The development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was constructed at the University of Minnesota before and during World War II. In its developmental phase, the MMPI was conceputalized as an efficient way of detecting psychiatric disturbance. The test's construction was made possible by atypical cooperation between psychologists and psychiatrists, within the context of a crisis in the U.S. public mental health care system. The MMPI was designed to meet the diagnostic needs of psychiatrists. As such, it represented the operationalization of medical hegemony. However, the interpretation of the MMPI shifted significantly after the war, reflecting organizational reform in clinical psychology and changing professional relationships between psychologists and psychiatrists.     

Factor comparison of two Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory short forms

A sample of 315 valid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) protocols were selected from inpatient files and scored for both the MMPI-168 and Faschingbauer Abbreviated MMPI short forms. Each short form was then factor-analyzed by a principal axis strategy with varimax rotation. The six factors extracted from each short form were then compared as to their similarity by use of the s index. This procedure showed five of the six factors in each short form as having a significant relationship of the pattern of salient variables they had in common with the complimentary factors of the other form. These data suggest that both short forms, though based on different construction methodologies, share the same underlying personality attributes. Future research is suggested to replicate these results and extend them to the full MMPI.     

The Validity of the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: Results from Meta-Analyses

Results from meta-analyses have been widely cited to defend the validity of the Rorschach. However, the meta-analyses have been flawed. For example, one meta-analysis included results that were obtained by calculating correlations but not results that were obtained by conducting t tests or analyses of variance. When we reanalyzed the data from the most widely cited meta-analysis (Parker, Hanson, & Hunsley, 1988), we found that for confirmatory studies (also called convergent-validity studies), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) explained 23% to 30% of the variance, whereas the Rorschach explained only 8% to 13% of the variance. These results indicate that the Rorschach is not as valid as the MMPI.     

A Multitrait-multimethod examination of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI)

Recently, certain Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) scales have seen increasing usage for the measurement of DSM-III personality disorders. The current study sought to identify the convergent and discriminant validity of these two sets of scales for this purpose. In general, the results indicated significant convergence across the two instruments. However, better convergent validity was found for scales representing those DSM-III disorders which are most consistent with the typology upon which the MCMI was based. In particular, convergent and discriminant validity results were poorest for Compulsive, Antisocial, and Passive-Aggressive personality scales.     

Validity rates of the Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 in a VA Medical Center Setting

In this study, we compared protocol validity rates between the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) in a veteran population. Veterans (N=472) were administered both instruments as part of routine psychological evaluations. Profile validity was based on previously published criteria. When applying primary validity indicators, inpatients produced significantly fewer invalid PAI profiles (37%) than MMPI-2 profiles (63%). We found similar results among outpatients for which we considered 47% of MMPI-2 profiles invalid compared to only 21% of PAI profiles. When applying both primary and supplementary validity indicators, both inpatients and outpatients continued to produce fewer invalid PAI profiles than MMPI-2 profiles. We discuss factors that may be related to the differences in validity rates.     

Construct interpretation of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) clinical scales: An orthogonal transformation

The implications for personality test construction of the revolution in testing caused by construct validity considerations are outlined, with particular relevance to the assessment of psychopathology. These include (a) substantive definition of constructs; (b) concern for internal consistency reliability as well as generalizability; (c) evaluation of structural relationships among items and scales; (d) suppression of response biases; (e) emphasis on minimum redundancy among scales; (f) evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity of scales and profiles; and (g) evaluation of criterion validity for configurations of scales and profiles, as well as single scales. Benefits are seen as accruing to an increased understanding of psychopathology and higher levels of validity. Prior, and subsequent, to the forthcoming revision of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), one approach to realizing some of the aims of construct measurement with an empirically based test is through an orthogonal transformation of the scales. Preliminary results for the extant MMPI clinical scales are reported, yielding evidence of (a) scale independence while retaining high correlations with uncorrected scales, (b) an appropriate pattern of correlations with a separate set of new scales of psychopathology, (c) a possible basis for new item analyses, and (d) freedom from correlations with a putative measure of response bias. Implications of the orthogonal transformation for profile interpretation are discussed.Portions of this paper were presnted at an invited address, 18th Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in the Use of the MMPI, Minneapolis, April 9, 1983. This paper was written while Douglas N. Jackson was distinguished visiting professor at the College of Education, The University of Iowa. This research has been supported by Research Grant 895-84/86 from the Ontario Mental Health Foundation, Research Grant 411-83-0014 from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada, and the Alberta Hospital Edmonton.     

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: A Review

The new version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the MMPI-2, is described and critiqued in this article. The MMPI-2 has many positive features such as updated items, new norms, additional validity scales, and additional clinical scales for diagnosing problems not addressed by the original MMPI. There are, however, also many negative features for this test such as problems with the compatibility of code types and the representativeness of the norm group. Much research needs to be done before accurate interpretations can be made for all MMPI-2 profiles and the full potential of the test is realized.     

Convergent validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: preliminary findings with a normative sample

We examined the convergent validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI; Cheung, Leung, et al., 1996), an indigenously constructed measure, by comparing its patterns of correlations with the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001). A valid sample of 147 Chinese students took both the CPAI and the MMPI-2. Results provide preliminary support for the convergence between most of the CPAI clinical scales and the relevant MMPI-2 scales. The CPAI personality scales further illustrated the patterns of personality features associated with the MMPI-2 scales in a Chinese cultural context. We discuss discrepancies in the correspondence between a number of CPAI and MMPI-2 clinical scales.