Code-Type Congruence Between MMPI and MMPI-2: Separating Fact From Artifact

Code type-specific tables for interpretation of MMPI-2 Harris and Lingoes subscales: Consideration of gender and code type definition

“…This led Graham, Timbrook, Ben-Porath, and Butcher (1991) to recommend only interpreting welldefined code types; that is, code types in which the lowest T score for a code type scale is at least 5 points higher than that of the next highest clinical scale.…”

“…Three code types met this criterion. To examine code type definition strategy, code types were divided into well-defined and poorly defined groups using the criterion suggested by Graham et al (1991). A well-defined code type was one in which the T score for the least elevated code type scale was at least 5 points greater than that of the next highest scale.…”

Psychiatric inpatients and the MMPI-2: Providing benchmarks

“…As an illustration of this importance, the new Uniform T score clarifies that on all scales a T score of 65 is at the 92nd percentile when compared with the normative sample; however, different scales have different sensitivities to responding by various pathological groups (Butcher & Williams, 1992). The current research follows in a long tradition of reporting on the performance of clinical groups on both the MMPI and MMPI-2 (Archer, Fontaine, & McCrae, 1998;Blake et al, 1992;Graham, Timbrook, Ben-Porath, & Butcher, 1991;Gumbiner & Flowers, 1997;Lees-Haley, 1997;McNulty, Graham, Ben-Porath, & Stein, 1997).…”

“…The authors of the MMPI-2 also reported some data gathered from psychiatric populations (Butcher & Williams, 1992), but additional data gathered from individuals in serious psychological distress and with high levels of psychiatric impairment is just beginning to be reported. As the instrument matures, researchers are reporting additional comparative data based on various outpatient (Gumbiner & Flowers, 1997;Lees-Haley, 1997) and inpatient (Archer et al, 1998;Ben-Porath et al, 1991;Blake et al, 1992;Graham et al, 1991) groups. To date, empirical methods have not reflected the increasing trend in the practice of inpatient psychological testing in that, in research, the population being sampled is different from the sub-sample most likely to be tested by a psychiatric inpatient unit psychologist.…”

“…To date, empirical methods have not reflected the increasing trend in the practice of inpatient psychological testing in that, in research, the population being sampled is different from the sub-sample most likely to be tested by a psychiatric inpatient unit psychologist. In research, patients are selected through direct patient recruitment (e.g., Blake et al, 1992) or by including all testable patients on a unit (e.g., Graham et al, 1991). In practice, it is rare that all patients who enter a psychiatric unit are tested.…”