Normal range MMPI-A profiles among psychiatric inpatients

The present study examined the base rates of normal range Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) profiles in an inpatient sample and examined the differences between adolescents with apparently valid normal range profiles (all clinical scale T-scores < 60) and those with elevated profiles on prior interventions, reported internalizing and externalizing symptoms, and MMPI-A validity scale scores and other indexes of underreporting. Normal range profiles cannot be adequately explained by a less pathological history prior to hospitalization or by defensiveness. Thirty percent of male and 25% of female adolescents produced valid MMPI-A profiles in which none of the clinical scales were elevated. Both male and female adolescents with normal range profiles were generally less likely to report internalizing symptoms than those with elevated profiles, but both groups report externalizing symptoms. Neither the standard MMPI-A validity scales nor additional validity scales discriminated between profile groups. Clinicians should not assume that normal range profiles indicate an absence of problems.     

MMPI-A performance of African and Mexican American adolescent first-time offenders

54 African and Mexican American adolescent first-time offenders were examined with the MMPI-A to evaluate ethnic differences. Multivariate analyses by ethnicity and MMPI-A scales (validity, clinical, content, and supplementary scales) were not significant; however, there was a significant univariate difference where African American adolescents scored significantly higher on the Repression scale than the Mexican American group. A greater percentage of within-normal-limits profiles were African American (50%) than Mexican American (25%). Research and clinical implications for using the MMPI-A with these groups are discussed.     

Detecting and Discriminating Between Random Responding and Overreporting on the MMPI-A

The utility of traditional validity scales in detecting random responding and overreporting on the MMPI-A and in discriminating between these two response sets was investigated in a sample of 89 clinical and nonclinical adolescents aged 14 to 17 years. The overreporting group consisted of 24 nonclinical adolescents instructed to complete the MMPI-A as if they were trying to create an impression of psychological disturbance. The random group included 20 nonclinical adolescents instructed to complete the MMPI-A answer sheet without access to the test booklet. Clinical (n = 20) and nonclinical (n = 25) standard groups completed the MMPI-A under the standard instructions. Results showed that validity scales designed to detect random responding and overreporting on the MMPI-A were quite effective in doing so. Significant differences between groups and high classification rates were noted. In addition, the VRIN scale was found to be sensitive only to random responding, whereas Scale F was sensitive to both random responding and overreporting. Scale L also was found to be sensitive to random responding, and support for the utility of the F - K index in identifying overreported adolescent profiles was obtained.     

The effectiveness of MMPI-A items in discriminating between normative and clinical samples.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) was released in 1992 and has rapidly become the most widely used objective personality assessment instrument with adolescents. Although the MMPI-A reduced or eliminated several problems associated with the use of the original MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) with adolescents, the MMPI-A does produce a high frequency of within normal limits basic scale profiles for individuals with substantial psychopathology including adolescents in inpatient psychiatric settings. To better understand the reasons for this phenomenon, we compared the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-A normative sample with results from two adolescent clinical samples, and these results were contrasted to the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) normative sample and a clinical sample of adult psychiatric inpatients. Results showed that the MMPI-A contains a substantial number of items that do not show a significant difference in item endorsement frequency between normative and clinical samples. Furthermore, MMPI-A basic and content scales generally show a much lower percentage of effective items than do the corresponding scales for the MMPI-2. We discuss the findings in relation to the frequent occurrence of low range MMPI-A profiles in clinical samples and the potential usefulness of these results in future efforts to develop viable short forms for the MMPI-A.     

Type A Personality,Self-Control,and Vulnerability to Stress

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) was released in 1992 and has rapidly become the most widely used objective personality assessment instrument with adolescents. Although the MMPI-A reduced or eliminated several problems associated with the use of the original MMPI (Hathaway &; McKinley, 1943) with adolescents, the MMPI-A does produce a high frequency of within normal limits basic scale profiles for individuals with substantial psychopathology including adolescents in inpatient psychiatric settings. To better understand the reasons for this phenomenon, we compared the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-A normative sample with results from two adolescent clinical samples, and these results were contrasted to the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &; Kaemmer, 1989) normative sample and a clinical sample of adult psychiatric inpatients. Results showed that the MMPI-A contains a substantial number of items that do not show a significant difference in item endorsement frequency between normative and clinical samples. Furthermore, MMPI-A basic and content scales generally show a much lower percentage of effective items than do the corresponding scales for the MMPI-2. We discuss the findings in relation to the frequent occurrence of low range MMPI-A profiles in clinical samples and the potential usefulness of these results in future efforts to develop viable short forms for the MMPI-A.     

