The Evolution of the MMPI: From Paper to Digital

Essay, Pages 6 (1373 words)

Views

538

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), a widely used personality test, is considered the benchmark for comparison to other tests (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get your custom essay on

“ The Evolution of the MMPI: From Paper to Digital ”

Get custom paper

NEW! smart matching with writer

Its primary purpose is to assist in diagnosing and predicting mental illness in individuals aged 14 and above in an objective manner. The MMPI is not based on any specific theoretical framework, making it atheoretical in nature.

Originally, there were 566 true and false questions organized into 10 clinical scales in the test. These scales were created based on research from various sources, such as personality items from previous publications, textbooks, and psychiatric case studies (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The test's development heavily depended on items that were empirically derived. The developers of the test presented the scale items to two groups: the clinical criterion group, made up of individuals believed to have the same diagnostic condition (predominantly psychiatric inpatients), and the normal control group, consisting of non-diagnosed individuals.

The standardized sample, which consisted of 1500 individuals from different backgrounds and locations, was used to create the scales of the MMPI.

Items that differentiated the groups were retained for further analysis. The developers identified issues with self-report methods and introduced three validity scales to identify potentially problematic responses that could impact test results (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).

The scales in this assessment include the L (Lie) scale with 15 items for portraying oneself in a positive light, the F (Frequency scale) with 64 items not typically endorsed by normal individuals, and the K (Correction) scale for subtle self-portrayal with a high score indicating defensiveness. Also included is the “Cannot Say” scale to measure unanswered or “cannot say” responses.

If the test includes 30 or more questions, it is no longer considered valid. Some say that a score of 10 on this scale is worrisome. The MMPI has 550 true or false questions, with some versions having 16 repeated questions, for a total of 566 questions. Scores are in T scores, with a mean of 50 and standard deviation of 10. The MMPI also has content scales that group similar test items together to show their relation.

Since the original test was published, hundreds of supplementary scales have been created to focus on various areas (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The MMPI was first given as a paper and pencil test, but can now be taken online, on computer disk, on index cards, or even in audio format. The audio version is for individuals who struggle with reading and need to verbally respond to the questions. However, for all other versions, test-takers must have at least a sixth-grade reading level.

The acquisition of manual scoring for tests is no longer necessary, as a computer scoring service, the preferred method for most users, allows for unlimited time (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010). The analyses offered can vary from numerical or graphical depictions to detailed explanations of the results. The interpretation of the results should focus on the patterns and profiles that arise from all the results, rather than individual scores, although this can be challenging.

Two systems have been developed to interpret the scores of the MMPI test: the Meehl system, which involved compiling data into 40 different code types with specific meanings, and the Welsh code, which used a formula to analyze responses and interpret scores. The more recent MMPI-2 differs from the original in that it used a more representative standardization sample (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).

The test remains mostly unchanged, with 14% of items modified to reflect shifts in public opinion. The test includes 567 items, with 394 original, 66 updated, and 104 new questions. An Fb scale was added to identify inconsistent responses. Criticism led to the MMPI-2 needing revision, as noted by Tellegen et al. (2003 cited in Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010), who found overlap in items.

The lack of distinctiveness and uniqueness of the scales may cause confusion when interpreting scales with higher scores. In developing the MMPI-2 Restructured Form, Tellegen et al. (2003 as cited in Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010) maintained the fundamental aspects of the MMPI-2 scales but introduced a revised measurement system. They reorganized the scales by retaining the original items but eliminating the demoralization factor, instead creating a new demoralization scale. Additionally, they integrated the normative sample from the MMPI-2 with data from three diverse research samples.

The reliability and validity of the MMPI-2 have been improved by adding more scales to assess higher-level functioning and including a validity scale to evaluate infrequent somatic responses. These adjustments have established the MMPI-2 as a well-established assessment tool with 338 items and 50 scales. Additionally, a version for adolescents aged 14 to 18, known as the MMPI-A, has been created to assess psychopathology in this age group specifically. The primary goal of the MMPI and its revisions is to evaluate psychopathology in adults, while the MMPI-A is tailored for evaluating psychopathology in adolescents.

The MMPI can be administered through different mediums including internet, computer disk, audio tape, or paper and pencil. Computer or manual scoring can be used, with computer scoring being more prevalent. Recent revisions have improved the validity and usefulness of the MMPI in today's world. Its wide range of items and scales make it a popular instrument in both clinical and nonclinical settings for assessing individuals' psychopathology and predicting behaviors. Sellbom and Bagby (2010) conducted a study on using the MMPI-2 RF validity scales to detect exaggerated psychopathology.

With the addition of a new validity scale and the revision of existing scales in the MMPI-2, researchers found it crucial to assess the ongoing validity of cut scores across different situations and settings. They also sought to examine the impact of coaching on participant responses, considering the wide availability of information to the public. To investigate these factors, researchers employed an analogue simulation design and enlisted 219 University of Toronto students as well as 146 inpatients with severe mental disorders for the study.

Psychiatric patients completed the MMPI-2 RF as part of a routine psychological evaluation, while participants took the test at two separate times. The first time they filled it out as usual, then after a break they took the test again and feigned a mental illness. In one group, participants were advised on the validity scales, how they functioned, and methods to prevent detection. The study revealed that the Infrequent Psychopathology Responses scale was most effective in detecting faking, with a substantial to extremely substantial effect size, regardless of coaching.

Michael et al. (2009) conducted a study using the MMPI-2 to examine the possible results of psychotherapy in a clinical environment. 51 patients underwent a psychological evaluation, including the MMPI-2, an interview, and an Outcome Questionnaire-45. Patients with an OQ-45 score above 63 were included in the study because of their higher distress levels. All patients were diagnosed with an Axis I or II disorder according to DSM-IV criteria and received a combination of cognitive-behaviour therapy and interpersonal therapy.

During each subsequent visit, the patients completed an OQ-45. The initial OQ-45 obtained at intake, as well as all additional visits, were included in the analysis. In this study, it was discovered that a higher score on the Hypochondriasis scale, the Depression scale, and the Hysteria scale correlated with less symptom reduction according to the OQ-45. The previous two studies demonstrated the versatile applications of the MMPI-2. The first study used it to identify exaggerated psychopathology, while the second study utilized it to predict treatment prognosis for patients.

Studies have shown that the MMPI-2 RF is reliable from a psychometric perspective, with decreased item intercorrelations compared to its previous version. The revisions have also improved both convergent and discriminant validity, as evidenced by research on the measure's accuracy (Cohen & Swerdlik, 2010).

Research has indicated that the MMPI-2 RF is a valid and reliable measure, with numerous studies confirming its accuracy in assessing its intended targets. The test has also shown consistent results over time, suggesting good test-retest reliability. However, more independent research is necessary to solidify these conclusions despite being a newer assessment tool.

Further research is needed to explore the cross-cultural use of the MMPI-2 RF, as the original MMPI-2 may have lacked diversity. With a more diverse normal standardization sample, it is hoped that the MMPI-2 RF will overcome the challenges of its predecessor. As the population continues to change, so must the MMPI in order to remain a valid and reliable assessment tool, as previous revisions have shown. The recent development of the MMPI-2 RF now allows for an adequate assessment of psychopathology in the 21st century.