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

Abstract

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

Are g and the General Factor of Personality (GFP) correlated?

“…However, some caution is required. A well know problem with the MMPI is that very substantial item overlap biases the correlations between its scales (Helmes & Reddon, 1993). There is no definitive assessment of the extent of this bias, but judged by the eigenvalues of the first principal component extracted from spurious and corrected correlations as estimated by Budescu and Rodgers (1981, p. 495) Markon, et al (2005) and Samuel, et al (2010).…”

Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire-Brief: Factor Structure and Convergent Validity in Inpatient Adolescents

“…It would be prudent to demonstrate empirically the effectiveness of such corrections before relying on them to increase criterion validity. For example, research supporting the K-correction for improving validity is lacking (Helmes & Reddon, 1993), and there are reports that defensiveness adjustments may actually decrease criterion validity on the MMPI and other measures (e.g., McCrae, 1986;McCrae & Costa, 1983;McCrae, Costa, Dahlstrom, Barefoot, Seigler, & Williams, 1989). Additional research is specifically recommended on the effectiveness of MACI base rate adjustments for convergence and discrimination with criterion measures, as well as for clinical prediction and diagnosis.…”

Examination of the reliability and validity of the personality assessment inventory

“…Construction of the PAI was intended to provide a superior alternative to the MMPI-2 instrument (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989), in view of the latter's well-documented psychometric limitations (e.g., Caldwell, 1991;Duckworth, 1991;Eysenck, 1991;Helmes & Reddon, 1993). According to White (1993, p. 23), "When compared with the MMPI-2, the PAI has a number of significant advantages.…”