The classification accuracy of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent: effects of modifying the normative sample

Numerous studies have reported that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) produces a high frequency of within-normal-limits basic scale profiles for adolescents with significant clinical pathology (e.g., Archer, 2005). The current study builds on the observation that the MMPI-A normative sample included participants who reported a recent history of referral for counseling or therapy services. The 193 adolescents who reported referral for counseling were removed from the normative sample and uniform T-score values were recalculated for basic clinical scale raw scores. The frequency of within-normal-limits profiles was only marginally reduced by using the revised MMPI-A norms. Furthermore, the overall hit rate, positive predictive power, and sensitivity were only slightly improved by removing normative participants referred for counseling and basing norms on the remaining 1,427 adolescents.     

Identification of random responding on the MMPI-A

Although substantial research literature on the effects of random responding on the MMPI-2 exists, there is very limited data available on this issue with the MMPI-A. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of selected MMPI-A validity scales in detecting differences in response patterns between protocols produced by 354 adolescents assessed in clinical settings and a group of 354 randomly produced MMPI-A protocols. Results indicate that MMPI-A validity and basic clinical scales differ significantly between random and clinical groups and that MMPI-A validity Scales F, F1, F2, and VRIN appear to be most useful in correctly identifying protocols from actual clinical participants versus randomly generated response patterns. Findings are discussed in terms of the dramatic effects of the sample base rate for random responding on overall classification accuracy results. Furthermore, it was noted that the optimal cutting scores for MMPI-A Scales F, F1, F2, and VRIN were largely consistent with interpretive recommendations found in the test manual (Butcher et al., 1992) when the relative frequency of random response protocols to clinical protocols was evaluated at a ratio of 1:10. Finally, future recommendations for evaluation of the F1-F2 difference score and the TRIN scale are offered in terms of the most relevant research designs to evaluate these measures.     

Psychometric Stability of MMPI-A Item Modifications

The 478-item Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A) is a revision of the original test instrument for use in the assessment of adolescents. As part of the MMPI-A development, process, 70 items were modified from their appearance in the original test instrument to eliminate obsolete or sexist language, reduce awkward phrasing, increase item clarity, or improve item relevancy to adolescents' life experiences. If these modifications in the original item pool resulted in substantial differences in the frequency of respondents' endorsements of these lest items, such differences could pose a threat to the generalizability of research findings from the original form of the MMPI to the MMPI-A. This study examined the psychometric stability of modified items by comparing item endorsement frequency and item test-retest correlations in a group of 265 adolescents evaluated in repeated administrations design. Results of item analyses indicate that item modifications designed to improve the content or grammatical structure of these 70 items did not result in significant changes in response patterns.     

Detecting fake-bad MMPI-A profiles

This study examined the extent to which the validity scales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) could identify adolescents who were faking-bad. This study also examined the extent to which the validity scales could differentiate between nonclinical adolescents instructed to fake-bad and both clinical and nonclinical adolescents who received standard instructions. Participants were 58 male and 80 female high school students and 58 male and 80 female adolescents from clinical settings. Results indicated that the mean profiles resembled those previously reported for adults on the MMPI (Graham, 1987) and MMPI-2 (Graham, Watts, & Timbrook, 1991) and for adolescents on the original MMPI (Archer, Gordon, & Kirchner, 1987). Accurate identification of students who were faking-bad was achieved. It was possible to differentiate between the clinical adolescents and nonclinical adolescents who were faking, and it was possible to differentiate between nonclinical adolescents who were faking and nonclinical adolescents with standard instructions; however, different cutoff scores were needed for these two discriminations. Optimal cutoff scores were presented.     

MAPI-C: The Jury Is Still Out (Software)

This article examines one aspect of the potential usefulness of critical items to the: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory -Adolescent (MMPI-A). Endorsement frequency data are presented on the Koss-Butcher (1973) and the Lachar-Wrobeli (1979) critical items for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) adult normative and clinical samples and for MMPI-A adolescent normative and clinical samples. Adolescents in both normal and clinical samples endorse critical items with a higher frequency than do normal adults. Further, results demonstrated that significant differences were uniformly found between the endorsement frequencies for normative versus clinical subjects for the MMPI-2 samples, whereas similar comparisons for the MMPI-A samples typically showed that adolescents in clinical setting did not endorse critical items more frequently than normal adolescents. These findings indicate that it may be difficult to construct critical item lists for adolescents based on the type of empirical methodology used with adults in which items are selected based on endorsement frequency differences found between comparison group. Beyond the issue of the technical difficulty in creating a critical item list for adolescents, several conceptual concerns are raised regarding the application of critical items to the MMPI-A. It was noted that the concept of "critical items" has not been we11 defined, and both the reliability and validity of critical items may be limited in adolescent populations.     

