry, refuse to speak, and show psychomotor retardation
        f. often are given depressive diagnoses
...
6) Normal range: T-Score 40-57
7) T-Scores < 40 (low scores) are indicative of individuals who:
        a. do not experience much tension, anxiety, guilt, or depression
        b. feel relaxed and at ease
        c. are self-confident
        d. are emotionally stable and capable of effective functioning in most
            situations
        e. feel cheerful and optimistic
        f. have little difficulty in verbal expression
        g. are alert, active, and energetic
        h. are competitive and seek out additional responsibilities
        i. Are at ease in social situations
        j. seek out leadership roles
...

Assuming the reference link is accurate the current way the MMPI is graded, then the test measures both positive traits and negative traits. It gives much more graditions for high scores than for low scores, but the lowest rank is always a negative trait.

Currently taking a class on psychological assessments, the quoted text is essentially correct. Clinically significant for all scales starts at 65, but under 40 scores can be indicative of efforts to "fake good" (see F, Fb, K, F-K) on the test if you have scores above 60 or so on any one scale. 70.241.100.27 (talk) 02:14, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Scoring and Interpretation

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)

Criticism and controversy

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)

Criticism and Controversy revision

I went ahead and redid this section. I think it needs a paragraph or two focusing on the historical criticisms of the instrument, and maybe on psychometrics in general, but I tried to keep the conversation relevant to the MMPI-2, not to personality testing in general. Feel free to revert the page back to a previous version if you think this was too much of a change, but I think the general consensus seemed to be that this section needed to be redone.--Mavrik4 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any "criticism and controversy" section in the article. Where did it go? Who deleted it and why? Shouldn't we bring it back? - Sbunny8 (talk) 15:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Ideally, we should discuss criticisms and controversies within the narrative, without creating separate sections. See:

• Article structure - "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent point of view of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.¹ It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

• Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies - "...sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Topical or thematic sections are frequently superior to sections devoted to criticism."

Hopefully that is what has happened over the years, i.e., editors have woven in MMPI critiques throughout the article. To the extent that has not happened, you and I and any editors with MMPI knowledge should do it. :o) - Mark D Worthen PsyD 01:49, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Too many references?

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)

Larrabee (2005) was published after WSJ (2008)?

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)

Proposed Revisions to Introduction - What Do You Think?

The current introduction places undue emphasis on the MMPI-2-RF; neglects mention of the MMPI-A; places undue emphasis on the use of the MMPI-2 during the personnel selection process for high-risk, national security jobs; and neglects other important, and more common, uses of the MMPI.

I propose revising the introduction to better summarize the content, purpose, and uses of the MMPI tests. Here is a draft:

First published by the University of Minnesota Press in 1943, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely used and researched standardized psychometric test of adult personality and psychopathology in mental health. The original MMPI was replaced by an updated version, the MMPI-2, in 1989. A version for adolescents, the MMPI-A, was published in 1992. An alternative version of the test, the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), retains some aspects of the traditional MMPI assessment strategy, but adopts a different theoretical approach to personality test development. Psychologists and other mental health professionals use the MMPI-2, MMPI-A, and MMPI-2-RF to develop treatment plans; assist with differential diagnosis; help answer legal questions (forensic psychology); screen job candidates during the personnel selection process; or as part of a therapeutic assessment procedure.

Please discuss the pros and cons of any of the above suggestions, or suggest your own revisions, or explain why the current introduction should not be changed. Mark D Worthen PsyD 23:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

From my perspective as an informed layperson (i.e., not a professional psychologist), I think the content of the proposed revision is superior to the article's current introductory paragraph. I agree that the current introduction gives undue emphasis to use of the test in federal government security clearances. I find it hard to believe that the MMPI "is perhaps best known" for its use in security clearances (as the current introduction states).

Consider splitting the paragraph in two, with the first paragraph explaining the subject of the test and the second paragraph summarizing the test's history. For example:

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most widely used and researched standardized psychometric test of adult personality and psychopathology in mental health. Psychologists and other mental health professionals use various versions of the MMPI to develop treatment plans; assist with differential diagnosis; help answer legal questions (forensic psychology); screen job candidates during the personnel selection process; or as part of a therapeutic assessment procedure.

The original MMPI, first published by the University of Minnesota Press in 1943, was replaced by an updated version, the MMPI-2, in 1989. A version for adolescents, the MMPI-A, was published in 1992. An alternative version of the test, the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), retains some aspects of the traditional MMPI assessment strategy, but adopts a different theoretical approach to personality test development.

The first sentence might benefit from further revision. For example, the phrase "in mental health" (at the end of the first sentence) could be expanded, or just deleted, given that some of the uses of the test that you describe are not, strictly speaking, "in mental health": the forensic and job screening uses of the test are not really mental health (i.e., therapeutic) uses of the test, wouldn't you agree? Furthermore, what is the evidence that the MMPI "is the most widely used and researched" of such tests, as claimed? It would be good if you could provide an inline citation to a reliable source to establish that claim's verifiability. (I suspect the claim is true, but I'm not sure how it could be verified.)

I like that you removed the phrase "objective personality test," which strikes me as a too-easily misinterpreted (if widely used) euphemism for "empirically keyed personality test." Your phrase "standardized psychometric test" is much better than "objective personality test." (Laypersons could misinterpret the latter phrase as meaning "infallibly true test.") -- Biogeographist (talk) 19:26, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Excellent and very helpful feedback! Thank you very much. :o) Mark D Worthen PsyD 17:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Per your suggestions, I split the paragraph in two (great idea); added a reference for the "most used personality/psychopathology test" claim; and removed "in mental health" for the reason you rightly identified. Thank you again for your spot-on feedback. Mark D Worthen PsyD 00:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reads Like a Promotion for the MMPI-2-RF

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. The MMPI-2-RF scales rest on an assumption that psychopathology is a homogeneous condition that is additive.

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)

I made the changes I suggested many moons ago (diff). Please discuss here before making substantial changes to the MMPI-2-RF section. - Mark D Worthen PsyD 07:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Excessive list of references?

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)

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)

References

Quality Class "C", not "B"

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)

Addition of the Lees-Haley FBS (Symptom Validity)

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)

MMPI-3

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

Weird how nobody updated it in years. Tried my best to add as much info as possible. -- 8 September 2022 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:248D:1C00:AC17:80F8:465C:8314 (talk) 08:40, 8 September 2022 (UTC)