IOI OTE NOISE Toy SCORING, AND Naas tonusyValed REVISED EDITION ar ee Pia oh detMMPI?-2 (MINNesota MutmiPHAsic PersoNALTY INveNTORY°—2) MANUAL FoR ADMINISTRATION, SCORING, AND INTERPRETATION REVISED EDITION ‘James N. BurcHer, JOHN R. GRAHAM, Yosser S. BEN-PoRaTH, Aue Tewecen, W. Grant DaHistrom Beverty KAEMMER, COORDINATOR FOR THE PRESS University oF Minnesota Press MinneapousPublished by: University of Minnesota Press Distributed by: Pearson P.O. Box 1416 Minneapolis, MN 55440 800.627.7271 www.PearsonClinical.com MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2) Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, Revised Edition ively unde Copyright © 2001 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusi Wey o772 license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc., P.O, Box 1416, Minneapolis, MN 55440. 800. www. PearsonClinical.com Warning; Professional use only; resale not permitted. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, = I; 1. ty modified, or transmitted by any means, electronic or mechanical, without written permission from the Universi of Minnesota Press, 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520 (612-627-1964). The following are registered trademarks of the Regents of the University of Minnesota: MMPI, MMPI-2-RF, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-7 Restructured Form. The following are unregistered, common law trademarks of the University of Minn ati MMPI-A, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent, MMPI-2, Minnesota Multipho ear Personality Inventory-2, and The Minnesota Report. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or Its affiliate(s). Lae IO)Intropuction, 1 Development of he Original MPL, 1 sat of the MMPI-2, 3 ion of the National Norms, 4 Derivation of Standardized Scores, 5 Basic QUAUFICATIONS FOR Use; ADMINISTERING, SCORING, AND ProFIUNG THE MMPI-2, 7 Qualifications, 7 Interprofessional Relationships, 8 ‘Administering the MMPL-2, 8 Appropriateness of the MMPI-2 for Adolescents, 10 Scoring the MMPI.2, 10 Completing the Validity and Clinical Scales Profile, 11 InteRpReraTiOn oF Tat MMPI-2, 13 Decermining Protocol Acceptability, 14 ‘The Clinical Scales, 24 The Content Scales, 32 The Supplementary Scales, 36 Case Examples, 44 Rererences, 53‘APPENDIXES A. TScore Tables, 61 A-L. Uniform and Linear T-Score Conversions for the Validity and Clinical Scales with K Corrections (M Uniform and Li AD “Score Conversions for the Validity and Clinical Scales with K 64 ‘Score Conversions for the Validity and Clinical Scales without K 66 “Score Conversions for the Validity and Clinical Scales without K +8. Uniform T-Score Conversions for the Content Scales (Males), 75 9. Uniform T-Score Conversions for the Content Scales (Females), 76 Uniform T-Score Conversions for che Content Component Scales (Males), 77 Uniform T-Score Conversions for the Content Component Scales (Females), 78 Supplementary Scales (Males), 79 the Supplementary Scales (Females), 82 B. Item Composition of the Scales, 85 Bel. Validity and Clinical Scales, 86 B-2, Harris-Lingoes Subscales, 91 B-3. SiSubscales, 96 B-4, Content Scales, 97 B-5. Content Component Scales, 100 B-6. Supplementary Seales, 105 . Scale Membership and Scored Direction of Items, 109 D. Critical Item Sets, 121 D-1. Koss-Butcher Critical Item Sets, Revised, 121 D.2. Lachar-Wrobel Critical Item Sets, 122 E, Reliability Data, 123 E-L, Retest Coefficients and Standard Errors of Measurem. : Scales, 125 F. Scale Intercorrelations, 127 correlations of the Supplementary Scales for the Normative Sample, 130 G. Itemmetric Data, 131 H, Item Changes and Item-Conversion Tables, 169 Item Changes and De and Their Effect on the Original Validity and Clinical Scales, 169 2. Conversion from MMPI-2 to MMPI Group Form, 170 3, Conversion from MMPI Group Form to MMPI-2, 172H-4. Conversion from MMPI-2 to MMPI Form R, 174 H-5. Conversion from MMPI Form R to MMPI-2, 174 1. K-and Non-K-Corrected T-Score Values for the MMPI-2 LF K, and Clinical Scales Based on the Original Minnesota Normative Group, 175 1. K-Corrected T-Score Values for MMPI-2 Scales Based on the Original Minnesota Normative Group (Males), 176 rected T-Score Values for MMPI-2 Scales Based on the Original Minnesota Normative males), 178 1.3, Non-K-Cortcted Score Values for MMPI- Seales Based on the Original Minnesota Normative Group (Males), 180 1-4, Non-K-Corrected T-Scote Values for MMPI-2 Scales Based on the Original Minnesota Normative Group (Females), 182 J. Profiles, 185 Ioex, 207 4, Percentile Equivalents of Uniform T Scores, 6 5, 2 (Cannot Say): Implications of Scores, 15 6. VRIN (Variable Response Inconsistency) Scale implications of Scores, 16 7 8 9High Scorers, 34 36. ANG (Anger) Content Scale and Its Components: 37. CYN (Cynicism) Content Scale and Its Components: Scorers, 35 38. ASP (Antisocial Practices) Content Seale and Its Components: Interpretive Poss for High Scorers, 35 39. TPA (Type A) Content Scale and Its Components: Interpretive P High Scorers, 35 40. LSE (Low Self-Esteem) Content Scale and Its Components: Interp High Scorers, 35 41. SOD (Social Discomfort) Content Scale and Its ‘Components: Interpretive P for High Scorers, 36 42. FAM (Family Problems) Content Scale and Its Components: Interpretive Posibiltes for High Scorers, 36 43. WRK (Work Interference) 44, TRT (Negative Treatment Possibilities for High Scorers, 36 Scale: Descriptors for High Scorers, 37 le Descrirors for High Scores, 37 Scale: Interpretive Possibilities for High Scorers, 36 ors) Content Scale and Its Components: Interpretive rder-Keane) Scale: Descriptors for High Scorers, 39 MDS (Marital Distress Scale): Descriptors for High Scorers, 39 53. Ho (Hostility) Scale: Descriptors for High Scorers, 39 54, O-H (Overcontrolled Hostility) Scale: Descriptors for High Scorers, 40 55. MAC-R (MacAndrew Alcoholismm-Revised) Seale: Descriptors, 40 56. AAS (Addiction Admission Scale): Descriptors for High Scorers, 40 57. APS (Addiction Potential Scale): Descriptors for High Scorers, 41 58. GM (Gender Role-Masculine) and GF (Gender Role-Feminine) Scales: Descriptors for ). Psychometric Properties of the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales in the MMPI-2 Normative Sample, 44 60. Personality Paychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scale Intercorrelations in the MMPI-2 Normative Sample, 44 Supplementary Scales Pro Validity and Clinical Scales Pr Content Scales Profile for Case #4: Ms, B, 52 ‘Supplementary Scales Profile for Case #4: Ms. B, 52Tepe its authors express gratitude for asistance in developing this manual to Allan Harkness ed Jon MeN, ofthe Unversity of Tul, who conbuted the informacion onthe PSY-5 ‘the Minneapolis VA Medical Center, who provided the information on the lowing individuals and insticutions for theie participation in the MMPI-2 California, Konstantinos Kostas and Dennis Saccuzzo; in Minnesota, Bowman, Naval Academy, Annapolis, Tommie G. Cayton, Lackland Air Force Buse, San Antonio TX, Suan Colligan, Naval Hospital Oakland CA, Jerry R. DeVore, Dwight David Eisenhower Army Medical Center, Augusta GA, Timothy Jeffrey, University of Nebraska Medical Center, and Rahn Minegawa, United States Marine Corps.| | | PREFACE ] he MMPI2, the revision of the original the test sentative of the population of the United States ‘The daca are based on samples of adult men and cad of determining simple the raw score mean and ns for a scale, uniform T scores wording, and outmoded co objectionable content were deleted. ‘The MMPI-2 introduced three validity scales— Fp, VRIN, and TRIN—that contribute substan- tially co the identification of invalid profiles. ‘These three scales, along with Fp and S— ‘measures developed subsequent to the publica- tion of the MMPI-2 and represented in the re- search literature on the instrument—have been added to the MMPI-2 validity and clinical scales profile. Also added to the MMPI-2 ate the con- tent component scales (Ben-Porath & Sherwood, 1993), aids in interpreting the content scales. ‘This revised manual introduces a new set of sup- plementary scales, the PSY-5, developed by Harkness, McNulyy, and Ben-Porath (1995). ‘These scales are based on the PSY-5 model of personality and psychopathology developed by Harkness and his colleagues. Since the MMPI-2 was published in 1989, ‘more than 800 journal reporting studies that included the MMPI-2. Some studies used an MMPI-2 scale or index as a criterion measure ofa construct of interest; other how the MMPI-2 can be used most effecti Early MMPI-2 studies examined the comy ty of MMPI and MMPI-2 scores and pro we wil learn even more about the effective use of the MMPI-2. In 1999, publication of the original MMPI ‘was discontinued. ‘We trust the revisions provided in this manual will prove helpful to MMPI-2 test users, Minneapolis, MN January 2001INTRODUCTION T- ‘Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- tory®-2 (MMPI®-2) isa broad-band test designed to assess a number of the major patterns of personality and psychological disorders. It can be administered easly to an individual or to groups. A sixth-grade elementary-school level of. reading comprehension is required, as isa satis- factory degree of cooperation and commitment to the task of completing the inventory. The test provides internal checks to identify when these {general requirements have not been satisfied. The MMPI-2 provides objective scores and profiles based on well-documented national norms. Research on the MMPI-2 scales and their patterns of interrelationship, as well as research on the original MMPI scales, is available to guide int pretation of MMPI-2 rest scores, The research lit crature provides a wealth of data on the ways in which the MMPI-2 can be applied in various assessment settings. Computer-based interpretive services providing a wide range of diagnostic and assessment hypotheses are also availabe. DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORIGINAL MMPI The inventory was developed in a hospital setting at the University of Minnesota on groups of pa- tients and nonpatients (visitors to the wards and clinics who volunteered to take the test during the time spent waiting for friends or relatives teceiving medical treatment). These nonpatients ‘were representative of the adult population of the state of Minnesota during the 1930s: mostly mar- ied, ranging in age from 16 to 65 and averaging in theie midechirtes, living in small towns or ru ral areas, with an eighth-grade education. Hathaway and McKinley began work on the test in the late 1930s and in 1940 published their first article on the inventory (Hathaway 8 Mc- Kinley, 1940), initially called the Minnesota Per- sonality Schedule. In this article they summarized the steps they had followed in writing and editing. the items, having gained ideas for potential items from many sourees, a number of texts ‘on psychiatric interviewing and differential diag- nosis, social and emotional atitudes, and person- ality processes. Each item was written in the form ‘ofa statement of some personal experience, beli auitude, or concern. ‘The content of the original items reflected the range of psychiatric, medical, and neurological disorders in which the investigators were interest- ed, After considerable preliminary work on the schedule, Hathaway and McKinley added new items to cover gender-role characteristics and a defensive style of self presentation. These a tions brought the original number of items to 550. (Some versions of the MMPI included the duplication of 16 items to facilitate the machine scoring available atthe time, which brought the total number of items to 566.)