Normative MMPI-2 Profiles of Christian Counseling Students: An Investigation of Subculture in Standardized Testing

Abstract

This research sought to explore whether a normative profile on the MMPI-2 emerged for counseling students in a counselor training program at a seminary in the Midwest and the extent to which this profile compares to those proposed for counseling students or those preparing for pastoral ministry. Normative profiles of master's level counseling students were compared to profiles of similar samples. Findings indicated that profiles of the current student sample are similar to those of other religious students. Implications of these findings are explored regarding the use of the MMPI-2 with counseling students who are members of the Christian subculture.

Reassessing the “traditional background hypothesis” for elevated MMPI and MMPI-2 Lie-scale scores.

“…Two authors did not respond and their published articles did not clarify the issue (Cardwell, 1996; Greene, 2007). Two authors (Duris et al, 2007; Marlett, Wetherbee, & Donofrio, 2012) reported that they did not apply decision rules to identify invalid profiles. One author (Gamino et al, 2007) reported that invalid profiles were identified and excluded, but their decision rules also identified elevated L scales.…”

“…Assignment of participant status was possible for all but one study (Cardwell, 1996). After excluding the Cardwell study because of its indeterminant status, Gamino et al (2007) and Greene (2007) due to the issue of an exclusionary rule for invalid profiles, and Knabb et al (2011) due to its outlier status, this left five publications identified as assessing applicants (Marlett et al, 2012; Plante et al, 2003; Plante & Apodaca, 2011; Plante et al, 1996; Rosik et al, 2012); two reporting on volunteer nonapplicants (Duris et al, 2007; Putnam et al, 1996); and one assessing a group of clergy charged with sexual abuse (Plante & Aldridge, 2005). A moderator analysis of L scale scores for applicant ( n = 5) and nonapplicant ( n = 2) studies demonstrated a larger effect size for the former, and approached significance (trued¯ for applicants = 0.60; trued¯ for nonapplicants = 0.30; p = .052 for the difference).…”

Predicting counselors’ academic and internship outcomes: Evidence for the incremental validity of the MMPI-2.

“…Other occupations for which the MMPI or MMPI-2 has demonstrated efficacy for employee selection include nuclear power plant operators (e.g., Kelley, Jacobs, & Farr, 1994), military personnel (e.g., Staal, Cigrang, & Fiedler, 2000;Xiao et al, 2011), clergy (e.g.. Plante, Aldridge, & Louie, 2005), pastoral counselors (Marlett et al, 2012), and hospital administrators (Thumin, 2002).…”

“…Although the MMPI was originally developed for assessment of clinical populations, the MMPI-2 was normed on a nonclinical sample. One of its current uses is screening applicants for sensitive occupations such as clergy, law enforcement, and military (e.g., Plante & Boccaccini, 1998; Reaves, 2010; Rosik, Renteria, & Pittman, 2012; Xiao, Han, & Han, 2011), or for training programs in medicine, psychology, and the seminary (e.g., Butcher, Ones, & Cullen, 2006; Marlett, Wetherbee, & Donofrio, 2012). These occupations can be associated with high stress, personal risk, and a high degree of personal responsibility (Butcher, 1991).…”

“…For example, the MMPI and MMPI-2 have been used extensively in the selection of police officers (e.g., Detrick, Chibnall, & Rosso, 2001; Weiss, Serafino, Serafino, Willson, & Knoll, 1998) and have been found effective at predicting future job performance (e.g., Chibnall & Detrick, 2003). Other occupations for which the MMPI or MMPI-2 has demonstrated efficacy for employee selection include nuclear power plant operators (e.g., Kelley, Jacobs, & Farr, 1994), military personnel (e.g., Staal, Cigrang, & Fiedler, 2000; Xiao et al, 2011), clergy (e.g., Plante, Aldridge, & Louie, 2005), pastoral counselors (Marlett et al, 2012), and hospital administrators (Thumin, 2002).…”