MMPI-2

Dale Pietrzak, Ed.D., LPC-MH, NCC, CCMHC

Counseling & Psychology in Education
University of South Dakota
 MMPI: General
1st published in 1943 (Stark Hathaway,
Ph.D, & J. Chaney McKinley, M.D.)
Group administered procedure to reliably
diagnose
Used Empirical keying approach (new at
time)

Graham (2000) MMPI-2: Assessing Personality & Psychopathology (3rd ed)

Butcher, Et. Al (1989) MMPI-2: Manual for Admin & Scoring
 MMPI: Development
About 1000 potential items were collected
Hathaway & McKinley selected 504
believed to be relatively novel from each
other
Appropriate criterion groups were selected
Minnesota Normals
Clinical Subjects
504 items administered to groups
 MMPI: Development Cont
Item Analysis (Discrimination Index) used
to determine items
Selected items were cross validated
Later 5 (Mf) and 0 (Si) were added
 MMPI Validity Scale Development

3 scales (?, L & F) were originally intended

with K added shortly thereafter
? (Cannot Say): Number of omitted and double
marked items
L (Lie): Unsophisticated attempts to present
oneself in an overly favorable light
F (Infrequency): Designed to detect deviant
test taking behaviors (<10% of normals)
MMPI Validity Scale Development

K (Defensiveness): Meehl & Hathaway

(1945) to identify defensiveness
Clinical subjects who scored low for level
of pathology were contrasted with
normals to select items
Later incorporated as a correction factor for
basic scales
I think my
hand is broken!
 MMPI Validity Scale Development

F(p): Infrequency-Psychopathology: Try to

reduce impact of pathology on F scale.
Although officially no cut score set, scores
of 100 are seen as cutoff.
 Changes Due to Use
10 years saw MMPI could not do intend
job of independent classification accurately
Too many normals scored high
Scales Highly inter-correlated
Approach from pure classification to
locating empirical correlates of scales and
code types
Scale names dropped in favor of numbers
Need for Revision of MMPI (MMPI-2)
MMPI was consistently ranked as one of the
most used instruments
Clinicians (not just testers) found it
valuable
Several weakness were Identified
 MMPI Weaknesses
No revision since 1943
Representativness of standardization sample
Non-Normal distributions of scales scores
Item content dated, bias, or objectionable
Insufficient coverage of pathology (drug use,
relationships, suicide, etc.)
1982 U of M Press appoints restandardization
committee (Graham, Butcher, Dalstrom)
Revision Process Form AX (Adults)
About
704 total items
time
550 original items maintained
82 were rewritten and 15 reworded
154 new items tried
National Solicitation of Sample
Phone Books, etc.
Paid $15 individual and $40 couple
Emphasis on special populations
2900 subjects tested 2600 retained
 Standardization Sample
Characteristics
Under represents the below HS educated
(little statistical impact)
81% Cauc., 12% Black, 3% Hispanic, 3%
Native Am., 1% Asian Am.
Age: 18-85 (Mean 41; SD 15)
Education: 3 years to 20+ (Mean 15; SD 2)
Mostly Married I cant take anymore!
 Final MMPI-2 Booklet
567 Items
Objectionable Items & Bias removed
New Scales Developed
Most Supplemental and All Clinical Scales
Retained

