Mmpi Critical Literature Review

Running Head: LITERATURE REVIEW: MMPI ORIGINAL TO MMPI-2

Literature Review: why the MMPI original was changed to the MMPI-2

By

Addam Brown

A Paper Presented in Fulfillment Of the Requirements of

PSY7610 – Tests and Measurements

Addam Brown

Spring Quarter, June, 2012

Abstract

The development of the original MMPI reflected diverse aspects allied to the evaluation of personality attributes. The procedure which was designed by Hathaway with McKinley voluntarily classified approximate 504 selected items which were as well categorized under 25 headings so as to avoid replication. However, the process as was never managed to explore other pertinent personal issues. In examining its validity diverse scholars saw it necessary to seek an alternative measure which would be more dependent and reliable. However, according to varied personality factor assessment studies this was proved to be flawed since the results acquired using MMPI had noticeable discrepancies. This was established by the pioneer’s conviction where they assumed items keyed in MMPI   were compactly diagnostically analogous. However, this assumption was found to unreliable after the its review. In this process MMPI-2 was developed. From the clinical perspective it is open that the desire to embrace all spheres of personality factors evaluation contributed to the development of MMPI-2 which has more advanced validity scales and has a low ranking in regard to the misrepresentation or duplication of results. As established in marital distress scale the scope of using MMPI-2 was more concentrated than using MMPI. The discrepancies were as a result of individual situational preferences which were not captured when using MMPI. Hence, as the patterns which emerged it became obvious that MMPI could not solve the surfacing personality assessment instability due to the changing social factors. The creation of MMPI-2 as a multiscale measurement has thus evolved to be a strong process of quantifying personality evaluation.

Table of Contents

Introduction        1

The Scope Being Measured        3

Development of the MMPI-2        5

Objective of the Study        8

Article Summaries        9

Usage of MMPI-2        15

Discussion        19

Conclusion        22

Introduction

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory or MMPI was created in the wake of 1930s by two University of Minnesota. Those involved were psychiatrist JC McKinley and psychologist Starke R Hathaway. The procedure is one of the highly exploited clinical assessment tools today, and it is also among those psychological tests ever known. However, after the procedure was first published, medical personnel as well as academic intellectuals began to doubt the accuracy of the process. Critics argue that the primary sample group was unsatisfactory. Another group noted that the results exhibited probable bias, while on the other hand another group observed that the test contained both sexist as well as racist questions. In regard to this, the Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory was subject to radical review in the 1980s. A number of the initial questions were dropped while others were paraphrased and others were included. In this way, new validity score balances were integrated in the revised process. The revised process was released in early 1989 as the MMPI-2. As the test was critically reviewed in 2001; the MMPI-2 was still in use. However, back in 1992 an adaptation designed for young adolescent was introduced, MMPI-A. The initial MMPI was created using a well designed empirical identification process. This indicates that the clinical scales were acquired by selecting specific items which were anchored on patients established to have been initially diagnosed with specific pathologies. The discrepancy involving this and other tests or tools employed showed that this test was not based on any specific theory (Arbisi, et al, 1995). And this may explain why the test was based on diverse human aspects that were recognizable and were imperative despite the changes that were being effected or implemented in regard to diverse clinical theories. The initial scope of the MMPI was to provide rates for all imperative stages of personality. The test was employed to evaluate attributes that expose ones personal as well as social maladjustment, While MMPI-2 was designed to usher in a more advanced evaluation the primary version. It is widely accepted that the original process was flawed and had used a language that was also biased. This observation necessitated the development of MMPI-2 which was considered a reliable procedure of assessment. Critical evaluations over the years have shown that MMPI-2 is permitted the involved test administrator to make inferences in regard to the patient’s common attitudes as well as his way of thinking. Equally, the outcomes of the test allow the examiner to verify the severity of the examined conditions, outlook on life, procedures of problem handling, possible diagnosis, including the projected or anticipated likely issues in treatment. Conversely, MMPI is typically employed in numerous clinical environments. Basically, MMPI it is commonly employed as process of handling inpatient psychiatric evaluation, outpatient assessment as well as differential analysis. However, for MMPI-2 has been employed as a personal evaluation procedure for pilots, firefighters as well as law enforcement personnel’s. Unlike MMPI, for instance, MMPI-2 has become a reliable tool in evaluating personality attributes in other cultural dimensions and this makes it possible to evaluate or correlate results within diverse cultures. Similarly, MMPI-2 is heavily exploited by expert eyewitnesses in forensic environments as a segment of an appraisal of accused mental stability, specifically in regard to areas concerning criminal convictions (Lees-Haley, 1992).

The scope of being measured

According to Hathaway the real objective of formulating the test, that is, MMPI was a consequence of incessant reports of insulin shock treatment in addition to schizophrenics. Testimonies of the success of the insulin diagnosis and treatment were observed to be from either zero or 100 percent. Basically, medical institutions exploiting this procedure did not have a reliable mechanism to identify patients who were in need of urgent treatment. In this way, it is argued Hathaway saw a pertinent requirement for objective diagnostic evaluation that would yield reliable outcomes as well as permit hospitals to opt who would gain from specific treatment. It is likely that Hathaway together with McKinley desired to design a simple process or test that would allow the evaluation of diverse models of personality as well as emotional disorders for the sole objective of identifying normal personalities with those psychological disorders. In this way it was anticipated psychologists would have an easy way in assigning diagnosis to persons showing particular traits of mental instability (Archer, et al, 2001). The existing premise of etiology as well as the preservation of chronic pain stresses its complex nature. These theories tend to encompass cognitive, sensory, as well as behavioral features allied to pain. According to clinical evaluations these pain patterns require an explicit evaluation of the concerned patient. Hence, such an assessment is paramount in regard to understanding each and every sphere of the chronic pain patient. The significance of such a measure is to understand and determine the effective treatment procedures. Such procedures go beyond traditional clinical procedures. To completely undertake this complex clinical appraisal, psychological evaluations are typically employed. It ought to be noted that the traditional MMPI was previously employed as standardized personality evaluation with chronic pain patients. This ascertained that any test or tool employed in this process had to incorporate demographic, medical, as well as psychological information (Bacchiochi, et al, 2006). The objective of this process in chronic pain management is to identify personality as attributes of the conventional chronic pain patient. Using these tests and in particular MMPI-2 it becomes instrumental to note why it was imperative to employ the developed aspects of explaining or identifying the pertinent features foe exposing etiologic aspects in regard to chronic pain conditions. In this way, the process has evolved to be a paramount tool in steering clinicians in handling allied treatment programs as well as forecasting or identifying any instances of premorbid pain (Bagby, et al, 1995; Bagby, et al, 1997). In this way, the test helps in assessing the constellation of diverse factors concerning specific patient pain issues.