‘The first scale developed for the MMPI was based on a systematic contrast between the ane swers given to the test statements by a group of carcflly selected neurotie patients who manifest- ‘ed a hypochondliacal disorder and the answers given by the nonpatient group of hospital vistors. lems that were answered differently by these two nncuroties was then collected, and the preliminary scale was ross-validated on these new cases to demonstrate that this measure provided a depend able bass for separating patients from nonpatients, ‘Similar contrasts and eross-valiational studies were caried out for other groups of neurotic patients: psychasthenia (McKinley & Hathaway, patients manifesting psychotic disorders: manic- depressive psychosis, manic phase (McKinley & Hathaway, 1944), paranoia, and schizophrenia noted below, these same sales, with modifica tions, comprise che present set of clinical sales in three indicators of the validity oft any given test-taker: the number 10 appraise the pos- had answered the MMPI but pervasive tendency either mations for the basic sales were se r00 low.‘Another factor lowering the Hathaway/McKinley norms was the number of item omissions allowed in the original normative sample. Asa res a low raw scores, T scores on the original MMPI were set too high. The samples were also limited by inadequate representation of adults from different regional areas, culcural setings, and ethnic and racial groups. Although the sam- ple of nonpatients collected by Hathaway and ‘McKinley matched the Minnesota population of the 1930s in terms of age range, educational level, and socioeconomic background, few black, native American, or other minority members were recruited by their sampling procedures. A nationwide sampling program was needed to rem- edy these limitations in the original test norms. DEVELOPMENT OF THE MMPI-2 In the early 1980s the Universi Press and its MMPI consultant of Minnesota iated a proj- ‘experimental he original 550 items (82 of the items modified for the reasons noted earlier and the 16 duplicates deleted) were retained and jonal items were added, bringing the © gather biogra- Phical and supplementary information about the sample of adults whose responses would be used the new test norms. Supplementary information included a measure of recent changes in the in« from Holmes 8& Rah their spouses or live-in partners, a measure of the spouses’ and partners’ perceptions of each other (using a rating form adapted from the Katz Adjustment Scale (Form R} (Katz, 1968} the degree of satisfac hey were exper Individuals between the ages of 18 and 90 were ‘of methods, most by by advertisements and special appeals, as wel as by follow-up contacts with persons listed in stratified catchment area rolls. The sample was drawn from communities in seven states: California, Minnesota, North Carolina, ©! Washington. In addition, proportionately to the sample from groups of individuals tested on a federal Indian reservation (Tacoma, Washington area) and on four military bases, since these people would not have been amination of the completeness and validity of the test records and background information reduced the total number to 2,600 (1,138 men and 1,462 or an excessively high score (20 or more) on either the F scale or Back F (Fg), derived from the latter part of the AX test booklet. Additional sources of problemat- ic records were incomplete or missing biographi- cal or recent life-events forms, and omitted birth dates or gender identification. The ethnic backgrounds of these men and ‘women are provided in Table 1 with a compara- ble breakdown from the 1990 census data. Al- though the proportions are quite comparable for blacks and whites, Hispanic and Asian-American subgroups are underrepresented in the normative sample. Native Americans are somewhat overtep- resented in the normative sample. Similar comparisons between census data and ive sample for age (Table 2) and edu- cation (Table 3) reveal that the most disparate feature of the community sample in comparison, us data is in their educa- In the normative sample, there isan excess of adult men and women with college and post-graduate education and an under- representation of those who completed high school ot who did not obtain a high-school di- Fesearch has indicated no sub- si tors and scores on the MMPI-2 scales (Long, Graham, & Timbrook, 1994; Schinka & LaLone, 1997).Ethnic Group ‘Asian Black 107 Hispanic 89 Native American 06 White 79 Other 29 Total 100.0" Note. Census data based on adults 18 o ode. ‘Source: US. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1990 Census of Population and Housing. ‘TABLE 2. Age Distribution of Participants in the Restandardization Sample, Compared to 1990 Census Data. Males Females ‘Age Range Freq, % Census Freq % ‘Census Te19 19 17 45 29 20 40 20-29 289 238 232 373 255 a2 30-39 331 204 237 438 300 223 40-49 17 158 77 224 183 170 50-59 6 127 120 178 122 120 60-68 134 118 108 143 98 19 70-78 55 48 66 65 44 8a 80-85 9 oa 16 2 08 27 Total Te 100.1 Tae2 100.0 ws Source: US. Deparment of Commerce, Bureau ofthe Census, 1890 Census of Population and Housing. TABLE 3. Education of Participants in the Restandardization Sample, Compared to 1998 Census Data Education Freq. % Census rea. % ‘Consus less than gh school graduate 6 54 183 7 46 174 High school graduate 242 213 322 398, ere 346 ‘Some college 2 239 258 380 260 272, College graduate 310 272 186 380 267 149 Postgraduate 253, 222 82 227 155, 58 Total Te 700.0 we Tae 700.0 99 ‘Noe. Census deta based on adults 18 or older, Source: US. Department of Commerce, Bureau ofthe Ce PREPARATION OF THE NATIONAL NORMS membership) on the scales in question, and by i 5c study by Ben-Porath and me items on five of the MMPI validity and ical scales were deleted and some underwent ial changes, ranging in importance from a changed word or wo to substantial clarification (see Appendix Table H-1). Before developing T-score conversions, the dorsement shifs, by com- patterning did change Pating item-scle correlations (corrected for item ble differences were found when comparing thelrcontribution to the clinical and supplementary the o score may not have the same percentile value on Afferent scales. Some form of standardization is cosy a be epoca for esac such measures and as more appropriate in this comparability” of linear nota psychometrcally desirable fea- ee ee ee linear T scores were first derived for each of the 16 raw-score 50 + [10(X— tion of the raw scores. Next, a set score values were derived, namely, values corresponding to each percentile value in cach of the 16 distributions. Thus for each per- centile value, 16 linear T-score values were caleu- lated and were then averaged. The resulting series of average or composite T-score values (one aver- age T-score value for each percentile) represe operationally the adopted composite target bution. As expected, this distribution is posi skewed, as illustrated in Figure 1 ‘The composite standard is also illustrated in which shows the percentile values for a representative composite T-score values. ig the same positive skew as Figure 1, the table shows, for example, chat 2 high composite T score of 70 (two SDs above 50) has a percentile » whereas the correspondingly low scale, one each for the normative men and the normative women. The UT-score transformation clearly succeeded in overcoming the init ns conform closely to the composi dard and are consequently quite similar (Tellegen ‘& Ben-Porath, 1992) scales. See Appendix I for 1 and non-K-con ed T scores for the scales based on the inal MAD norPsychological Assessment, 1992, 4, 145-155. Roproduced by permission, Noe. W= 1,000 ‘TABLE 4. Percentilo Equivalents of Uniform T Scores Se Usiorm Percentile ——TSere_Equivalont__ 30 35 “ “6 50 5 0 6 70 6 %Basic QUALIFICATIONS FOR USE; ADMINISTERING, D SCORING, , 1g and qualifications of the person who elects to use it for the appraisal of clients or patients. Even though the MMPI-2 is relatively say end sighed to adminis ead see, demands a igh ne of psycho- Peychometric Qualifications Minimum: Graduate-level course in psychological testing, A background in rest theory is essential for un- F the accuracy ofthese vari errors of measurement is also ion, the user should be informed | AND PROFILING | Familiarity with personality structure, and deviance is also essential. Whether pretive hypotheses are generated from mat standard texts on the MMPI-2 or from computer- based printouts, the user of the inventory must be able ro integrate these hypotheses and recom- mendations with detailed knowledge of the back- ground and characteristics of the individual under consideration. To generate as accut balanced a formulation of the patient and wentory and a broad under- standing of the complexities of human personality. ‘The individual responsible for the use routinely take steps to checkinappropriate testing methods, and re lant about potential sources of test invalidity. (See “Determining Protocol Acceptability” on page 14.) INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONSHIPS “The MMPI-2 will often be used in response to a ym a colleague in a related portant that che user of the co communicate the informa- ins generated by the test results ‘comprehensible to that pro- ple reporting of test scores and/or 38 isnot sufficient or appropriate noted above. Accurate verbal summaries of likely etpretations are required for most interprofes- nal com ADMINISTERING THE MMPI-2 ‘A umber of special considerations are involved in the administration of the MMPI-2 beyond those inherent in the use of any psychological instrument, The test usr is urged to become familia with these issues and adhere to the fol- lowing recommendations in all applications of the inventory whether for research, clinical assessment. ETHICAL TEST USAGE “The ease with which the MMPI-2 can be admin- istered and scored may lull some individuals into Using the insteument in ways that may compro- mise the ethical and professional safeguards that all psychological assessment measures demand, ‘Any administration of the MMPI-2 must be car- ried out in a way that guarantees the test-taker freedom from distractions and intrusions, and fall assurance that the results of the examination sults secure and privileged, or other evidence of insensitivity to the communications inherent in the taking of the test can setiously detract from administration of the trained and well informed about the steps needed to obtain a valid and use- fal test protocol. This is particularly imporeane if the person charged with these tasks is a techni- cian ot clerk who lacks either the professional or the requisite experience and back- psychometrics or assessment summa- , Supervision by 2 fully qualified professional is essential in using the MMPI-2. Pe checks should be made of the testing routines to ensure maintenance of proper stan- dards is strongly recommended that the red without proper supervision and that it not be given to test-takers to complete at home. TESTABILITY OF THE TEST-TAKER How useful the information provided by the 2 will be depends great cer to understand the instructions, to ‘comprehend and interpret the content of the items as they relate o him or her, and to record 3t being adminis- tered. A number of physical con tional states may impair thi the test administrator be alert ro the presence of I acuity, dyslexia ‘comply with even the relatively reading the MMPI-2 items and recording his or her answers. In addition, the person admi muse determine whether the the content of the items and interpr ‘meaning in the cultural context from words in a given statement, The item cor rmust be meaningful to the test-taker, given her range of life experience (a more difficult chal-lenge for the very young, the intellectual dy the leaeningdiabled, the severely cl Te depsived,o the recent immigant wo thiscounty MPa ea for whom the meaning of many English idioms ray be obscure). Although there are validationl problems before testing is begun, and to substi- tute a more manageable form of the inventory or we the rson taking the bothered by others in the room or offered gratu- itous advice by fellow patients. It is generally per- misibl cole the ‘Administration to large groups requires spectal measures o ensure maximal cooperation and eae in compl ‘conduct themselves in the same serious and pro- fessionally mature manner recommended for the ‘word frequency in various kinds of popular litera- and sentence complexity: the possible range in Appendix G, some scales contain items of greater than average difficulty. Based on contem- lack of persistence, or actual copying of answers should be given, Some test-takers may react aloud to the con- tent of some of the items and provoke a series of ‘comments from others which can be disruptive if rot headed off eat. answer the item as you understa0 To repeat a point made ‘earlier, admit of the MMPI-2 should always be supervised. ‘APPROPRIATENESS OF THE MMPI-2 FOR ADOLESCENTS ‘The MMPL-A, containing age-appropriate norms items modified to be appropriate for adolescent and scales dealing specifically with adolescent problems, was developed for use with persons 14 fo 18 years old. Its not recommended thar the MMPI-2 be used with adolescents, although it may be more appropriate than the MMPI-A for 18-year-olds living independently oftheir parents. TEST FORMATS “The MMPI-2 is available in several versions de- signed to accommodate users working under dif- {erent testing conditions and examining a variety of test-takers. The features ofeach version and the limitations that each may impose are described below. Users should familiarize themselves with these characteristics before employing a given version. permits convenient administration to grou are presented in a reusab booklet, and 2 separate answer sheet is used for cach person's responses. The booklet (with either hard or soft cover) presents 567 items; the origi- nal validity scales (L, F, K) and the clinical scales are scored from the first 370 items, bus i is desr- able co have the entire test completed so that all the validity indicators, the content scales, and the supplementary scales can be scored. Various types of answer sheets have been developed for use with the booklet. ‘The MMPI-2 is available in Spanish, French, and Hmong from Pearson, distributor of the English-language material, Cassettes “The MMPI2 is available on audiocassettes, which can be used to administer the test to single individuals via a caserte player and headphones. Each administration takes about an hour and a hal. Test-takers should be taught how to sa stop, and reverse the tape and should be provided with an answer sheet and a pencil, The tape frst presents the general rest instructions, followed by two readings of each item to ensure that test-tak- cers understand and have time ro marke response. For individuals wit Gal provisions must be made to fac ‘recording of responses and ensure ivae (5. The use ofa Braille eypewriter or a computer an be helpful in such circumstances. If this tcquipment is noc avaiable, ie may be necessary to responses to a derk or ward aid Targe-scale resting can also be carried out with these taped versions of the MMPI-2 played over a loudspeaker. Testtakers require only an answer sheet and a pencil. Monitors in the room should observe the intial behavior ofthe test-takers to ‘detect any problems they may have in becoming oriented to the answer sheet o marking test re- sponses. Monitors should have a supply of extra pencils in case some are broken during the paced session. A standard test booklet should be on hand as well to provide later clarifications of items that test-takers may have missed while the cape was playing. Computer-Based Administration ‘The test-taker may also respond to the MMPI-2 via computer. (Software for computer administra- lable from Pe presented and the examiner has demons how True, False, and Cannot Say respo! reading competency and understanding of how to ‘enter and change responses. Someone should be COMPUTER SCORING possible o have the test-taker record before he or she leaves the premisescatalog. (See Appendix J forthe pr provided) ‘The test user should determine how the test will be scored ister HAND SCORING. Before the hand-scored answer sheets are scored, they should be separated by gender, since the MF scale has separate ke crossed-out items isthe Cannot Say () score; this value shoul pace oon the answer sheet. Scoring keys, or templates, co obtain the raw scores forall scales and ber of blackened spaces (ignor- re crossed out with a colored ‘number in the appropriate space on eet as the raw score for that s number on the appropriate line on file Form (male or female). For VRIN and TRIN, follow these steps, using the compl sheet the VRIN of TRIN inswer for the validity and. mn the appropriate line on the profile form (male ot female). COMPLETING THE VAUDITY AND CLINICAL SCALES PROFILE ‘The scores plotted on the MMPI-2 vali clinical scales profile ae the valid ‘measures developed by Hathaway and McKinley, ‘modified somewhat in the restandardization of the inventory—see Developm MMPI on page 1—augmented ‘ality indicators, VRIN, TRIN, Fp, Fp, and S. ‘The scales are organized into two ses, validity indicators and clinical measures, and, except for ‘which is a raw score reported below they ate plotted on the profile. The ing cach of these scales are listed by item number and direction of scoring in Appendix B (as ae items comprising all che other MMPI-2 scales presently available; scale membership of all items is provided in Appendix C). T-score values for the raw scores on each of these scales are listed in Appendix A. These values are either simple lin- car T scores (for the validity indicators and Scales 5 and 0) or uniform T scores (see Preparation of the National Norms on page 4). Test-retestreli- ability and internal consistency data (alpha coeff- cients) foreach of these measures are provided in Appendix E; incercorrelations for al sales are presented in Appendix F. Before plorting the profil that beneath the row of raw scores entered on the row of blank spaces labeled “K ich appears below scales Hs, Pd, Pr, Sc, and Ma. A fraction, oF all, of the K score is added to the raw scores of a variable to correct ‘This fraction is always in terms of the raw score of K, which has already been determined in the also presented on the profile forms. fractions have been determined, they should be entered inthe spaces on the line below the raw sheet, and the corrected raw scores should be centered,Several general points should be noted when Preparing the roi |. The profile appropriate to the gender of the sponding T-score values for these raw scores. 3. Corrected raw scores must be plotted for those Some users may not wish to rely exclusively on Kecorrected scores but may wish to have access 0 non-Kecortected scores for use in some situations Appendix Tables A-3 and A-4 provide T scores for all posible rw scores without K correction fon the validity and clinical scales. Non-K-correct- CODING THE PROFILE Coding is employed ro summarize the paterns of becomes 1; D, 2: Hy, 3; Pd, 4: ME, 5; Pa, 6; Pe, Se, 8: Ma, 9; and Si, O. Many clinicians rou- two oF three clinical scale sco are referred to as ewo-point or three-point code apes pci. Ths profile in which the score ison Scale 1 and the on Scale 3 is designated a point code type. ‘Two coding systems were used nal MMPI: Hathaway (1947), summarized and Dahlstrom (1972), and al coding procedure of Welsh 951), summarized in Butcher and MMPI-2. In the Code Typ ‘we recommend a coding system that we beli simpler and more robustINTERPRETATION | OF THE MMPI-2 A ref guide to the interpretation of MMPI-2 ide here. who are beginning encouraged t0 fami 1972, 1975). The rch array of esearch articles on the MMPI and MMDI2 should also be consulted for special ipplementary—is the way that best describes how the developed and validated. For the inical, and supplementary scales, the that presents a set of scales —valid- smencary scales. A step-by-step approach co inter~ preting the MMPI-2 protocol includes: . Evaluating the acceptability ofthe record, in- cluding some determination of the approach the inventory and the ex- aking acirude is consis- tent with other background information about the test-taker (see the next section for a de- tailed discussion). It should be noted that two S) have been added to the publication in 1989. ical scale scores fo generate and current emotional status of the rst Although some representative descriptors presented in Tables 20-29, more comprehen- is available in . scales that are ele- Relea ‘components that are primar- ily contributing to these elevations and noting,already generated and formulat summary of the sympcoms, problems, and per- sonality characteristics of the test-aker wich dependability ofthese cof the scores on the vari- proper caveats symptoms or con or previously unsuspé ene, (See Appendix D for ses of erical items) DETERMINING PROTOCOL ACCEPTABILITY “The MMPI-2 validity indicators are used individ- tally and in combination to evaluate the inter- precability of each protocol. A test-taker may re- spond in a variety of ways that can compromise 2 record's validity; he or she may leave large num- ems unanswered: respond randomly, fentionaly or unintentionally (¢g.» o¥- ing to limited reading ability); and/or distort his or her self-descriptions by either overreporting ot underreporting difficulties. These threats to pro- lidity are not mutually exclusive. Various ions of such response patterns may be present in a given test record. The validity indica- tors are designed to help detect these sources of protocol invalidity and to provide a basis for eval- tating the impact of such distortions on the test record. By design, the validity scales are sensitive to the test-raker's approach to the MMPI-2. There- to sereen for psycho- pathology in personnel selection settings, for ex- ample, respondents are likely to be motivated to present themselves in a favorable manner. This will be reflected in moderate elevations on the MMPI-2 defensiveness indicators (L, K, and $). Consequently, whereas a T score greater than 65 ‘on one or mote ofthese three scales is rather un- (particularly F and Fp) vary as a function of rose secting, with greater elevations expected in proto. col generated by individuals expeiencin 7 cant psychopathological symptoms. pine are general guidelines for interpret. ing the MMPI-2 validity indicators. The scales are described in the order of their appearance on the profile and in the order in which they should be considered when developing the validity scale interpretation. Recommended guidelines for vai. cous interpretive conclusions are based upon an integration of findings from the empirical litera. ture on the MMPI-2 validity scales. UNANSWERED ITEMS Cannot Say (2) Each test respondent is encouraged to answer definitively, True or False, as many of the items in the MMPI-2 as he or she possibly can. There are, of course, a number of legitimate reasor ing some items unanswered. For exam; test-taker has been an orphan from an he or she may not feel able to respond pertaining to feelings about parents. Nonet ‘most respondents are able to provide answers to sample answered m cessive item omissions res remaining MMPI-2 scales, itis essen ‘Cannot Say index be examined for the presence of excessive item omissions. uals experiencing severe psychopal find the task of answeringDeturine locaton of tem oisions. most cu Severe pyetopatoogy —_afarem370, LF, K, and nea cles may be Lack ot inight Intrpretabie. Ecce percentage ofiems answered ncoopeatie ‘nea sa, aati, Obsessive 11-29 Some sakes may Selotve tem omission Examine cortan an scale membership of oited beinaia ems. Do ot iter a scale with mere than 1% of Bs tems ome. 10 Probably vad ‘toms may not ppl to amie omit tems cate. test ahor stances (and any combination of them) may lead to the omission of excessive numbers of items. he number of items left unanswered is > 30, inconsistent responding, [MEASURES OF INCONSISTENT RESPONDING VRIN (Variable Response Inconsistency) Scale scale reflects particular item content, as do meas- ‘ues of the tendencies to fake good or dissimulate eycholgal fanconing Rater, VRIN are inconsistent or contradictory. Both VRIN and TRIN consist of pairs of spe- ally selected items. The members of each VRIN item pair have either similar or opposite content; ‘ach pair is scored forthe occurrence of an incon- sistency in the responses to the two items, (For ‘each item pair, either one of two response pat- 3s are scored as inconsistent, For example, for item pair 3/39, only a True response to both items is scored as inconsistent; for item pair 6! 90, both a True response to item 6 and a False response to item 90 and vice versa are scored as inconsistent.) The raw score on the VRIN scale is the total nurnber of item pairs answered inconsis- tently. A high VRIN score (above T score 79) isa er than 50. For example, ifthePsst Reasons ‘Score Level __ Profle Vay for Beaton Inerprative Possibtis. 20 Profle is iad ——_—Reangticues “The profiles uninterpetable. Confusion Intrtional random responding Erin recording responses ble; however, 65-79 Pratl is al; Carelessness “The profile ily interpretable; however, a cautionary weve, Coeasonal oss of staterent should be made characte by cancetation responding being present. some consistent approaches 79, th cavtonary statement shoud be responding apie, 0-4 Profle is vad ‘Te test taker was able to understand and respond to the tems in a consistent manne. 99 Profle is vad ‘The test-taker was particularly cautious and deserts in responding to the tems. cone standard deviation above the mean, indicat- ing yea-saying, i will be assigned a T-score value ‘of 60T. If the original score is one standard devia~ tion below the mean, indicating nay-saying, it will be assigned a'T-score valuc of 60F. The “T” and “P" notations are used in computerized scor- ing repors and Appendix Tables A-1 through A-4 in this manual, designating the direction of indis- ctiminate fixed responding found in the prosocol. (The band-scored profile sheets contain separate columns for TRIN True and False scores). scores greater than 79 on TRIN (in cither the ‘True of Fate direction) indicate an excessive level of yea or nay-saying, raising questions about the retabilty. (See Table 7 for inter- for the TRIN scale.) IN complement the remaining ‘MMPI-2 validity seales in unique and useful ways. cores on the infrequency a high VRIN score indicate erpretable owing to random 4 profile that responding, IF VRIN is not elevated, however, random responding is les likely to account for clevations on the inftequeney scales which may, then, be interpreted as reflecting either true psy- chopathology or deliberate efforts to fake bad. rate Fale responding (nonagulecence) rather than defensiveness. On the other hand, high scores on the defensiveness indi with an average score on TRIN reflect defensive- ness rather than the effects of a response set. MEASURES OF INFREQUENT RESPONDING ‘The MMPI-2 has three measures of infrequent frequently by ple. Elevated scores on this scale indi respondent provided a large number of i and therefore unlikely answers to the MI items, Individuals who respond randomly t0 MMPI-2, either intentionally or unincentionallyrscor Level Profile Vat, {ortieaton leterete Focabien 260T Profissimaid Acasa responses Protas uniter s7eT Plea Paral caiesont Profle shoud be interpreted with can, Parr a response st atenon shod be pad to Scales LK and, whose a ‘ors aye tty ete oig oe s0-6aT ‘i Profi is vais s0-64F 65k 79 Preis vali; Pata nnacquescent Profle shoul be interpreted wit can, Patt however, itis response st sttonton shoud be paid to Scales LK, and, whose ctaractred ‘stores may be artacaly elevated owing tothe by some none response set. acquiescence OF Profle is iat Nonaoulescent Profi urintrprette, response set ing difficulties), produce an frequent responses to the ted scores on the F scale. To elevated score on F is a éntiate between genuine psychopathology and faking bad as sources of elevation on F. IEF is in a non-random profile, and the Fp T than 99, the profile is marked by reporting of psychopathology and is therefore likely invalid owing co fuking bad. If, fn the other hand, Fp is below T score 70, the elevated score on F likely reflects accurate report ing of svere psychopathology and, consequently, provided that there are no other questions about protocol validity, the profile may preted. Scores in the 70-99 range represent increasing levels of overreporting of psychopathology, prob- 48) efleing ymprom exaggeration oar or ip. Because of the F scales sensitivity to accurately reported severe psychopathology, recommended {guidelines for interpretive possibilities differ as a function of the prevalence of such pathology ‘cross settings. Tables 8-10 provide recommend- cd interpretive possibilities for inpatient and out- patient clinical settings as well a for nonclinical sertings which take into account these differences across settings. Fy Back F) Scale ‘The Fp scale captures infrequent responding to the latter parc of the test and assist ini0-09 Maybe exaggerated, ‘bat aly is ai 579 ay vai so Maybe deersve Consider eageratin of symptoms, perhaps a a ey aggean of itr problems for Test sker accurately reported a numberof psychological problems. ‘amin defensiveness sales, particulary L to determine whether tst-taker may minimizing mental heath citfctes. par of che test. Fg is made up of 40 items that to random or fixed responding, severe psychopathology, and overreporting of symptoms. In addition, elevations may reflect a 's approach to ifF its and the T scor T scores on Fp should only be used ro deter, mine whether a substanial change has occurred inthe individuals approach to the MMPI-2. As described in Table 11, when the MMPI-2 is‘peor Level_ Profle Vay 0: Enon Inert Posies 280 May be inva Randomised responding VAIN or RNs above T score 79th an invalid Sere peyctopancogy and vinrpretal prof tot are within normal Faking bad limits, Fy shouldbe eamind, Ff aso within ol rit his is iy a vad rfl efectng severe sychopaticoy. IF i above 100, the test aker is ‘verepotng psjchopatolgy in an atl to ‘pear more stud han he or shes in reat. «79 Maybe agen of ecstng Caner exaggeration of symptoms pehaps as. ary exaggerated, probes foray but ety iad “064 key vai Testaker acutely described sor er cent Doyen unetonng 3 ay be defensive caine ctensvenes cles to deterine whether the testa maybe drying rminmin menta heath cities. Fp Infrequency-Psychopathology) Scale ‘The Fp scale provides a measure of infrequent re- sponding that is ess sensitive than F ro the pres- TABLE 11. Fy (Back F) Scale: Implications of Scores —_—A—_—_—=“**sSs/__——— Possible Reasons T-ScoreLovel__ Profile Valcty for Elevation sermings May be ivaid Randomixed responding Severe psychopathology Faking bad refs a sgicant change inthe test-takers approach Change in responding tothe ater pat of he test. Scales with tms in the later part oe test (the content scales) should not be iterpree, NONCLINICAL SETTINGS 200 May be vals Randortxed responding The T score on Fy shouldbe compared tothe T score ‘Severe psychopathology on FFs at last 30 T-score pont greater, Faking bad ‘ef a significant change inthe es tks approach ‘Change in esponding to the ltr part ofthe tt Scales with ‘ater part ofthe test, the content sales) shoud not ‘be lnterprate.from those that result from overreporting, after tandom and fixed responding have been ruled cout based on the VRIN and TRIN scales. Table 12 provides recommended interpretatio ferent levels of Fp. These recommenda based on research conducted primarily settings. MEASURES OF DEFENSIVENESS In completing the MMPI-2, some individuals provide an overly postive selpresentation. Such aa defensive test-taking approach may distort the respondent's scores on the clinical, content, and supplementary scales. The MMPI-2 defensiveness scales are designed to alert the interpreter to the presence and degree of defensiveness in a test protocol. L (Lie) Seale Hathaway and McKinley developed the L scale to assess the likelihood that the test-raker approached the instrument with a defensive mind set. The scale's items provide the respondent the opportu- nity to deny various minor faults and character flaws chat mast individuals are quite willing to ac- kaowledge as being true of themselves. Although can reflec deceit in the test-taking should nor necessarily be viewed as a ‘any general tendency to lie, fabricar, col may be distorted by this particular style of. responding to the inventory. Because all ofthe items on L are keyed Fale, i is essential that the ‘TRIN scale be examined for possible acquiescent or nonacquiescent response styles prior to inter- preting scores on L. Tables 13 and 14 indicate interpretive posi, ities for different levels of elevation on L in clini, cal and noneli Tao, greater than fle invalid profile mz ie quiescence (if TRIN is greater than 79F) or ak. ing good manifested in a pervasive and rather ‘unsophisticated pattern of denial of minor faults and shortcomings. Differences between the two duce moderate elevation: not reflect a fake-good test-taking approach, K (Correction) Scale ‘The K scale was developed to assess an individ- ual’ level of defensiven sponding to the ‘MMPI-2 items and to co response style has on designed to identify a less blatant scale are unlikely to repor problems that are being covei TABLE 12. Fp (Infrequency-Psychopathology) Scale: Implications of Scores Possible Reasons ‘TScore Level___ Profile Validity ‘for Elevation Interpretive Possibilities 2100 ‘ike ial ‘Random responding IFVRIN or TRIN is above T score 79, Faling bad and unintepretbep limits, the test-taker is overreporting psychopatholody ‘nan atemptto appear more dturbed than he or st In reality. a LUkaly exaggerates, Exaggeation of existing Consider ‘exaggeration of toms, perhaps a6 8 but maybe valid prodlems “ery lr hap” Lala <9 Ukely valid “Testtaker accurately cesertbed current mental helt status,+1.ScoreLovel__ Profle Vay {o¢ Elevation 200 Uy iva Faking good Pervasive onacauescence 79 May be mat Faking good Traiionl background Moderate onacauescence <6 ety valid Inept Posstes "TRIN s reat than 79, the protocol is characized ‘ya penasie pattem of nanacauiescenc ands, ‘herelr, iad and uniterpretabie TRIN is win ‘oral rt, the high score reflects a very strong Pate of ing good anda Hl val test protocol IWTRIN;s in the 65-79 range, the eevation on L ‘aly retecs a moderate patie of onacqulescence ‘ate than ang bad TRIN is within normals, ‘he eaton on Lay reflect a rater unsophisticated atmo aig god. The higher te L sore, the (eae the tied thatthe MMPI-2 sales do not acura epreset esting psychopathology. _L (Le) Scale: I Interpretive Possbites TScoreLevet__ProfeVality {or vation 280 ely inva Faking god Pervasive rnonacquescence 70-79 May be iva Moderate faking ‘ood Moderate onacquescenoe 65-69 ‘Questonably aid Overy positive saltpresentation 64 (Ukely valid Unsophisticated leersveness 58 Valid IV TRIN is gre than 79 the protocols characte bya pervasive pate of roracquiescence andi, therefore, invalid and uninterpretabl. 1 TRIN is within ‘mal its, te high L score rics avery strong pate of faking good and kal vali test protocol, {CTRL in he 65F-79F rang, the elevation on ely refers a macerate pattem of nonacquescence ‘ater tan faking. TRIN is wahia normals, the evaton on Lely reflects a moderate and rather unsophisticated pata of taking good. The higher the oor, the greater the hetiod that the MP2 rofle may not accurately represent existing syehopatcogy ‘Respondent ty minimized psychological and behan- ‘orl cuties. Tis may resut in underestimation of problens Respondent denied mina faults and shortcomings that ‘most people acknowledge realy, perhaps owing to ‘he ble hats in hero his best interest to do so. Testtaker may come trom a waitnal background, to rule out the presence of psychological difficul- ties based on the MMPI =aoe coe are highly correlated and both are measures of defensiveness, the K scale items are restricted ty Interpretive Possbaties TRIN is rater han 79F, th protocol is chaaetaing bya pervasive pattem of nonacqulescence ang ig, therfore, vad and uinterpretable. TRIN is win norma its, the high K score refects a detensiv test-taking approach that may indicate an inva protocol. UTR is greater than 7ST, the protocols charactrnd Interpretive Possibilities IW-TRIN is greater than 79F, the protocols charactend represent existing psychopathology. TAN ger than 73, prt cr by a pervasive patter of acquiescence and fra TRIN wt ral is. Score may be te resut of faking bad. interpretation i warranted ony i tare are va"s ‘on the Infrequency scales.ation Index developed by Gough ful measut of test response dis- ‘endorsing an excessive number of problems. Sco sets may also generate elevated scores on this index. Therefore, T scores on VRIN and TRIN shouldbe examined before one concludes that an elevated F-K reflects overreporting of psycho- nd Pathology interpreted only when the subscale scores and the VAUUDITY CASES, #1 AND #2 To illustrate how the MMPI-2 validity scales can assist che interpreter in identifying invalid pro- files, ewo case examples are provided. Figure 2 Inept Possbies {TRIN is greater tan 79, he protocol is taractertnd {estaking approach thal may indicate an invalid Drotocol.satine the subscales to identity parclar areas of defensiveness, Interretve Posibities IWTRINsgrester tan 79, the protocols characterized ‘rolocl Examine the S subscale oer particular areas of tesivenas. UTRIN sin the 65F-79F range, the elevation on S ‘aly rete a moderate pattem of nonacquiescence ‘ater han faking good. TRIN I within normal is, scales o deni parcular areas of dtenseness.lative Sell-Prosentation) Subscales “4. Most people are anastchiy because thy area of eng caught. () Sena So Met tr sett et eto Serenity (89, My hardest battles are with myselt.(F) a 196, | frequenty tind myslt worrying about something. (F) 5, Cometh Ue So ye aol cag mh) 5 omen toot eae) 5, Poco). pt a a port.) Cisne 2 ony bonnet hee 264. Ihave used alcool excessively. (A) 8, Dail of oral Ras 487 Shave enjoyed ving maura. (FY rr test interpreter should attempt to determine ‘whether the random responding occurred as 3 result ofa conscious decison by the testtaker nop the presents the validity scale profile for Case #1, J. S., 33-year-old Caucasian male who completed the MMPI2 in an inpaient psychiatric facility as pare of an evaluation of his eligbiliy for disabili- ty benefits. A review of his scores on the MMPI-2 validicy scales indicates that he omitted very few items (= 2) and provided largely consistent responses tothe test questions. However, his ele- vated score on F (T'= 113) indicates an excesive degree of infiequent responding. Because VRIN and TRIN are well within normal limits, we can rule out random or fixed responding as sources of the elevation on F. Having ruled out inconsistent responding as a source of the elevation on F for J. S., we then turn to an examination of his score ‘on Fp (T = 107), which indicates that he provid- ced a large numberof responses given infrequently by individuals with severe psychopathology. The high scores on F and Fp and the t faked bad in responding to the -2 Asa result his profile is invalid and uuninterpretable, Figure 3 presents the validity scale data for Case #2, RP, 2 29-year-old Afican American female who completed the MMPI-2 as pare of the intake process ata substance abuse treatment program, R.P.’'s scores on the validity scales indi- that she responded to al ofthe res items |. However, her score on VRIN (T = 98) cates that she provided an excessive number of inconsistent responses, strongly suggesting a sandom test-taking response set, In this case, cle- vations on F, Fgy and Fp are not necessarily indi- «ations of overreporting psychopathology; rather, they area by-product ofa random response set that yielded an invalid and uninterpretable ‘MMPI-2 profile. Faced with such findings, the alternatively, resulted from dificulties, or other unintentional het individual might provide a large number of ran dom responses to the MMPI-2 were deleted from some scales because of objec- tionable content, Thus, the large research base homogeneous subscales. scores at any given T-score level on a clinical sale some of the Harris-Lingoes subscales have Vy ly unreliable and be- few items and at cxtra-test correlates ofthe subscal ‘not be interpreted independently parent scales. The subscales should be interpreted 0n!Y when T scores are greater than 64 and when T scores on the parent scales ae also greater thatoso 38 90 32 VAINTRIN FF, Fp LK 8 no ann a7 ae Tort 98 sar 129 120 100 68 80 82 64, Interpretations of the subscales should be limited to trying co understand why high scores ined on the parent scales, Scale 1 (Hs: Hypochondriasis) catus of depressed individuals. 8 cover a variety of symproms and behaviors, including somatic complaints, worry and hopelessness chat character- or tension, denial of hostile impulses, and difft- culty in controlling one’s own thought processes. The items on Scale 2 are divided into five Hartis- Lingoes content subscales: Dy: Subjective Depression. High scorers on this subscale report that they fel unhappy or depressed, lack energy for coping with the problems of everyday life, and are not inter- ested in what goes on around them. They feel inferior, lack self-confidence, and are this subse repore that they lack energy to cope with everyday activities, feel emotionally immobilized, and avoid other people. They are denying hostile or aggressive impulses or Dy Physical Malfunctioning. High scorers on this subscale express preoccupation with their own physical functioning, deny good health, and report a vatiery of specific somat- ic symptoms. Dg Mental Dullness. High scorers on this sub- scale indicate lck of energy to cope with problems of everyday life and report tension and difficulties with concentration, atten- tion, and memory. They lack self-confidence inferior. They also report getting lit- is no longer worthwhile, Ds: Brooding. High scorers report lack of energy to and may have concluded longer worthwhile. They also report that they brood, cry, ruminate, and may feel that 25they ar losing contol oftheir thought pro- ese, Scale 3 (Hiyt Hysteria) le was constructed using patients who for which no onganic bs the orginal scale were ce- specific physical complaints or disorders, but many other items involve a denial of problems in ‘one's life and denial of social aniery. The items ‘on Scale 3 are divided inco five Haris-Lingoes content subscales: Hy: Denial of Social Anz subscale have o do people, and not being easily influenced by social standards and customs, Because this subscale has only six items and itis not possible to obtain a T score equal to or seater than 65 on this subscale, i is not help in understanding why a high score was obtained on Scale 3. Hyys Need for Affection. High scorers on this and reasonable, and they deny having nega- tive fectngs about other people, Hyy Lassitude-Malaise. High scorers on this ‘subscale report feeling uncomfortable and notin good health, They also repor feeling weal and fatigued and having dificul concentrating and sleeping, They may aso xpress fe complains ‘They deny expressing hostility toward other lon of Aggression. High scorers scale deny bi sensitive about hhow others respond to them, Seale 4 (Pas Prychopathle Deviate) ‘This measure was developed usin who were referred toa psa ification of why they had inelgence and late Feedom fom sergy neurotic o pychotic disorders. All 50 of ho items onthe original sale were retained ons MMPL2 le, Some tem on Sele 4 conc the willingness to acknowledge diff school andior with the law. Oth lac of concern ab Seley mos soil and moral yu, presence of family proh. lems, and abtence of life satisfiction, A faction (4) ofthe raw score on the K scale is added c the raw score on Scie 4, Th are divided into five Hari scale Py: Familial Discord. High subscale or their fails of origin a lacking in love understanding, and support. They fel thar their families are or have been critical and have not permitted them adequate freedom and independence. Py: Authority Problems, High scorers on this subscale express resentment of societal and parental standards and cust nite opinions about wh comfortable and confident tions, having strong things, and defendin standing why a person obvained a high sore on Scale 4, Pays Social Alienation. i them and that they get a raw Pdy Self-Allenation, High scorers on scale describe themselves as uncomfortable inhappy. They do not find dh ey may express deeds, and wi int Seale 5 (Mfi Mascul This scale was co upset about homoero shou their gender role, Sita mesure of pret oledivargene in voren 4 ear sect, ba Sel 3 vbseuey a (citron wend women Ihe, Sele bcute Sale (Pe Pgchanh leaving 56 items. Al- Lee = of the items have frankly sexual emg ate not vera in nae and. of opis inching we and frankly sexu for men and women. Afr ebaning patients who were schizophrenic disorder separate measures of che of the raw score on the K scale is added to the ‘The items on Scale 8 are ingoes content subscales: Pays Persecutory Ideas. High scorers on this subscale describe the world as a threatening, and they fee! misunderstood and and apathy, and were dead. ly opt cother people. They present themselves as 278 Seq: Lack of Ego Mastery, Cognitive. High scoters on this subscale report strange thought processes, feelings of unreality, and tyes fo sh chy ae losing Seqs ti oflge Mastery, Conative. High scor- cers on this subscale fel that life is a strain, and they may feel depressed. They also report worrying excessively and responding, {0 stress by withdrawing into fantasy and daydreaming, They may at times wish they were dead. Sys Lack of Ego Mastery, Defective Inhibition, High scorers on this subscale fel that they are not in co impulses. They may report being restless and «episodes during which they do not know what they ate doing and cannot later remember what they have done, ‘Scop Bizarre Sensory Experiences. High scorers ‘on this subscale may feel that their bodies ae changing in strange and unusual ways. sensitivity and other ‘unusual thought content, and ideas of external reference. Scale 9 (Mas Hypomania) items del with features of hypomanic distur ances (. lar ways. They may derive vicatious sa, from the manipulative exploits of o Max: Paychomotor Acceleration. High scorers on this subscale report accelerated speech thought processes, and motor activities, ‘They may feel tense, restless, and exc ‘They ate easily bored and may seek out risk, excitement, or danger as a way of overcoming the boredom. Mas: Imperturbability. High scorers on this mands on them. Scale 0 (Si: Social Introversion) ‘This scale was developed by L. E. Drake (1946) using samples of college students who scored at the extremes of the 50 Scale 0 using a m approach involving rational scale development procedures: Siys Shyness/Self-Consciousness, High scores themielves as having ki and self-confidence. They may be self‘TABLE 20. Scale 1 (He Hypochondriasia): Mplletions of Scores Score Leva rere Poses ‘Very igh (75 and abo) fstreme and sometimes buarre ‘somateconplats;posile Hg (65-74) Somat complaints may be Moderate (6-64) Somatic complains issalised, ‘verage (46-54) No terpretaton| Law low 4) No interpretation TABLE 21. Seale 2(0 Depression}: Implications 8c Moda (5-64) sett eonitarca verge (46-54) el Low (blow 45) {No imerpretaon ‘TABLE 22, Scale 3 Hy Hysteria: implications of ‘Seores TScora Leal Inerpretve Posies ‘Very High (75 on abov)Bcreme somatic compli conser conversion disorder, recuse dot High (8-74) Somatic complaints; aks insight concaing causes of Sen wey, ay Nowa (8-8) Sorbent ea mat, rage (45-54) ‘No nerprtaton Low (elw 48) ‘Wonton 29+: dogical symptoms and behaviors. Less TABLE 23, seal «(Pa Peychopatle eval Tt hese acales typical indie, FScore Ll : he ‘Very High (75 and aoe) Anne eta ube wh bw Febais tert auty ray hve High 65-70) true wa tea arta Moderate (55-68) verge 15-5) Nolereafon Low (oeow 45) No nteprttion TABLE 24, Scale 5 (Mf Masculinity-Femininity): Impleatons of Sees Fala! pie sits ine Highton) deni ae tes pe ais et ety rege 4-6) Hota (owns) Tatas ess (mae Feat ona) jas ta ee pe is ety con 6)‘ rapoten Law mows) Troe ees, ba nooessarly exclusively may be androgynous might | By for low Scale 9 scorers) Seeue 26 Scale 6 (Pa Paranoial: Implications of inferred from high scores on other scales (¢§» ih Scale 2 scores). Vay igh (7 and