A Comparison of the Descriptive Information from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF.

Do MMPI-2 or MMPI-2-RF profiles differ in how accurately they depict examinees? To explore this question, we examined differences in clinical descriptions of equivalent profiles from the two instruments. Fourteen valid MMPI-2 protocols from an archival private practice sample were scored as both the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF. The resulting 28 profiles were coded separately by four raters using the Midwestern Q-Sort. Examinee descriptions from the two instruments were compared in terms of their (a) similarity, operationalized by q-correlations between corresponding MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF ratings; (b) descriptive validity, operationalized by correlations with q-sorts provided by the examinees' therapists; and (c) incremental descriptive validity, operationalized by incremental prediction of the therapist q-sorts by the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF, one over the other. Descriptions from corresponding MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF score reports were highly intercorrelated. Ratings from both were valid predictors of therapist descriptions, and neither clearly outperformed the other in terms of incremental validity.

Interpretive Reliability of Six Computer-Based Test Interpretation Programs for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2.

The reliability of six Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second edition (MMPI-2) computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) programs was evaluated across a set of 20 commonly appearing MMPI-2 profile codetypes in clinical settings. Evaluation of CBTI reliability comprised examination of (a) interrater reliability, the degree to which raters arrive at similar inferences based on the same CBTI profile and (b) interprogram reliability, the level of agreement across different CBTI systems. Profile inferences drawn by four raters were operationalized using q-sort methodology. Results revealed no significant differences overall with regard to interrater and interprogram reliability. Some specific CBTI/profile combinations (e.g., the CBTI by Automated Assessment Associates on a within normal limits profile) and specific profiles (e.g., the 4/9 profile displayed greater interprogram reliability than the 2/4 profile) were interpreted with variable consensus (α range = .21-.95). In practice, users should consider that certain MMPI-2 profiles are interpreted more or less consensually and that some CBTIs show variable reliability depending on the profile.

Diagnostic reliability of MMPI-2 computer-based test interpretations.

Reflecting the common use of the MMPI-2 to provide diagnostic considerations, computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs) also typically offer diagnostic suggestions. However, these diagnostic suggestions can sometimes be shown to vary widely across different CBTI programs even for identical MMPI-2 profiles. The present study evaluated the diagnostic reliability of 6 commercially available CBTIs using a 20-item Q-sort task developed for this study. Four raters each sorted diagnostic classifications based on these 6 CBTI reports for 20 MMPI-2 profiles. Two questions were addressed. First, do users of CBTIs understand the diagnostic information contained within the reports similarly? Overall, diagnostic sorts of the CBTIs showed moderate inter-interpreter diagnostic reliability (mean r = .56), with sorts for the 1/2/3 profile showing the highest inter-interpreter diagnostic reliability (mean r = .67). Second, do different CBTIs programs vary with respect to diagnostic suggestions? It was found that diagnostic sorts of the CBTIs had a mean inter-CBTI diagnostic reliability of r = .56, indicating moderate but not strong agreement across CBTIs in terms of diagnostic suggestions. The strongest inter-CBTI diagnostic agreement was found for sorts of the 1/2/3 profile CBTIs (mean r = .71). Limitations and future directions are discussed.