The MCMI Provides a Good Assessment of DSM-III Disorders: The MCMI-II Will Prove Even Better

Abstract

Although the arguments that Widiger, Williams, Spitzer and Frances muster in their appraisal of MCMI-DSM-III relationships appear compelling, the study employed to furnish empirical support for their thesis may be seriously flawed and the item content approach they propose as a validation model is judged logically and psychometrically deficient. A rejoinder with supportive data are presented to demonstrate both the substantive parallels and the clinical concordance that exist between MCMI and DSM-III criteria. On the basis of theory development and ongoing research, a new MCMI-II assessment instrument will be forthcoming. A brief summary of this updated inventory's rationale and empirical grounding is provided.

Figuring out la femme fatale: conceptual and assessment issues concerning psychopathy in females

“…This is because a person's gender influences their responses to test items. Some authors (Choca, Shanley, & van Denburg, 1992;Hathaway & McKinley, 1943;Millon, 1987) have judged it necessary to use different tables for the conversion of raw scores to standardized scores for men and women; for example, in relation to the MCMI, it has been argued ''The use of different conversion tables equalizes the test results if one is going to offer the same interpretation to the similar elevations regardless of the person's gender'' (Choca et al, 1992, p. 58). Particularly for female populations, the gender differences reported on these tests suggest that such tests may pathologize some stereotypically feminine traits (Cantrell & Dana, 1987;Choca et al, 1992).…”

“…incarcerated male offenders) may not tap a similar construct in other types of sample. Therefore, refinement of the factor structure of psychopathy for female populations may be necessary (Cooke & Michie, Rutherford et al (1996) Substance Modest correlation with the PCL-R scale (Millon, 1987) abusers F1, but larger correlation with F2 CPI So scale Strachan (unpublished Inmates Significant negative association with (Gough, 1969) doctoral dissertation) PCL-R scores Rutherford et al (1996) Substance Negative but not significant association abusers with PCL-R scores Vitale, Smith, Brinkley, Offenders Negative but not significant association and Newman (2002) with PCL-R scores PAI-ANT scale Salekin et al (1997) Inmates Yielded a larger proportion of female (Morey, 1991) inmates with psychopathic traits than did the PCL-R Modest correlations with the correctional officers' ratings Salekin et al (1998) Inmates Validity (PCL-R, PAI-ANT scale & antisocial scale of the PDE measure a similar construct) EPQ-R (Eysenck & Rutherford et al (1996) Substance Correlations between the PCL-R and Eysenck, 1991) abusers such personality inventories' subscales IRI (Davis, Hull, Rutherford et al (1996) In part as a consequence of uncertainties about the equivalence of factor structures and the equivalence of individual symptoms, there is still no consensus on whether raw PCL-R/PCL:SV total scores represent the same level of psychopathy across gender. Thus the issue of the equivalence of diagnostic cut-offs remains contentious.…”

Advances in Diagnosis and Treatment of Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia Nervosa*

“…The lack of stability of the measures of personality disorder has been observed using the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) (36). This self-report questionnaire was administered before and after treatment to patients in hospital with AN or BN (37).…”

Diagnostic hit rates of high point codes for the diagnostic inventory of personality and symptoms using random assignment, base rates, and probability scales

“…The only psychological test to date that has employed base rates directly as a factor in diagnostic prediction is the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, 1977). While the MCMI is a notable attempt to blend the accuracy of a well-constructed psychological test with diagnosing that uses base rates, it has several limitations: (1) it was adapted to conform to the DSM-111, rather than being developed directly from the DSM-I11 criteria (Millon, 1985;Widiger et al, 1985); (2) it employs a very complex scoring procedure, which can take up to an hour to do by hand; and (3) the BR Scale has demarcations at 60 and 85 as critical points on the scale that do not directly reflect probabilities.The Diagnostic Inventory of Personality and Symptoms (Vincent, 1985) inlproves upon several limitations of the MCMI. Not only is it a brief test of psychopathology (171 items) built from the most predictive items of an earlier experimental test, The Psychological Inventory of Personality and Symptoms (Vincent, 1984), but, in addition, the test data are presented to the user in an easily scorable, straightforward manner.…”