Are critical items "critical" for the MMPI-A

This article examines one aspect of the potential usefulness of critical items to the: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory -Adolescent (MMPI-A). Endorsement frequency data are presented on the Koss-Butcher (1973) and the Lachar-Wrobeli (1979) critical items for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) adult normative and clinical samples and for MMPI-A adolescent normative and clinical samples. Adolescents in both normal and clinical samples endorse critical items with a higher frequency than do normal adults. Further, results demonstrated that significant differences were uniformly found between the endorsement frequencies for normative versus clinical subjects for the MMPI-2 samples, whereas similar comparisons for the MMPI-A samples typically showed that adolescents in clinical setting did not endorse critical items more frequently than normal adolescents. These findings indicate that it may be difficult to construct critical item lists for adolescents based on the type of empirical methodology used with adults in which items are selected based on endorsement frequency differences found between comparison group. Beyond the issue of the technical difficulty in creating a critical item list for adolescents, several conceptual concerns are raised regarding the application of critical items to the MMPI-A. It was noted that the concept of "critical items" has not been we11 defined, and both the reliability and validity of critical items may be limited in adolescent populations.     

Characteristics of juvenile offenders with invalid and valid MMPI--a profiles

The issue of what type of juvenile offender produces an invalid versus a valid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, Adolescent Form (MMPI-A) profile requires study. Using technical manual profile invalidation requirements from a cohort sample of 1,054 juvenile offenders, 387 produced invalid profiles, whereas 667 yielded valid profiles. Utilizing scale scores from the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI), univariate and multivariate analyses for girls, boys, and combined samples of invalid and valid MMPI-A profiles suggested similarities and differences which influenced the results for the combined samples. The groups were separated on the following MACI scales: Disclosure, Impulsivity, Substance Abuse Propensity, Unruly, and Oppositional by sex and for the combined group. Also noted were other MACI scales which distinguished boys and girls in comparisons made between as well as within the invalid and valid profiles.     

Psychoanalytic Theory and the Rorschach (Book)

The purpose of this study was to explore how Mexican American adolescents (N = 120) would perform on the MMPI-A given that Hispanic adolescents were seriously underrepresented in the national norming sample during the development of the MMPI-A. The participants completed the MMPI-A, a short demographic questionnaire, and a 5-item version of the Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans. Results indicated that the present sample of Mexican American adolescents' performance on the Validity, Clinical, and Content scales differed minimally from the national norming group's performance, and their performance varied as a function of their levels of acculturation and socioeconomic status. Implications of these data are discussed.     

Relations between Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-A scales and Rorschach variables with the scope and severity of maltreatment among adolescents

This study examined preexisting Rorschach (Exner, 2001) and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-A (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) profiles to determine if selected MMPI-A scales and Rorschach variables would jointly associate with the number and severity of maltreatment subtypes (physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, and emotional maltreatment) of 157 adolescents (ages 14-17) with documented maltreatment histories. The Maltreatment Classification System was used to systematically code the maltreatment attributes. Six Rorschach variables (MOR, PER, Afr, SumY, SumC', Human Content) were significantly correlated with the number of maltreatment subtypes, but none of the anticipated MMPI-A scales were related. MMPI-A Scale 7 and Rorschach variables Ego, MOR, and PER were jointly associated with physical abuse severity. MMPI-A Scale 0 and Rorschach variables MOR, PER, SumY, SumC', PTI, Human Content, and Texture jointly associated with sexual abuse severity. This study supports the potential for certain MMPI-A scales and Rorschach variables to reflect the impact of adolescents' maltreatment experiences in terms of the number and severity of types of maltreatment experienced. Because both instruments captured different aspects of adolescents' maltreatment experiences, clinicians should consider using both when evaluating the impact of maltreatment on adolescents.     

Detection of Random Responding on the MMPI--A

We examined random responding on the MMPI-A in 106 adolescents from the general population. Participants were asked to report on the frequency, location, and reasons for any random responses occurring during a standard administration of the MMPI-A. Relationships between self-reported random responding and validity indices (F1, F2, F, and Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN] scale) were examined. In addition, each participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups, with each group completing an assigned portion (0, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%) of an MMPI-A answer sheet without access to the test booklet, and the utility of the validity scales in discriminating standard protocols from all or partially random protocols was investigated. Most adolescents acknowledged one or more random responses correlated significantly with F but not VRIN. Validity scales were sensitive to all or partially random protocols, and produced high classification rates when discriminating among groups.     

Detection of random responding on the MMPI-A

We examined random responding on the MMPI-A in 106 adolescents from the general population. Participants were asked to report on the frequency, location, and reasons for any random responses occurring during a standard administration of the MMPI-A. Relationships between self-reported random responding and validity indices (F1, F2, F, and Variable Response Inconsistency [VRIN] scale) were examined. In addition, each participant was randomly assigned to 1 of 5 groups, with each group completing an assigned portion (0, 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100%) of an MMPI-A answer sheet without access to the test booklet, and the utility of the validity scales in discriminating standard protocols from all or partially random protocols was investigated. Most adolescents acknowledged one or more random responses correlated significantly with F but not VRIN. Validity scales were sensitive to all or partially random protocols, and produced high classification rates when discriminating among groups.     

Changes in adolescent response patterns on the MMPI/MMPI--a across four decades

The purpose of this study was to explore changes in adolescent self-presentation on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1940) and MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992) over a 40-year period. The primary samples used for comparison in this study include 1,235 adolescents, age 14 through 16, derived from the MMPI-A normative sample (Butcher et al., 1992) collected in 1989 and 10,514 adolescents, age 14 through 16, collected in 1948 and 1954 from Hathaway and Monachesi's (1963) study of adolescent personality and behavior. MMPI basic scale and item-level data were also included for 817 adolescents, age 14 through 16, collected by Colligan and Offord (1992) in 1985 as a further comparison. Between-sample analyses at the profile level revealed that adolescents from the MMPI-A normative sample scored significantly higher across basic clinical scales and lower on validity scales L and K than adolescents from the Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) sample, with mean data from the Colligan and Offord (1992) sample typically falling at a midpoint value. Analyses of Harris-Lingoes (Harris & Lingoes, 1955) subscale and item-level data were conducted to provide refined definitions of the contents of scale-level changes. Results were interpreted as reflecting moderate to large changes in response frequencies between eras of data collection, and emphasis was placed on the relatively high frequency of item endorsements by contemporary adolescents in the clinical direction in the MMPI-A normative sample. A series of cautions and limitations are also offered in interpreting these patterns.     

Incremental validity of the MMPI-A content scales in the prediction of self-reported symptoms

The incremental contribution of the MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992) content scales to the prediction of scores on self-report measures of psychopathology was examined in a sample of 62 adolescents in inpatient treatment and 59 adolescents from the community. All participants completed the MMPI-A and a battery of criterion measures. A series of hierarchical regression analyses was conducted in which the MMPI-A clinical and content scales served as the independent variables and the criterion measures as the dependent variables. The content scales were found to have incremental validity beyond the clinical scales in predicting variance in the criterion measures. Similarly, the clinical scales also demonstrated incremental validity over the content scales in making these predictions. Both sets of scales made independent contributions to the prediction of sample membership (clinical vs. nonclinical). Findings suggest that both the clinical and content scales of the MMPI-A make significant contributions to the assessment of adolescents' psychological functioning.     

Scale 5 of the MMPI and MMPI-A: evidence of disparity

Scale 5 of the MMPI and MMPI-A was compared in a repeated measures design. Participants for the study were 43 adolescents classified as emotionally disturbed in a public school system and 17 inpatients at a residential treatment center. The MMPI Scale 5 mean score was substantially higher than that of the MMPI-A. The alternate-form reliability between Scale 5 of the two forms was surprisingly low, suggesting that the deletion of 16 items and rewording of 6 additional items changed the scale on the MMPI-A to an extent that may have significantly altered the underlying construct. The authors discuss factors that could be associated with the findings, including: (a) the diminished ability to express feminine interest on the MMPI-A, and (b) general changes in attitudes among adolescents over the 3 or more decades since the MMPI norms were developed.