Interpretive Accuracy of Abbreviated MMPIs

Newmark, Charles S.; Falk, Ruth; Finch, A. J.

doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4003_5

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…That is, the FAM functioned as an instrument 80% as long as the standard MMPI, even though it contains only 30% of the items. Newmark, Falk, and Finch (1976) also compared the interpretive accuracy of the standard MMPI and three abbreviated forms with a sample of psychiatric inpatients. Although significantly higher mean ratings resulted from the standard MMPI when compared with either the FAM or Hugo's Short Form, comparable ratings by psychiatric teams were obtained when comparing the MMPI-168 and the standard-form MMPI interpretations.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the empirical validity of the standard form with two abbreviated MMPIs.

Newmark¹,

Ziff²,

Finch³

et al. 1978

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The standard form Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and two abbreviated forms, the MMPI-168 and the Faschingbauer Abbreviated MMPI (FAM), were compared with direct measures of psychopathology obtained from the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) with psychiatric inpatients. Each patient was interviewed using the Mental Status Schedule by one rater while another rater observed this initial diagnostic interview behind a one-way mirror. Thus, each patient was rated on the BPRS by two raters to assess interrater reliability. Since MMPI scales contain more than one interpretative factor, these scales were correlated with the means of more than one BPRS symptom using multiple correlation coefficients. The multiple correlation coefficients between the BPRS ratings and the corresponding MMPI and abbreviated-form scales were significantly high and comparable. Only on Pd for females did a significant difference occur, with the FAM correlation being significantly higher. These findings suggest that these abbreviated forms are an accurate substitute for the standard-form MMPI in predicting objective measures of psychopathology.The recent development of several abbreviated forms of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) has precipitated a plethora of investigations assessing the practical utility of these instruments. The majority of these studies focused solely on comparisons with the standard MMPI of group mean data and individual profile pairs concerning validity, high points, general elevations, code-type correspondence, configural analyses, and application of various MMPIderived diagnostic rules. Of the six abbreviated MMPIs now available for clinical use, namely Kincannon's (1968) Mini-Mult, Dean's (1972) Midi-Mult, Hugo's (1971)

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing the empirical validity of the standard form with two abbreviated MMPIs.

Newmark¹,

Ziff²,

Finch³

et al. 1978

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although it is preferable to use the full MMPI wherever possible, acceptable results with Form R can be obtained with as few as 300 items completed. Although scalewise correlations showed little loss of accuracy with as few as 200 completed questions, the Newmark, 1978;Newmark, Falk, & Finch, 1976;Newmark, Newmark, & Faschingbauer, 1974;Scott, Mount, & Kosters, 1976;Streiner, Goodman, & McLean, 1977;Streiner, Woodward, Goodman, & McLean, 1973). These results clearly indicated that short-form interpretations based only on code types may be suspect.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

A table for prorating incomplete Form R MMPIs.

Streiner¹,

Miller²

1979

Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A table is provided and described for prorating Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scales when the entire Form R has not been completed. The table includes the standard validity and clinical scales, as well as Ego Strength and the Subtle and Obvious scores, and ranges from 200 to 390 completed items in increments of 10. MMPIs from 190 patients were used to test the accuracy of these conversions for 200, 250, 300, and 350 items. Good concordance of profile types was found for 300 and 350 completed questions, but clinical interpretations based on only 200 items may be suspect.

show abstract

“…To date there are but three studies that directly address the issue of accuracy of individual profile interpretation- Newmark, Conger, and Faschingbauer (1976); Newmark, Falk, and Finch (1976); and Poythress and Blaney (in press).…”

Section: Clinical Validity Studies: Profile Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In paired comparisons of long-form interpretations and short-form interpretations on the same patient, the full MMPI interpretations were more often rated above the FAM interpretations than was the reverse, but further analyses estimating validity coefficients (corrected for chance) for these two instruments yielded a coefficient of .94 for the full MMPI and .89 for the FAM. A second study, by Newmark, Falk, and Finch (1976), extended this same methodology to the FAM, the Hugo, and the MMPI-168. These investigators found that about 90% of the full MMPI interpretations received ratings of 4 or 5; the FAM, the Hugo, and the MMPI-168 received 82%, 45%, and 86%, respectively.…”

Section: Clinical Validity Studies: Profile Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The MMPI-168 fared slightly better than the FAM and was judged to be, within the limits of the methodology of that study, interpretively equal to the full MMPI. Poythress and Blaney (in press) noted the problems in the Newmark, Conger, and Fasch-ingbauer (1976) and Newmark, Falk, and Finch (1976) methodology-the use of only one clinical interpreter and the gross measure of interpretive accuracy-and approached the assessment of short-form interpretive validity in a different manner. First, a large pool of clinical psychologists (N = 29) from various clinical and academic settings were recruited as blind interpreters of MMPI profiles.…”

Section: Clinical Validity Studies: Profile Interpretationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation