The MMPI-2 computerized adaptive version (MMPI-2-CA) in a Veterans Administration medical outpatient facility

The ability to screen quickly and thoroughly for psychological difficulties in existing and returning combat veterans who are seeking treatment for physical ailments would be of significant benefit. In the current study, item and time savings, as well as extratest correlations, associated with an audio-augmented version of the computerized adaptive Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2-CA) are examined in a group of 273 male veterans, ages 26-87 years. Results indicated an average item savings of approximately 103 items (18.6%), with a corresponding time savings of approximately 12 min (24.3%), for the MMPI-2-CA compared with conventional computerized administration of the test, as well as comparability in terms of test-retest coefficients and correlations with external measures. Future directions of adaptive personality testing are discussed.     

Uses and Misuses of Ted Kaczynski's MMPI

Although case studies can be a helpful didactic aid when teaching personality assessment and illustrating use of a test, they can, of course, not be used as “evidence” that a test “works” or does not work. This article, however, reviews and discusses the far more problematic uses instantiated in a case study of Ted Kaczynski's Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). A series of errors of omission and commission are identified in Butcher, Hass, Greene, and Nelson's (2015 Butcher, J. N., Hass, G. A., Greene, R. L., & Nelson, L. D. (2015). Using the MMPI-2 in forensic assessment. Washington, DC, American Psychological Association.[Crossref] , [Google Scholar]) effort to criticize the MMPI–2–RF. These include not disclosing that Butcher's interpretive Minnesota Report for Forensic Settings indicates that the protocol is invalid, not including most of the MMPI–2 and MMPI–2–RF scores that contradict the authors' assertions, and mischaracterizing the MMPI–2–RF findings. Proper use of a case study is then illustrated by a discussion of diagnostic considerations indicated by the MMPI–2–RF findings.     

Of Fallacies and Errors,New and Repeated: A Rejoinder to Butcher et al. (2018)

Butcher, Hass, Greene, Nelson, Nichols, and Williams (2018 Butcher, J. N., Hass, G. A., Greene, R. L., Nelson, L. D., Nichols, D. S., & Williams, C. L. (2018). Using the MMPI-2 in forensic assessment: Response to criticism about a case study. Journal of Personality Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00223891.2018.1493488.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) responded to my (Ben-Porath, 2018 Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2018). Uses and misuses of Ted Kaczynski’s MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00223891.2018.1468337.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) critique of Butcher, Hass, Greene, and Nelson’s (2015) analysis of Ted Kaczynski’s MMPI–2–RF, purporting to find logical fallacies in my arguments and shortcomings in my interpretation of MMPI–2–RF scales. Butcher et al. (2018 Butcher, J. N., Hass, G. A., Greene, R. L., Nelson, L. D., Nichols, D. S., & Williams, C. L. (2018). Using the MMPI-2 in forensic assessment: Response to criticism about a case study. Journal of Personality Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00223891.2018.1493488.[Taylor & Francis Online] , [Google Scholar]) repeated several previously refuted arguments and opinions, while failing to acknowledge, let alone consider, prior responses to their claims. In this rejoinder I refute (again) Butcher et al.’s assertion that empirical data raise questions about the “clinical sensitivity” of MMPI–2–RF scales, identify an extensive literature relevant to forensic use of the MMPI–2–RF that Butcher and colleagues have systematically ignored, and identify a series of logical and factual fallacies along with new and repeated errors of omission and commission in Butcher et al.’s response.