above) Pajchote symptoms, ncading SCALE ‘Seuied in, ctoomnent RELIABILITY OF THE CLINICAL s perce, of eterence ‘High (65-74) ‘Suspicious; may feel mistreated; ‘eceshely sensi an response ‘lo opinions of others; blames others; hore, aerate manne, ‘Moderate (55-64) Ove sensi uae distrust, ‘rage (45-54) No interpretation Low (tao 45) No inerpretation|CC oe a rams Seto = eee oe Fete pain es nas intruding thoughts; dificuity earned Sa ae eae ee ‘feel guilty: ee oS gee es os cm in (5-74) Moser (5-64) average (15-54) Low (below 48) ‘TABLE 27. Scale 8 (Se Schizophrenia): Implications of Scores ‘Score Lave ive Possibities ‘Very High (5nd above) Contused, dsorgerize Taking halucinatons andor delusion; Impaired contact wt eaty poor gman: may eect et of se forms of substance abuse andor ‘medical cortons such as enepy, stroke, rclosed-headinry ‘Unusual betes ccntc behaviors soil withdrawal excessive atasy endo daysrearing: generale ear, ately, els a0, bie; somatic complaints Lied intrest in ote people: ‘impractical teings of radequay, inseeurty No nerpettion No interpretaon High (65-74), Moderate (55-64) Average (45-54) Low (below 5) 2 le D ions TABLE 28, Seale 9 (Ma Hypomania):impltat F-core Love Intarprebve Possibies Vary Fon (75 and above) Mani spans, incudng ete, purposlss acy, halcinatins, ‘éduslons of anu caring of ideas Excessive energy; ack decton; conceptual esoganaaton, unaltc sathapprasa ow stration tolerance; impulsive Energete;pregarous, extroverted, reballous, seeks excitement crete, enterprising ‘Average (45-54) Ni narration ‘Low (bow 45) No ntarprtation High (65-74) Moderate (55-64) TABLE 29. Scale 0 (81 Soctal Inroversion): of Scores sg Score Lew Possbties ‘Very igh (75 and above) Extreme withrawal nso, indecsvo High (65-74) Introverts: emotonaly overcon- ‘role pase compliant Medea (5-64) Shy, tacks st conten; rete, dependable vaage (48-58) No iterpretaton| Low (osow 45) Etrvetd, scale, grogarous, ‘ena seliability ofthe affected scales (I, 2, 5, and 0) is ‘comparable co that ofthe other scales. ‘The internal consistency coefficients (Appen- dix Table E-4) of the clinical scales are quite vari- able. Hathaway and McKinley constructed the clinical sales with the explicit expectation that they would not all be homogeneous in content. For the clinical scales, internal consistency coeff- cients range from 34 to .85 for men and from 37 to .87 for women. As reported in Appendix Table E-1, the error ‘of measurement (SEmeas) of T scores on the clin- ical scales for men ranges from 2.74 for Seale 0 to 5.74 for Scale 6 and for women from 2.76 for ‘Scale 0 to 6.82 for Scale 8. This information is important in determining if scores on two MMPI-2 scales are significantly different from cach other and also in determining if scores for a particular person have changed significantly over time. The importance of considering the reliabi 1y of scores in interpreting parterns of scores will be discussed in the Code Types section below. CODE TYPES ‘Although each clinical scale can yield important inferences about a given test-taker, combinations of scale elevations are of even greater importance in MMPI-2 interpretation, Because persons grouped together on the bass of elevations on more than one scale are likely to be more homo- ‘geneous than those grouped together on che basis of single clinical scale elevations, the emp correlate that have been identified for code types are more likely to be stronger than correlates associated with elevated scores on a single scale, In most cases, the ordering of the scales in a code type i arbitrary; that is, a 13 code type and 31 code type are considered essentially the same, Ina few specific instances, the research, 31 ican iaaeaieeanama iia2 licerature suggests thatthe order of sales within & code ype import. Sala 5 and Oeadon- ally have not been considered in determining a sprachs coe ype inter ‘approaches ro code type interpretation Aid no ke ino secoune the ecent 0 which scales in code types wer significant elevated ot the extent vo ch the code pe wer defied As discussed earlier in relation co individual lini- cal sales, we have more confidence about the correlate of clinical sales when their scores are smote elevated. Likewise, we have more conf- dence when the sales in a code type are more clevated. We recommend that code-ype interpre- tation be limied to those cases in which che scales in the code type have T scores greater chan 4“. Definition refers co the diferences in scores between the scales in the code ype and those not in the code type. The T-score difference berween the lowest scale in the code type and the next- highest dlnical sale in the profile should be con- sidered. For example, for a two-point code type, wwe would examine the diference berween the seconde and third-highest scales. For a three- point code ype, we would examine the difference beween the thitd- and fourch-highest scales, Because the seaes of the MMPI-Z are nor per- fecty reliable, small differences berween scores should nor be considered meaningful. ‘Thus, code ypes in which there is a relatively large difference berween che lowest scale in the code type and the next highes clinical sale are ‘more readily interpretable. For code types with five or more T-score points of definition, infer- ences can be made based on previous empirical studies of particular code types. One should have ‘more confidence in inferences based on code types as che degree of definition increases. In cases where sufficient definition isnot found, ‘eode-type inferences should be considered provi- sional, and interpretation should be based pri- sarily on scores on individual sales. Inferences about the meaning of code types should be based on research findings from studies in which persons having a particular code ype hhave been characterized using a wide variery of cextravtest measures, There isan extensive research licerature concerning the cortelates of various code types. Although there are many posible ‘combinations of ewo and thre clinical scales, some combinations occur quite Fequently, others ‘only rarely. Obviously the more Fequendy occur- ring combinations are more likly to have been seudied empirically, and more information fFsberlshe dou hing he, Numerous studies of code-rype correla published forthe original MMPI (eg, aye Gcstng, 1959; Gilberstade & Duker, 19654 & Gynther, Altman, & Sletten, 1973; Marks, sman, & Halle, 1974), Several mote recen: sy ies have identified empirical correlates of MM. 2 code types (eg. Archer €al., 1995; Graham oy al, 1995) Although some differences in eon lates of particular code types have been identified in these studies, chere has been a marked deg of similarity of correlates across diferent ser Ieis beyond the scope ofthis manual o sugga iterpretve posible foreach ofthe mass code types that have been studied. Such informa, tion is readily available in recently published incerpretive guides on the MMPI-2, THE CONTENT SCALES Dring the years following the MMPI’s develop. iment, test interpreters were encouraged t0 rely exclusively on the clinical scales’ empirical corre- lates as the bass for drawing inferences about profiles. Examination of item content was consid- cred problematic because the same content might tov fem meaning sss oars and because content-based assessment was more sus- ceptible to distortion than were empitically grounded approaches. Wiggins (1966) argued thatthe wisdom of not taking responses to self- report inventories a fae value need not lead psy- chologists to conclude that such statements have no intrinsic value. Rather, he suggested that how an individual chooses to present himself or herself when responding to che MMPI items, whatever the reasoning or motivation, provides useful information that might augment what can be learned from scores on the clinical sales. To facil irate examination of the test-taker's self-present=- tion, Wiggins (1966) developed a set of 13 con- tent scales forthe original MMP Following a combined rational/empitical pro- cedure, fshioned after the approach used by ‘Wiggins (1966) in developing the original MMPI content scales, Butcher, Graham, Williams, nd Ben-Porath (1990) constructed a set of 15 on tent scale for che MMPI-2. These scales were designed to asess content arcas introduced in the ‘MMPI.2 and to assess more broadly, via items added in the revision process, areas coveraac ee eee riginal content scales. A description ofthe cee evelopment and iil flags on dey tric properties were provided by Butcher PP. (1990) 2 i tie iy oT dc onaac a as ben reported by Archer, Aiduk, Giffin, and kis (1996) Ben-Porath, Bucher, and Grahwn (1991), Ben-Porath, McCall, and Almagor (1993), Boone (1994), Brems and Lloyd (1995), Cart and Graham (1996), Clark (1994, 1996), 1, Graham, and Ort (1992), Lilienfeld 998, (cCurdy and Kell (1997), O'Laughlin and Schill (1994), Schill and Wang (1990), and Serer (1991) A comprehensive dy ofthe MMPI-2 content scales’ empirical correlates was sted by Graham eal (1999), who identified tmpiialcorlats forthe scales in alate coms tunity mental health cener sample Inverpreation of the MMPI-2 content scales is based on ewo distinct sources: the item content of the scales and their empirical correlates. Content based interpretation entails describing high sox. exson the MMPI-2 content scales in terms of their responses tothe scales’ item content. For ‘example, an individual who produces an clevated seore on the Anger (ANG) content scale can be described as reporting poor anger management skill and frequen episodes of angry outbursts, because these behaviors are embedded in the scale's items. High scorers can alo be described in terms ofthe empirical correlates ofthe content sales. For example, based on empirical ndings such as those reported by Graham et a. (1999), a high scorer on ANG can also be described as someone who has low tolerance for frustration. and is perceived by others as being hostile, To facilitace content-based interpretation of the MMPI-2 content scales, Ben-Porath and ‘Sher- wood (1993) developed subscales for 12 of the 15, ‘content scales. The MMPI-2 content component scales were constructed through a series of empit- ‘cl and rational analyses designed to identify ‘meaningful and discernible content subthemes within the parene content scales. The Anger con- tent sale his two component sales, Explonive Behavior (ANG,) and Irritabili (ANG), which 2 asst in interpreting levatons on the parent 28) Posse sub bie poles Fokatg betas Satori, ate Poss nso avr Moderate (Raw Score = 24-27) ‘May suggest substance abuse problems ‘Low (Raw Seore< 24) ‘Substance abuse problems ess ely ‘TABLE 56. AAS (Addiction Admission Scale): Descriptors for High Scorers (T > 60) ‘Acknowledging substance abuse problems History of actng-ot behaviors Family problems Impulsive Crtcal, angry, aggressive problem and 27 may suggest subst greater than 60 it admitting to substance abuse problems. i quent research has supported thisabuse problems. Low AAS svete abuse problems AS em Because TABLE 57, ay Desc APS ctcton TABLE 58. GM (Gende {Gener Ratan om asculo) tog oF Bie caeg eae Dei offer, ansng es aes ites, soma Setconoene compl very Limited vary data are available for the GM and GF scales, cis difficult to know how they should be interpreted in variouy set- ‘ings. Using dara from the MMPL-2 normat sample, Peterson and Dahlstrom (1992) found. vomen who scored higher on the GF scale were characterized by their partes in mote nee {- and Graham (2001). A brie here.