Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory: I & II

Abstract

The theoretical grounds for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) are noted, as are the purposes and features of the inventory. Specified also are the rationale and procedures for constructing the component scales. Both uses and limitations of the instrument are recorded. Steps to be followed in making configural interpretations are recommended. Also reported are results of evaluative research. These point to the general soundness of the MCMI as a clinical tool, as well to areas where ongoing studies may further strengthen its utility in the counseling context.

Hoarding in obsessive–compulsive disorder and related disorders: A preliminary report of 15 cases

“…All subjects were hoarders of non-food items, with a mean of seven item types hoarded (range [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]; in addition three subjects hoarded food items. Common items included letters (n = 12), magazines (n = 11), old clothes (n = 11) newspapers (n = 9), and receipts (n = 8) ( Table 1).…”

“…12 Features such as limited insight, absence of resistance to the compulsion to hoard and poor treatment motivation, may be common to individuals who hoard. 3,12 While hoarding is recognized as one of the eight symptom criteria of OCPD and may be linked with other OCPD criteria such as perfectionism, 2,6 studies have failed to show any significant differences between hoarders and community controls on the OCPD subscale of the Millon Multiaxial Clinical Inventory-II (MCMI-II) 13,14 In child and adolescent OCD, hoarding/saving compulsions have been reported at rates of 11-42%. [15][16][17] We present a preliminary study of the demographic and clinical characteristics of hoarding behavior in 15 adult subjects with OCD and OCD-related disorders.…”

Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.

“…Results in Table 6 lend support to our choice of factors to represent the three narcissism facets because all of the alternative measures of L/A, G/E, and E/E were correlated (r > .70) with Ackerman et al's (2011) three facets. Finally, for the sake of completeness, in addition to the Ackerman et al (2011) three facets of narcissism, we separately calculated meta-analytic facet (Raskin & Terry, 1988); NPI-16 = 16 item NPI (Ames, Rose, & Anderson, 2006); HDS-Bold = Hogan Development Survey (Hogan & Hogan, 1997;; CPI = California Personality Inventory (Gough&Bradley, 1996); Dirty Dozen = Dirty Dozen (Jonason&Webster, 2010); APSD = Antisocial Process Screening Device (Frick et al, 2000); PNI = Pathological Narcissism Inventory (Pincus et al, 2009); PDQ-4 = Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-4 (Hyler, 1994); SCID = Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders (First et al, 1997); NGS = Narcissistic Grandiosity Scale (Rosenthal, Hooley, & Steshenko, 2007); NARQ = Narcissistic Admiration and Rivalry Questionnaire (Back et al, 2013); SD3 = Short Dark Triad (Jones & Paulhus, 2014); MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory; MCMI = Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (Millon, Millon, Davis, & Grossman, 2006b); IPDE = International Personality Disorders Examination (Loranger, 1999); OMNI = O'Brien Multiphasic Narcissism Inventory (O'Brien, 1987); NESARC = National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions; AHNS = Add Health Narcissism Study (Davis & Brunell, 2012); SNAP-2 = Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (Clark, 1993); NPQC-R = Narcissistic Personality Questionnaire for Children-Revised (Ang & Raine, 2009); SQ = The Schema Questionnaire (Young, 1990); SIDP-IV = Structured Interview for DSM-IV Personality (Pfohl, Blum, & Zimmerman, 1997); DIPD-IV = The Diagnostic Interview for DSM-IV personality disorders (Zanarini, Frankenburg, Sickel, & Yong, 1996); Selfism Scale (Phares & Erksine, 1984); CNS = Childhood Narcissism Scale (Thomaes, Stegge, Bushman, Olthof, & Denissen, 2008); NEO-PI-R = NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (Miller, Lyman, Widiger, & Leukefeld, 2001); DNS = Dutch Narcissis...…”

Development and validation of a measure of intercultural adjustment potential in Japanese sojourners: the Intercultural Adjustment Potential Scale (ICAPS)

“…Respondents use a 5-point scale ranging from 1, Disagree Strongly to 5, Agree Strongly in response to each item. The scores for the five personality dimensions are calculated by averaging across items loading on that scale (John, 1989(John, , 1990 (Millon, 1992). Base rate adjustments were not used as there were no data available as to the base rates of the various pathologies among this group of subjects.…”