The research base, psychometric properties, and clinical uses of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A.

Butcher, James N.; Pope, Kenneth S.

doi:10.1037/h0078693

Cited by 15 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The MMPI–2 was a modest, incremental revision of the original MMPI which, as reflected in the name of the effort that produced it, the MMPI Restandardization Project, focused primarily on replacing the 1940s test norms. It was positioned as a replacement of the MMPI, and the training and marketing effort focused on “continuity.” For example, Butcher and Pope (1992) noted that the MMPI–2 developers took a “conservative” approach to the revision, opting to “maintain the continuity of the original validity and clinical scales by keeping them intact, that is, comprising the same items as the original scales” (p. 63). In contrast, the MMPI–2–RF is the product of an effort to modernize these 70-year-old MMPI scales, representing a paradigm shift.…”

Section: Comparison Of Mmpi–2 and Mmpi–2–rf Adoption Rates Lacks Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

An update to Williams and Lally’s (2016) analysis of MMPI-2-RF acceptance.

Ben‐Porath

2017

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Williams and Lally (2017) analyze Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) sales figures they obtained to gauge the former's general acceptance. Their analyses do not include the most up-to-date sales data, which directly contradict their conclusions. They also rely on incorrect assumptions that produce misleading relative test use estimates. Other meaningful errors include an incomplete description of MMPI-2-RF coverage in MMPI-2 textbooks, an incomplete discussion of published surveys that contradict Williams and Lally's conclusions, not fully and accurately considering indirect indicators of MMPI-2-RF acceptance, and a misleading excerpted quotation from Graham (2012). This article provides updated information and corrects the errors noted.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of Mmpi–2 and Mmpi–2–rf Adoption Rates Lacks Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

An update to Williams and Lally’s (2016) analysis of MMPI-2-RF acceptance.

Ben‐Porath

2017

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A number of excellent examples of this approach exist, and certainly, these measures have allowed much quicker progress in our understanding of adolescent PD than sole reliance on developmentally bottom‐up PD measures (i.e., measures that were empirically derived based on child and adolescent data) would have allowed. The most prominent examples of this include the adolescent version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI‐A; Butcher & Pope, ; Sellbom & Jarrett, ), the youth version of the Schedule for Nonadaptive and Adaptive Personality (SNAP‐Y; Linde, Stringer, Simms, & Clark, ), and the adolescent version of the Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology (DAPP‐BQ‐A; Tromp & Koot, ). These measures were largely based on their adult counterparts, although in all cases modifications were made based on developmental considerations, including readability of items and the developmental appropriateness of various behaviors.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The relevance of informant discrepancies for the assessment of adolescent personality pathology.

Tackett¹,

Herzhoff²,

Reardon³

et al. 2013

Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this article, we compare the nature and function of selfparent informant discrepancies for adolescent personality pathology using two methods: standard difference scores (SDS) and polynomial regressions. In total, 489 11-to 18year-old youth (54% female) and their parents reported on youth personality pathology traits and general psychopathology. Findings supported convergence and divergence in parent-and self-reports. Potential utility of informant discrepancies also emerged, such that discrepancies on trait disagreeableness and trait compulsivity predicted youth externalizing problems using the SDS approach and the polynomial regression approach; however, the polynomial regression approach yielded a more complex and nuanced characterization of informant discrepancies than did the SDS approach. Taken together, these results suggest that polynomial regressions may provide a more comprehensive picture regarding the meaning and utility of informant discrepancies.

show abstract

“…Previous studies (Butcher, 1996;Butcher & Pope, 1992) found that to use the norms of the country where the instrument will be applied assures the adequate functioning of the instrument.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The sample consisted of 2600 individuals (1462 women and 1138 men) representative of the North American population in most of the variables according to the 1980 Census (Butcher & Pope, 1992).…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the Mexican and American norms of the MMPI‐2

Lucio¹,

Ampudia²,

Durán³

et al. 2001

J Clin Psychol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents the results of the norms for the Mexican general population in comparison with the North American normative population. This study addresses psychopathology from the point of view in which emic and etic traditions are combined. The Mexican sample includes 1744 adults from different regions of the country. Means and standard deviations were calculated and compared with the North-American normative sample. Cronbach alpha coefficients also were obtained. The greatest differences observed were in the scales L (lies) and 5 (masculinity-femininity), which indicates that the greater distinctions between both populations are with respect to test-taking attitude in taking the test, which may be due to cultural factors. In comparison to the American norms, the Mexican population does not show psychopathology on the MMPI-2 scales.

show abstract

The research base, psychometric properties, and clinical uses of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A.

Abstract: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Cited by 15 publications

References 53 publications

An update to Williams and Lally’s (2016) analysis of MMPI-2-RF acceptance.

An update to Williams and Lally’s (2016) analysis of MMPI-2-RF acceptance.

The relevance of informant discrepancies for the assessment of adolescent personality pathology.

Comparison of the Mexican and American norms of the MMPI‐2

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About