‘The PSY-5 scales were designed to provide an overview of major personality trait Features for ‘mulation of person- ic waits” co be a central ingredient in the overall interpretation. The PSY- 5 scales provide an overview of ‘vant to major domains of persons differences (Butcher & Rouse, model is linked to, yet retains conceptual distinc tions from, other construct-based personality trait models such asthe Five Factor Model (Wi legen’s MPQ superfactors (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995; T man, Kuhlman, Joireman, Teta, & Kraft, 1993). ‘Thus the PSY-5 MMPI-2 scales allow the test interpreter to rapidly assemble a personality trait formulation as part of the clinical picture. The PSY-5 conceptualization of the ally have direct links to other widely used con- ceptual models of personality, opening the door to a broad array of personality research literature. from construct validity studies (Harkness et al. 1995; Trull, Useds, Costa, &¢ McCrae, 1995) as relates of the PSY-5 scales (which will appea the MMPI-2 Test Report; Harkness et al,, 2001), Test information functions based on Item Response Theory were utilized to determine whether both high and low scores should be interpreted for a given scale (Rouse, Finger, & Butcher, 1999). Aggressiveness (AGGR) PSY-5 Aggressiveness focuses on offensive and ion. Persons who score high ness (uniform T scores > 65) ing others and may use and hate. In an outpatient seting (the re-analysis of the sample described in Graham et al., 1999), ‘men and women with elevated Aggressiveness scale scores were more likely to have a history of bing physically abusive and were rated by thera- pists as having aggressive and antisocial features, Men were more likely to have histories of com- oo rittng domestic violence while women we. mor likely to have been atrested, Final, thigh Agena eal se ee by thee therapies a extroverted. Interpesa of low Aggressiveness scale scores is not cutren supported. ly Prychoticism (PSYC) PSY-5 Psychoticism ass reality. Unshared beliefs, ry and perceptual experiences, disconnection. Alienated and unr ence, loosening of associ flight of ideas (Harkness, McNulty, bisi, & Ben-Porath, 199 igh on the Psychoticism scale co report hallucinations at ad- mission. Low scores on Psychoticism should not be interpreted. f behavioral dsinhi- od by Watson and 994) 993). Although Zi Sensation Seeking Scale bears a differempirical correlations sug- personality tapped by measures of discon seeking (MeNulty eta alcohol abuse and to = bbe seen by their therapists as imistic and lacking achievement orientation. Interpretation of | oflow Nepne Ema Near are ino cane enmede linked with the corresponding social di dimension of Introvesion vers Exrovenion,Tellegen (1982, 1985) and Watson and Cla (1997) argued persuasi dilferences di ‘We retain both labels to emphasize the link be ‘ween the two a the level of broad personality domains. Men and women with high scale scores (1999) ourpatient sample, were depressed and sad during completion of a mental status exam, were rated by their therapists as having low achieve- and were anxious, depressed, introverted, and pessimistic, and complained of somatic symptoms. Women were also more likely to have been prescribed antidepressant medica- tion and to have few or no iiends. Per ith low scale scores (uniform T scores us exhibiting an extoverted/high nality pattern, tended to have seater capacity to experience pleasure and joy, were more social and energized, and were unlikely to be depressed or dysthymic. Those with extremely low scores may evidence hypomanic features. ‘MMPI-2 scales to measure the PSY-5 were de- veloped (Harkness eta, 1995) using a method that optimizes communication with test respon- dents (Harkness &¢ Hogan, 1995). Items were initially chosen by a process of replicated rational lection (many ly selectors agreting that an item tapped the intended construct) followed by subsequent psychometric refinement. The psy- chomettc properties of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales using che normative sample are shown in Table 59. In line with structural validity, alpha coeff cients of these scales are higher in clinical samples thac have greater true score variance (Harkness et 5). :mative sample intercorrelations are shown in Table 60, evidencing a lower level chan is ound among many sets of MMPI scales (Watson 8‘TABLE 59, Psychometric Properties of the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales in the MMPI-2 Normative Sample. ‘Standard Error of Measurement (T Scores) 8.79 Females (n= 1,482) Mean (Raw Scores) ‘Standard Deviation (Raw Scores) 281 ‘Alpha Goeficient| 85 Standard Error of Measurement (T Scores) 5.87 679 ‘ote KEGR = hagressveess, PSYC = Paychoicm, DISC = Disconsrait, NEG = Negative Emotionalty/Neurotcism, NAT Introversion.ow Positve Emotional. si eae 1 ise n rs & " see ‘TABLE 60. Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scale Intercorrelations in the MMPL-2 Normative Sa Psyc isc NEGE ae HGR ima = = 7 a te sve 2 = 15 0 = ise 40 2 7 8 ny nese 29 3 1 = 7 wR ~36 03 =23 43 a ‘Note AGGR = Aggressiveness, PSYC = Peychotism, DISC = Disconstrat, NEGE = Negat Inroversont.ow Postiv Emetionaty. Correlations above the agonal are for females (7 = males (= 1,138) Clark, 1984). The strongest intercorrel ‘ween Psychoticism and Negative Emot icism, at r = .50 for women and .53 for men. The level of intercorrelation is directly com- parable co the strongest intercorrelation found between domain scores on the NEO-PI-R, = ~.53 between Neuroticism and Conscien- tiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1992). Construct validity evidence has been publ in Harkness et al. (195) and Trall e al. (1995). (See Appendix Table A-12 forthe uniform T- ‘score conversions for the PSY-5 scales and ‘Appendix Table B-6 for the item composition of the scales and the scored direction ofthe items.) (Case EXAMPLES Following are two case examy ting inter- pretation of the MMPI-2 vali ical, con- tent, and supplementary scales. onalyeuroicsr, INTR = relations below the ciagonal are tor responding (VRIN pervasive t0 an ext is invalid. Although his T 4 scales are somewhat above 65, they are not high enough to suggest invalid responding, The Fr T score of 56 con! he does not seem to beMe. A has T scores greater than 64 on five of ‘curs frequently in features of the 68/86 hopathology and ir. Thinking may be 5 mn mm Seile 8 (Seto Seg) ae not particulary helpful in understanding the rent fa he ey bag efron shea bene al of hem ae very The Scale 7 score (T = 77) i alto considered ‘very high and suggests chat Mr. A is experiencing 4 great deal of psychological turmoil (eg, anx- ©, depresion), intruding thoughts, and dffical- ‘While not as high as many of the other clinical scales, the Scale 4T score of 67 is considered high and raises some concerns about the possibil- lity of asocial or antisocial anitudes and behaviors. However, referring to the subscales for Scale 4, ‘we find high scores only for Py (Social Alien ation, T = 66) and Pas (Sef Alienation, T = 77). the Pa, (Authority Prob- Jems) subscale if asocial or antisocial behaviors (Gocial Avoidance, T = 71) subscales suggese chat he is both shy and socially avoidant. These char- acteristics are consistent with a schizoid lifestyle,Sabjeve Depre motor Psa ‘Malfunctioning (D3) Mental Dullness (D4) Brooding (Ds) Denial of Social Anxiety (Hy,) Need for Affection (Hy;) Lassirude-Malaise (Hy) ‘Somatic Complaints (Hy) Inhibition of Aggression (Hy) Familial Discord (Pd, ‘Social Alienation (Pd,) SelE-Alienation (Pas) Persecutory Ideas (Pay) Poignancy (Pa,) Naivete (Pas) Social Alienation (Sey) Emotional Alienation (Sc,) Lack of Ego Mastery, Defective Inhibition (Sc) Bizarre Sensory Experiences (Scq) Amorality (Ma,) Psychomotor Acceleration (Ma,) Imperturbabilty (May) Ego Inflation (May) Shyness/SelfConsciousness(Si,) Social Avoidance (Si,) Alienation-Self and Others (Si) ‘Mr. A has high T scores on the Depression (DEP, T = 80), Bizarre Mentation (IZ, T = 70), Cynicism (CYN, T « 68), Social Discomfort (SOD, T = 78), and Negative Treatment Indicators (TRT,T » 66) content scales (see Figure 5). These content scale scores reinforce ‘many of the inferences that have already been made on the basis of the 68/86 code type and the clinical scale elevations. The patterns of scores for *mponent scales provide about Mr. A. Ie is impor ‘ant to note that he had high scores on all four of the DEP component sales, especially DEP, (Suicidal Ideation, T = 95). Although both BIZ component scale T scores were above 65, the ic Symptomatology, T = 79) scale x than the BIZ, (Schizo- experiencing frankly psych higher score on the CYN, = 68) tes emponent har other people are only interested in their own welfare and can ‘not be counted on for help and support. Thex Generalized Fearfulness (FRS,) Muleple Fears (FRS,) self Depreci Suicidal Ideation (DEP,) Gastrointestinal Symptoms (HEA,) Neurological Symptoms (HEA,) General Health Concerns (HEA) Peychotie Symptomatol Schizotypal Charactristi Explosive Behavior (ANG,) Irritability (ANG) Misanthropic Beliefs (CYN,) Interpersonal Suspiciousness (CYN,) cudes (ASP,) ial Behaviors (ASP;) Impatience (TPA) ‘Competitive Drive (TPA,) Self-Doubr (LSE,) Submissiveness (LSE,) Introversion (SOD) Shyness (SOD,) Motivation (TRT,) Inability co Disclose (TRT;) (T = 79) than of on the SOD, (Inteoversion) compo- 6 7 35 7 52 3 31 5 “ 1 48 15 n 5 68 1 40 2 58 5 n 1 45 scores on all three substance abuse scales (MAC- , AAS, and APS) are not cons Jems in this area, Although the Seress Disorder (PK) scale is high pattern of scores on the clinical scales is not simi- Jar to that of most PTSD patients. In addition, the PK scale tends to be a measure of general have many psychological resources for coping,FIGURE 5. Content Scales Profle for Case #3: Mr_A seeysssse Ff esesuss ai "ROC FRE O88 DEP VA BANG CYN ASP TPA LSE SOO FAM WAK TRF Rwsoo 4 8 8 87 ON 8 wT RH Tom ee DO MHD SD BS | oe with the demands of his life situation. The low ‘scores on the Dominance (Do, T = 30) and Soc- ial Responsibility (Re, T= 38) scales he is not likely to be very domir face ineractions and is noc particular stand present a picture ‘of a person who the MMPI2 in a valid manner ly tobe very maladjusted and may be displaying frankly psychotic symp- coms. He sees the world as a very threatening place and feels misunderstood and mistreated by others. He does not have many psychological resources for dealing with lif’s demands, and he tends to be socially withdrawn and isolated. He is ‘not very happy with his life and may fel helpless and hopeles. Persons with scores such as his ‘often receive diagnoses of schizophrenia, may receive medical referals to determine the appro- priateness of psychotropic medications, and may require a highly structured treatment environ- ment, a least until their acute symptoms are controlled. CASE EXAMPLE #4 been referred by her Past pmptoms of anxiety and depression. Ms. B is a Syearald Aficn American woman who Bes usly been college students, She has not a involved in mental health treatment of any kint She acknowledges that she has been feeling. increasingly unhappy and upset and needs some professional help, scores on the validity scales (se Figh'® 7) indicate that she approached the MMPI-2 i9*VAIN TRIN F Fy Fp Rawson 4 9 6 7 0 3-1 7 9 08 we Kiobeasind 6 4 ro aw score K 15 Po Tscore 46 50 88 70 a2 47 AY) 5 Bt 61 63 5 (RIN = 46; TRIN = ve and often feel guilty goals. Rigidity and inflexibility LOK SO Wy Ay Mt Pe mt So a oh difficulty concentrating, and fears that st be losing her mind. ce The high score on Scale 6 (T = 67) may ini- tally raise concerns about undetlying paychotic Processes, However, the score is at a level where sensitive, suspciousness, and mistrust reveals chat Ms. B's endorsement of items on this scale did not cluster in any pariclar content area. That she did not have an elevated score on the Pa; (Persecutory Ideas, T = 57) subscale is consistent with the inference chat she isnot likely to be displaying frankly psychotic symptoms. The high score on Seale 0 (T = 74) indicates chat Ms. Bis likely to be more introvereed than most peo- ple. The pattern of scores on the Seale 0 subscales suggests thatthe high Scale 0 score comes about through the endorsement of items having ro do ‘with shyness and not with social avoidance or alienation. ‘Ms, B has significantly elevated scores on seven ofthe content scales (ee Figure 8). High scores on ANX (T = 76) and DEP port co the inferences concerning anxiety, depres- sion, and other emotional turmoil. She has high scores on three ofthe four DEP content compo- nent