Ta Da!
Comparability of MMPI & MMPI-2

The results of the 2 tests have proven to be

generally comparable
The less defined the profile the less reliable
the comparison
Greene (1991) suggests conversion to
MMPI scores with table K-1 from Manual
Graham says to use individual scales when
not clear code type
 Administration & Scoring
Advanced degree in mental health,
supervised testing (25) and
Psychopathology
May the force
1 to 1.5 hours to take be with you!
8th grade reading level
Supervised administration
(No TV or movies, etc.)
200+ scales, VRIN/TRIN
 Distributions and T-Scores
Non-normal distributions
Uniform T-Scores (Averaged distribution)
Clinical Scales, Content Scales & MDS use
Uniform
Supplemental, Harris-Lingoes, Mf and Si use
Linear
T of 30 = 99%, T of 50 = 45%, T of 65 = 8%, T
of 80 = 1%
Im Back!
 Stability
MALES FEMALES
Scale 1 Week SEM Scale 1 Week SEM
L .77 1.0 L .81 1.0
F .78 1.5 Stability of
F .69 1.8
K .84 1.9 K .81 1.9
1 Hs .85 1.5
Basic Scales
1 Hs .85 1.9
2D .75 2.3 2D .77 2.4
3 Hy .72 2.3 3 Hy .76 2.3
4 Pd .81 2.0 4 Pd .79 2.2
5 Mf .82 2.0 5 Mf .73 2.3
6 Pa .67 1.6 6 Pa .58 2.0
7 Pt .89 2.2 7 Pt .88 2.5
8 Sc .87 2.4 8 Sc .80 3.5
9 Ma .83 1.8 9 Ma .68 2.5
0 Si .92 2.4 0 Si .91 2.9
 Internal Consistency
Scale Males Females
L .62 .57
F .64 .63
K .74 .72
1 Hs .77 .81
Did you
2D .59 .64
see that!
3 Hy .58 .56
4 Pd .60 .62
5 Mf .58 .37
6 Pa .34 .39
7 Pt .85 .87
8 Sc .85 .86
9 Ma .58 .61
0 Si .82 .84
 MMPI-2 Interpretation Process
Determine Profile Validity
Configural (Code types)
Content (Basic, Content, and Supplemental)

As easy as
1, 2,3 ... Yah!
right...
 Validity scales:
General Guidelines
? 30+ Definitely Invalid; 10+ Great Caution
L > 65 probably Invalid
F, Fb >100 Likely Invalid (Highly
correlated with severity of pathology)
K > 70 Invalid (Correlated with ego
Strength)
F(p)> 100 Invalid
 Validity scales:
General Guidelines
VRIN > 80 Invalid
TRIN > 80 Invalid

I think I would
rather be
home.
 Deviant Response Sets: General
Random: F >100, Fb >100, F(p)> 100 VRIN >80
All True: F > 100, Fb > 100, TRIN > 80
All False: L > 65, F > 100, Fb > 100, TRIN > 80
Negative Impression: F > 100, F(p) < 100, K Low,
VRIN & TRIN Acceptable;
Exaggeration: Clinical Judgment
Positive Impression: L > 65, K > 65, Low F
Defensiveness: K & L 10 points higher than F; either F
or K elevated (experimental: S [superlative] greater than
29).
 Interpretation Examples
Random
VRIN=98, F=103 and F(p)=99
Fake Good
K=70, L=67 and S=68
Fake Bad
F=110, F(p)=78 often L,K & S are very low
 Configural Information: Slant
Level of F and profile elevation
Left of Profile elevated neurotic slope
Right of Profile Elevated more sever
pathology
Conversion V (1 & 3 elevated with 2
lower)
Psychotic valley (6 & 8 Elevated with 7
lower)
Cry for Help (2-7)
 Configural Information:
Code Types
Use the highest 2 or 3 scales (NOT
including 5 or 0)
If over 65 think more pathology, if under
think more normal expression of
configuration
Highest scale determines but all scales
within 5 to 7 points are interchangeable
Most codes order is not vital
 Basic Clinical Scales
1: Hypocondrical complaints
2: subjective depression, psychomotor
retardation, physical symptoms, mental
dullness & brooding
3: denial of social anxiety, need for
affection, general icky feelings, somatic
complaints, inhibition of anger
 Basic Clinical Scales Cont
4: family discord, authority problems,
social imperturbability, social alienation and
self-alienation
5: stereotypic gender interests, sexuality
6: persecutory ideas, hypersensitivity, naive
trust
I have an idea about what to do
to this presenter ....
 Basic Clinical Scales Cont
7: anxiety and compulsivity
8: concentration, thought disorders,
creativity, social alienation, apathy,
depression, lack of emotional control &
hallucinations
9: manipulative, distrust, Over activity,
imperturbability & ego inflation
 Basic Clinical Scales Cont
0: shyness, self-consciousness, social
avoidance, alienation
Sounds like me after this class.
 Content Scales: General
More stable and consistent than clinical
scales
Graham see these scales as more
meaningful than the clinical scales in many
ways (T greater than 65)
Good validity for the scales
Content is obvious and so can be
manipulated
 Content Scales
Anx General Anxiety
FRS Specific fears
OBS Compulsive, problems with decisions,
rigidity, ruminate
DEP Down, fatigued, pessimistic
HEA Feel unhealthy, health preoccupation
I think the rust is out.
 Content Scales Cont
BIZ psychotic thinking, hallucinations,
paranoia
ANG anger, hostility, grouchy, easily
frustrated
CYN sees others as selfish & self-centered,
guarded, hostile, resent mild demands
ASP legal/school trouble, believe breaking
law is acceptable, resent authority, anger
 Content Scales Cont
TPA: hard-driven, work-oriented, sees
more to be done, impatient, irritable,
critical, hold grudges
LSE poor self-concept, expect to fail, quit,
hypersensitive, passive, poor at making
decisions
SOD: shy, rather be alone
 Content Scales Cont
FAM: family discord, resent or angry at
family
WRK: poor work attitudes and behaviors
TRT: negative attitudes towards mental
health treatment & doctors, give up easily

