Predicting therapist ratings of treatment progress and outcomes with the MMPI‐2‐RF

Abstract

Objective We examined the ability of scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2—Restructured Form (MMPI‐2‐RF) scales to predict treatment progress (compliance and activity in therapy) and outcome at termination (success in therapy, readiness for termination, and functioning at termination). Method Our sample included 448 (185 males, 263 females) community mental health center outpatients with an average age of 32.2 years (standard deviation = 10.2). We used MMPI‐2‐RF (self‐report) indicators of personality and psychopathology and a composite outcome variable that represents therapist ratings of clients’ treatment progress and outcomes. Results Scores on several MMPI‐2‐RF scales were correlated and associated with increased risk for poorer psychotherapy progress and outcomes in a mental health outpatient sample. Conclusions Clinicians can utilize the MMPI‐2‐RF to identify clients at risk for therapy process challenges and adverse outcomes, suggesting possible problem areas for intervention.

The role of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in predicting and better understanding engagement in posttraumatic stress disorder treatment.

“…As such, it is possible that relevant information regarding compliance and therapeutic engagement was not documented in the medical record and unavailable for analyses. Future studies examining MMPI-2-RF-based prediction of PTSD treatment outcomes would benefit from following Tylicki et al (2019) where standardized therapist ratings of compliance and engagement were obtained throughout treatment.…”

“…Taken together, the above studies point to the potential of the MMPI-2-RF to provide information relevant to treatment outcome, as well as identifying behaviors likely to interfere with the development of a collaborative alliance between treatment provider and patient Patel & Suhr, 2019;Scholte et al, 2012;Tarescavage et al, 2015;Tylicki et al, 2019). It would stand to reason that a treatment provider who is aware of a therapy candidate's standing along relevant trait dimensions could take steps prior to initiating an effective treatment to mitigate the impact of these factors by tailoring the intervention to the individual.…”

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory‐Adolescent‐Restructured Form (MMPI‐A‐RF) characteristics of ADHD in a Korean psychiatric sample

“…RRRs are calculated by dividing the risk of an outcome (in this case – having an ADHD diagnosis) for individuals whose scale scores are at or above the cutoff value by the risk of the outcome for individuals scoring below the cutoff value. Past research has utilized a variety of cutoffs to explore the predictive validity of the scales of the MMPI instruments in specific samples (Tarescavage et al, 2015; Tylicki et al, 2019). We calculated RRRs and corresponding 95% confidence intervals at the following cutoffs: 55T, 60T, and 65T.…”

Evidence-based clinical psychological assessment (EBCPA): Review of current state of the literature and best practices.

“…EVIDENCE-BASED CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT 3 broadband measures, though, has yielded significantly less promising results (e.g., Tylicki et al, 2019). Some research, though, has supported the utility of dimensional models (e.g., the five-factor model, measured via psychological testing) in providing nuance related to how a specific client is likely to interact with the therapist and engage in treatment (Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2011;Widiger & Mullins-Sweattt, 2010).…”

“…In fact, most of the extant empirical support for a range of interventions has been demonstrated by statistically and clinically meaningful reduction in symptoms as measured by targeted, symptom-focused measures (e.g., Carpenter et al, 2018; Cusack et al, 2016). The use of broadband measures, though, has yielded significantly less promising results (e.g., Tylicki et al, 2019). Some research, though, has supported the utility of dimensional models (e.g., the five-factor model, measured via psychological testing) in providing nuance related to how a specific client is likely to interact with the therapist and engage in treatment (Mullins-Sweatt & Widiger, 2011; Widiger & Mullins-Sweattt, 2010).…”