subscales. [is noteworthy that she does not we on the DEP, (Suicidal Ides- scale. The high OBS scale score (75) is consistent with the notion of rigidity and intruding thoughts and also indicates that she is likely to have dfflealty making decisions “The high score on the Anger (ANG) content scale (T « 72) adds some new information about Ms, B, Tesuggests that she may feel angry and 49Familial Discord (Pd) ‘Authority Problems (Pd,) Social Impercurbability (Pd) Social Alienation (Pd,) Self Alienation (Pds) Social Alienation (Sey) Emotional Alienation (Sey) Shyness/SelF- Consciousness (Siy) Social Avoidance (Si,) Alicnation-Self and Others (Sis) ‘resentful much of che time and ‘Although the difference between the Explosi Behavior (ANGy, T = 61) and Inriability (ANG, T =70) content component scales does not meet the ten-point guideline suggested by the compo- nent scale authors, the fact that ANG, is lower Social Discomfort (SOD, T = 68) content scales suppor previous inferences cha Ms. Bfelsinad- Ms. B ha significantly high scores on ¥e ‘equate and insecure and is likely to be uncom- the three substance abuse scales (see Figure 7)Generalized Fearfulness (FRE) ‘Multiple Fears (FRS,) Gastrointestinal Symptoms (HEA,) ‘Neurological Symptoms (HEA,) oie Symptomatology (BIZ,) Seca @iz) Explosive Behavior (ANG,) Instability (ANG,) Misanthropic Beliefs (CYN,) Interpersonal Suspiciousness (CYN;) jal Attitudes (ASP,) Behaviors (ASP,) Impatience (TPA,) ‘Competitive Drive (TPA;) a 5 7 6 6 2 2 1 50 ion (TRT,) 5 6 Inability to Diselose (TRT,) 3 60 re on the MacAndrew Alcohol- ism Scale-Revi (MAC-R, T = 61 abuse problems, n Admission Scale (AAS) and the Addiction Potential ‘Scale (APS) raise concerns abou abuse. The high score on AAS igh score (T' = 76) on Welsh’s Anxiety {A) scale is consistent with previous inferences concern The high 8 anxiety and other emotional turmoil. Score on the Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PK) scale (T = 75) is not indicative of PTSD because the pattern of scores on the dlini- cal scales isnot very similar to that of typical ‘PTSD patients. Further, we know that the PK scale tends to be elevated when clinical scales sug gestive of emotional rurmoil (eg., 2 and 7) are high. The low score on the Ego Strength (Es) scale (T = 31) indicates that Ms. B does not have ‘many psychological resources for coping with life's demands and thar she may feel overwhelmed such ofthe time. The low score on the Domi- nance (Do) sae (T = 30) is consistent with other inferences that she is likely to be passive and submissive in relationships. The low score on 81FIGURE 6. Contont Scales Profile for Case #4: Ms. 6. 129) a. 19) 100) 90] 0} 70) 0} 50] 40) 30! “ANK FRS OBS DEP HEA BIZ ANG CYN ASP TPA LSE SOD FAM WAK TR RawScore 18 6 13 19 5 0 2 4 7 10 19:18 9 2 ‘TScore 78 48 75 73 49 39 72 42 2 56 68 GS 42 BD oy AA Es Do Re M PK MOS Ho OHMACAAAS APS GM GF Raw Score 32 22 2% 8 1 1 2 3 15 8 7 DB TScore 7% 6 31 90 88 7 75 «8 47 9 61 7B 77 0 SI the Social Responsibiry (Re) scale (T'= 35) sug- may feel angry and rese {gests that she is not particularly concerned about created by others, but the welfare ofthe larger social group of which she isa pare In summary, Ms. B's MMPI-2 scores present a ‘woman who responded to the rest items in a valid manner. She seems ro be overwhelmed by anziey, depression, somatic symptoms, and other emotional turmoil. She harbors many feelings of pared to cope with che demands ofher life. She tive changeover time,‘bis, PA &¢ Ben-Porath,Y.S. (1995), An MMPL-2infequen response se for ne wh Pay ‘chopathological populations: The Infrequency ‘Psychopathology scale, Fp. Psychological Asessmens, 7, 424-431, Archer, RP. Aiduk, R., Griffin, R, & Elkins, D, E (1996). Incremental valdiy of the MMPI.2 con- tent scales in a psychiatric sample, Asesmens, 3, 79-90 R. & Aiduk, R. (1995). MMPI-2 clinical correates forthe common codes. ity Asesoment, 65, 31-407, 72) fn ego strength sale which preics response to psychotherapy. Journal of Contlhng 17, 327-333, Beprorath . Sx & Butcher, J. N. (1989), Peychometric sabiliy of ewriten MMPI tems, Journal of Personality Asessment, 53, 645-653. N., & Graham, J. of schizophrenia and id Clinical Prychology, 3, 634-640. (1991). Contribution of the MMPI-2 content scales depression. Prychological Auezment: A Journal Ben-Porath, ¥.S., McCully, E., & Almagor, M. (1993). Incremental validity ofthe MMPL2 content © assessment of personality and psychopathology by self-report. Journal of Penomalty Sen-Porath, VS. & Sherwood, N. E. (1993). The MMPI-2 coment component ale. Minneapolis: ity of Minnesota Press. 4). Validity of the MMPI-2 Depression content scale with psychiatric inpatients, 1 74, 159-162. Srems, C., & Lloyd, P. (1995). Validation of the MMPI-2 Low Self-Esteem content sal, Journal of Personality Assesment, 65, 550-556.Butcher, JN. (Ed). 2000), Bae ore on the MMPL-2 Minneapolis: Univesity of Minnesora Ppa, iams, C. Ly & Ben-Porath, ¥. S. (1990), Development and ws iversiy of Minnesota Press. ofthe Presentation of slg Development ofan MMPI-2 scale to as ein Peranat In J. N. Butcher & C. D. Spielberger Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Butcher, J. N., & Han, ‘a superlative manner: The 19 asesment (Vol. 10, pp. Butcher, J. N. & Rouse, . V. (1996). Personality: Individual differences and clinical assessment, Annual Review of Pachology, 47, 87-111 Butcher, J. Ni, & Tellegen. A. (1966), Objections to MMPI items, Journal of Consulting Prcholog, 59, 527-534. Revision and renandardization ofthe MMPI: Rationale, normative sample, new norms, a davon. Symposium presented atthe 96th Annual Convention of the American Psychologi Assocation, Atlanta, GA. Butcher, J. N. & Willams, C. L. (2000). Esental of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A interpretation (2nd ed), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Pres. (Carr J Ly 8 Graham, J. R (1996). Assessing anger with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven tory. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds), Sirs and emotion: Ansiey, anger, and curity Vol 16, pp. 67-82). Washington, DC: Taylor and Francs. Christian, W. L, Burkhart, B. R, &¢ Gynther, M. D. (1978). Subtle-obvious ‘New interest in an old concept. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Prychology, of MMPI items 78-1186. (Clark, M. E. (1994). Interpretive limitations of the MMPI-2 Anger and Cynicism content scales. ‘Journal of Personality Asessment, 63, 89-96. (Clark, M. E. (1996). MMPI-2 Negative Treat Clinical correlates and outcome prediction for 32-38. Colligan, R. C., Osborne, D., Swenson, W. M., & Offord, K. P. (1983). The MMPI: A contemporary ‘normative sudy. New York: Praeger. ‘Cook, W. N., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed hostilcy and phar scales for the MMPL Journal of Applied Prychology, 38, 414-A18. Cost, P. T, Jt» 8 McCrae, RR. (1992). NEO-PI-R profesional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological ficators content and content component scales: Assessment Resources. Dahlstrom, W. G., Archer, R.P., Hopkins, D. G., Jackson, E., &¢ Dahlstrom, L. E. readability ofthe Minnesota Muliiphasic Personality Inventory instruments. Minneap% Minnesota Press. Dahlscrom, W. G,, Lacha, D., & Dahlstrom, L. E. (1986). MMPI patterns of American minorities Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Pres.om, W. Gu Welh, GS. 8 Dablttom, Lg vein Minneapolis Univers of Mince e072 At PY bend: Vo LCi ne Dahlstrom, W. G, Welth, G. ., & Dahlstrom, LB 197 ‘ppleation. Minneapolis: Univesiy of Minne o> * MMPY bende: Vol. Rewareh Drake LE (1946) A socal LE. self: the MMPI Jona of Ap ea ees ., & Oetting, E. R. (1959). An. Lae Pe 9). An MMPI codebook fr counclon Minneapolis: University of rake, LE & Thiede, W. B. (1948). Further validation ofthe sock Oe ia Reh 41 551-506 ™ of the social LE. scale for the MMPI, Journal Dwyer SA» Graham, JR 8 Ort EK. (1992) Poca gmptoms ana ‘ent scales. Unpublished manuscript, Kene State Univesity, Kens OL, i abrcataet Fe RD Ae Ban 22): Perchometric equivalence of the computer and books forms of the MMPI. In J. N. Butcher (Ed), Batic sure om he MMPL2 (p.539-554), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Finn, S. E. (1996). Manual for wing the MMPI-2 as «therapeutic itervetion, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Giberstad, H. & Duke, J. (1965). A handbok fr clinic and actuarial MMPI interpretation, Philadelphia: Saunders. Gough, HG. (1950). The F minus K dissimulaion index forthe MMPI. Jornal ‘Consulting Pychology, 14, 408-413, ” Gough, H. G., MeClosky, H., & Mechl, P. E. (1951). A personality scale for dominance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Prychology, 46, 360-366. Gough, H. G., McClosky, H., 8 Meth, P. B. (1952). A personality sae for social responsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Sacial Prycbology, 47, 73-80. R. (1988, August). Establishing validity of the ‘revised form of the MMPI Symposium presen- ‘96th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta, GA. | R. (2000). MMPI-2: Atsesing personality and prychopathology (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford ity Press, » Ben-Porath, Y, S., & McNulty, J. L. (1997). Empitical correlates of low scores on. in an outpatient mental health seing. Pycholoical Auesoment, 9, 386-391. (1999). MMPI-2 correlates for outpatient community ‘Minnesota Press. » Ben-Porath, Y. S., & MeNulty, J. ‘mental health settings. Minneapolis: Univesity oi Gynther, M. D., Altman, H. & Sletten, I. W. (1973). Replicated correlates of MMPI ew. The Missouri Actuarial System. Journal of Clincel Pychology, (Suppl. 39). Poin type. Harkness, A. R. (1992). Fundamental ropics in the personality disorders: Candidate trait dime from lower regions ofthe hierarchy. Prcholgical Ascssment, 4, 251-259. sions Harkness, A. R, &¢ Hogan, R. (199). Theory and measurement of tits: Two views, In J.N, p (Gd), Clinical persmality aesment: Practical approaches. New York: Oxford. | Butcher differences since for treatment planning. Harkness, A. R, & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1997). Individual (lavited Article) Personality tras. Pychological Asesment, 9, 349-360. Harkness, A. R., & Mealy, J. L. (1994). The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): sue fy the pages of diagnostic manual instead ofa dictionary. In S. Strack & M. Lorr (Eds), m, Diferentiating normal and abnormal personality. New York: Spri Harkness, A. R, MeNuly, J. L, & Ben-Porath, ¥. S. (1995). The Personality Psychopathology Fix (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Pychological Asessment, 7, 104-114. 7 Five $8 Graham, J. G. (2001). The Personality Harkness, A. R, McNulty, J. L, Ben-Porat Pychopathology Five (PSY-5) scaler. Mant M.S, Arbisi, P. A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1999, April). The or why the Big-5 docs not measure pychoticism. Paper presented jum, Huntington Beach, CA. Harkness, A. R, McNulty, J. L Fi ‘pleiometric nature of peychovciom at the 34ch Annual MMPI-2 Sym Harris, R. B., 8 Lingocs, J. C. (1955). Subscales forthe MMPI: An aid to profile interp ‘Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychiatry, University of California at San Francisco, 168). Subscales for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. San Francisco. Hants, R, & Lingoes, Unpublished manuscript, Langley Pores Hathaway, S. R. (1947). A coding system for MMPI profiles. Journal of Conrulting Prychology, 11, 334-337. 956). Seales 5 (Masculinity-Femininity), 6 (Paranoia), and 8 (Schizoph G. Dahlstrom (Eds), Basie readings on the MMPI in psychology and medi Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): 1. Construction ofthe schedule, Journal of Pycholog, 10, 249-254. Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesor ‘measurement of symptomatic depression. Journal of Prchology, 14, 73-84. 1992). Empirical assessment of marital distress: The Holmes, T. H., & Rahe, R. H, (1967). The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of Paychoromate Research, 11, 213-218.