A comparison of MMPI profile types with corresponding estimated MMPI-2 profiles

Munley, Patrick H.; Zarantonello, Matthew M.

doi:10.1002/1097-4679(199011)46:6<803::aid-jclp2270460619>3.0.co;2-q

Cited by 11 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The K-corrected T scores on the clinical scales of the MMPI-2 and the revised MacAndrew's Alcoholism Scale (MAC-R) were the dependent variables in all analyses. The original MMPI was restandardized in 1989, which resulted in the MMPI-2; several studies have demonstrated the comparability of the MMPI and MMPI-2 (Levitt, 1990;Munley & Zarantonello, 1990). Of most relevance to the present study is the fact that the comparability of the MMPI and the MMPI-2 has been demonstrated specifically in a college student sample (Ben-Porath & Butcher, 1989).…”

Section: Dependent Measuresmentioning

confidence: 79%

MMPI-2 profiles of adult children of alcoholics

Coleman

Frick

1994

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study compared 69 adult children of alcoholics (ACOAs) with 30 control college students on scales from the revised MMPI (MMPI‐2). ACOA subjects could be differentialted from control subjects on several MMPI‐2 scales and two‐scale profiles, many of which differentiate alcoholic from nonalcoholic samples. However, the length of time the child had lived in the home with the alcoholic parent and the degree of impairment associated with alcohol abuse in the parent did not moderate these findings. In contrast, MMPI‐2 scales that measure impulsive and antisocial behavior did differentiate ACOAs who drank at least once a week from ACOAs who did not report this level of drinking.

show abstract

Section: Dependent Measuresmentioning

confidence: 79%

MMPI-2 profiles of adult children of alcoholics

Coleman

Frick

1994

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Third, the profile changes resulting from the new norms are complex (Munley, 1991a; Ward, 1991). Munley and Zarantonello (1990) and Vincent (1990) also analyzed the comparative data within the manual. It appeared that the bulk of the changes in profile code types resulted from the new norms and not the change to uniform T scores (Graham, Timbrook, Ben-Porath, & Butcher, 1991).…”

Section: Major Structural Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A perspective on developments in assessing psychopathology: A critical review of the MMPI and MMPI-2.

Helmes

Reddon²

1993

Psychological Bulletin

162

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many concerns have been raised about the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), but the emphasis on continuity during its revision precluded addressing many of these problems in the new MMPI-2. In this review, problems with the MMPI and MMPI-2 are explicated in an effort to promote more informed use of this and other tests of psychopathology. Major theoretical concerns include the lack of a consistent measurement model, heterogeneous scale content, and suspect diagnostic criteria. Serious structural problems include the overlap among scales, lack of cross-validation of the scoring keys, inadequacy of measures of response styles, and suspect norms. Six minor problems and new issues for the MMPI-2 are also discussed. It is concluded that although the MMPI-2 is an improvement over the MMPI, both are suboptimal from the perspective of modern psychometric standards for the assessment of psychopathology.The recent introduction of the long-awaited revision of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1967) is an appropriate point for reflection on the nature of the MMPI and its relationship to advances in the assessment of psychopathology. The MMPI is the most widely used objective test of personality (Piotrowski & Keller, 1989), with both strong adherents and notable critics (Benton, 1949;Jackson, 1982). The inventory evokes very equivocal commentary in basic texts, which is in contrast to its wide clinical use (Anastasi, 1988;Cronbach, 1990). Despite the challenges to its basic nature and uses, its applications continue to multiply. Hathaway, who is credited with designing the MMPI (cf. Meehl, 1989), expressed dissatisfaction with progress in advancing assessment with the MMPI and noted that researchers were "prolific in publication and comparatively illiterate in reading and acting upon the writings of others" (Hathaway, 1972, p. 42).Several years ago, Faschingbauer (1979) addressed the question, "Does the MMPI have a future?" Practitioners are now determining that future by either adopting the new MMPI-2

show abstract

“…MMPI reliability coefficients for the Basic scales ranged from .60 to .95. Munley and Zarantonello (1990) used this model in considering profile changes for classic MMPI profiles on transformation to MMPI-2 norms; however, the model has apparently not yet been used as a frame of reference for considering MMPI or MMPI-2 profile configurations over time. Test-retest agreement for high-point and twopoint codes was 42.72% and 27.65%, respectively.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparability of MMPI-2 Scales and Profiles Over Time

Munley

2002

Journal of Personality Assessment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) scale and profile comparablilty for MMPI-2 profiles completed on 2 separate occasions by mental health patients receiving treatment at a Veterans Affairs Medical Center (n = 114). Patients were predominantly men (96.5%), with an average age of 44.08 and an average of 12.39 years of education at the time of initial testing. MMPI-2 tests were completed on 2 separate occasions as a routine part of treatment with a mean interval between test administrations of 688 days. Findings were analyzed for the complete sample and for 3 subsamples with different test-retest intervals. MMPI-2 scale test-retest correlation coefficients for the entire sample ranged from .48 to .69 for the Basic scales, .49 to .80 for the Supplementary scales, and .56 to .78 for the Content scales with scale high-point agreement = 38.60%, high 2-point agreement = 16.67%, and high 3-point agreement = 19.30%. High-point agreement for subsets of participants with well-defined high points, 2-points and 3-points was 41.07%, 27.50%, and 25.93% respectively. Pearson r correlation coefficients for T scores across the Basic scales for pairs of profiles averaged .78, suggesting similarity of profile shape across testing occasions. MMPI-2 profiles were also examined in relation to Skinner and Jackson's 3 modal MMPI profile types.

show abstract

A comparison of MMPI profile types with corresponding estimated MMPI-2 profiles

Cited by 11 publications

References 2 publications

MMPI-2 profiles of adult children of alcoholics

MMPI-2 profiles of adult children of alcoholics

A perspective on developments in assessing psychopathology: A critical review of the MMPI and MMPI-2.

Comparability of MMPI-2 Scales and Profiles Over Time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About