I hate them...
 Supplemental Scales: General
Each tends to have been developed
independently using various methods
Generally use linear T-scores (MDS uses
uniform)
Generally good reliability and validity
I surrender!
 Supplemental Scales
Anxiety (A) and Repression (R)
Developed using factor analysis. These are the
2 strongest factors.
A- thinking & thought processes, negative
emotional tone, pessimism & lack of energy
R-health, emotionality, violence, activity,
reactivity, dominance, adequacy
Quadrant interpretation
 Supplemental Scales Cont
Ego Strength (Es) :
When defensive artificially high
improvement of neurotics but fail cross
validation
Seems to be general emotional stability

Ill show you

ego strength!
 Supplemental Scales Cont
MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale (MAC-R):
28+ substance abuse problems (24-27
suggestive), 24 or less not likely
Addiction Acknowledgment Scale (AAS):
T > 60 openly acknowledge substance abuse
problems
 Supplemental Scales Cont
Addiction Potential Scale (APS):
T > 60 possible substance abuse
Marital Distress Scale (MDS):
T > 60 indicate possible marital discord
Overcontrolled-Hostility (O-H):
Theory of overcontrol and hostility (prison)
T > 70 intrapunative, repress, self-depreciative
 Supplemental Scales Cont
Dominance (Do):
T > 70 tend to be confident in self to dominant
Social Responsibility (Re):
T > 70 willing to accept personal responsibility,
ethical, even rule bound
College Maladjustment (Mt):
T > 70 pessimistic, procrastinate, ineffectual
 Supplemental Scales Cont
Masculine Gender Role (GM) and Feminine
Gender Role (GF) :
Experimental
Quadrant interpretation?
T > 70 indicate stereotypic attitudes

So what is
the point?
 Supplemental Scales Cont
Post-traumatic Stress Disorder Scale (PK):
T > 70 many PTSD symptoms
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Scale (PS)
Experimental

Fire one!
 Other Scales
Subtle-Obvious
Harris-Lingoes
Content Component Subscales
Personality Disorder scales
Over 300 other scales
Doesnt he ever
stop?!
 Critical Item Lists
Suicide:
75(F), 303(T), 506(T), 520(T), & 524(T)

Assault:
27(T), 37(T), 85(T), 134(T), 213(T), & 389(T)
 Special Populations
No adolescents (MMPI-A: 20-25% 8th
grading reading level)
Historically the MMPI has had certain
scales which score differently for minorities
Bias Vs Environmental responses (Sue & Sue)
Little statistical evidence there are
consistent differences with the MMPI-2
Not to be used to screen for organic
disorders
 Evaluation
Good standardization Reliability
sample Form length could
Great research on provide more
validity information
No data on normal
Major test used in area personality
Little bias Scale inter-
Recent revision correlations & Item
overlap
I survived the
MMPI-2!