Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

On This Page:ToggleHistoryVersionsAdministration10 Clinical ScalesValidity ScalesEmpirical ResearchCritical Evaluation

On This Page:Toggle

On This Page:

The term MMPI in personality assessment refers to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. This standardized psychometric test identifies personal, social, and behavioral issues in psychiatric patients.

Key Takeaways

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) works by assessing an individual’s psychological traits and providing insights into various mental health conditions by measuring their responses to a set of standardized questions or statements.

History of the MMPI

Unlike other personality tests, the MMPI was not based on any particular prevailing theories about personality, such as the five-factor model or 16 personalities. It simply measures where an individual falls on 10 different mental health scales in order to diagnose the patient and get them the proper treatment they need.

This test currently has two versions in operation, the original being the MMPI which was developed during the 1940s and is still in use.

The MMPI developed from hundreds of true/false questions that were felt would be useful in identifying personality dimensions. These questions were then given to people suffering from a variety of psychological disorders and to a group that did not suffer from any disorder.

They then identified the questions that most people suffering from a particular type of illness answered differently from those who were identified as normal. Consequently, if a person tended to answer many of the questions in the way in which paranoid people answered, it was highly likely that the individual was also paranoid.

How the Test Has Changed

Although this atheoretical approach allowed the MMPI to meaningfully capture traits that were directly related to psychopathology, the initial version was widely criticized.

Specifically, many scholars pointed to the fact that the original control group had a very small sample size and was primarily composed of young, white, and married people from the rural Midwest.

Additionally, the MMPI was attacked for using incorrect terminology and not including a wide enough range of mental health issues, such as suicidal tendencies and drug abuse (Gregory, 2004).As a result, the MMPI went through multiple stages of revision.

MMPI-2In 1989, the first major revision of this tool occurred, producing theMMPI-2. To address the concern that the initial inventory was not tested on a representative sample, the MMPI-2 was standardized based on 2,600 individuals who were from more diverse backgrounds (Gregory, 2004).Additionally, some of the items on the test were revised and some sub-scales were introduced to better help the clinicians administering the MMPI interpret the results.The MMPI-2 is meant for adults and contains 576 true/false items that typically take around one to two hours to complete.It is designed for all adults over the age of 18 and requires a sixth-grade reading level (Gregory, 2004).Although this specific test isn’t made for those who are younger than 18, an adolescent version of the MMPI has also been created.

MMPI-2

In 1989, the first major revision of this tool occurred, producing theMMPI-2. To address the concern that the initial inventory was not tested on a representative sample, the MMPI-2 was standardized based on 2,600 individuals who were from more diverse backgrounds (Gregory, 2004).Additionally, some of the items on the test were revised and some sub-scales were introduced to better help the clinicians administering the MMPI interpret the results.The MMPI-2 is meant for adults and contains 576 true/false items that typically take around one to two hours to complete.It is designed for all adults over the age of 18 and requires a sixth-grade reading level (Gregory, 2004).Although this specific test isn’t made for those who are younger than 18, an adolescent version of the MMPI has also been created.

In 1989, the first major revision of this tool occurred, producing theMMPI-2. To address the concern that the initial inventory was not tested on a representative sample, the MMPI-2 was standardized based on 2,600 individuals who were from more diverse backgrounds (Gregory, 2004).

Additionally, some of the items on the test were revised and some sub-scales were introduced to better help the clinicians administering the MMPI interpret the results.

The MMPI-2 is meant for adults and contains 576 true/false items that typically take around one to two hours to complete.

It is designed for all adults over the age of 18 and requires a sixth-grade reading level (Gregory, 2004).

Although this specific test isn’t made for those who are younger than 18, an adolescent version of the MMPI has also been created.

MMPI-AA couple of years after the MMPI-2 was released, the MMPI-A (A for adolescents) was developed to include individuals aged 14 to 18.After empirical testing revealed that 12 and 13-year-olds could not sufficiently understand the questions, 14 was deemed the cutoff for this personality inventory.To this day, there is still no version for children younger than 14. The MMPI-A contains 478 items, and adolescents are scored along the same 10 scales that are used for the MMPI-2 (Kaemmer, 1992).But why does there need to be a separate MMPI for adolescents? Doesn’t the one for adults suffice?Although the MMPI-A very closely resembles the adult version of this personality test, clinicians were concerned that there was inadequate content on the MMPI-2 (the adult version) and that the items did not cover content relevant enough to adolescents, such as items addressing relations with peers or school.They also feared that there was a lack of appropriate norms which are necessary for addressing how an individual might be deviating from such norms.Adolescence is acritical period of development, so the norms for how a 14-year-old is expected to act would not be the same as an adult whose brain is finished maturing.When trying to decide whether to use adult norms that highly pathologized children or recently-published adolescent norms which hadn’t been extensively reviewed, psychologists could not even reach a consensus.Thus, it made sense to create a completely separate version of the MMPI for this population (Kaemmer, 1992).To test the new MMPI-A and establish new norms, psychologists recruited 1,620 individuals for the normative sample and 713 individuals for the clinical sample.This new version was praised for including more relevant item content, being shorter, and having a high degree of validity (Kaemmer, 1992).The MMPI-A resembles the MMPI-2 in many ways, one being that it, too, continues to be criticized.One of the major criticisms is that the clinical sample used to establish the norms was not a representative sample. All of the individuals were in treatment facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota, so it did not reflect geographic areas around the globe.Additionally, scholars argue that there is too much overlap across the 10 different clinical scales and that even though it is shorter compared to the original MMPI, it is still too long and advanced for adolescents (Whitcomb & Merrell, 2013). As a result, a new scale was established.

MMPI-A

A couple of years after the MMPI-2 was released, the MMPI-A (A for adolescents) was developed to include individuals aged 14 to 18.After empirical testing revealed that 12 and 13-year-olds could not sufficiently understand the questions, 14 was deemed the cutoff for this personality inventory.To this day, there is still no version for children younger than 14. The MMPI-A contains 478 items, and adolescents are scored along the same 10 scales that are used for the MMPI-2 (Kaemmer, 1992).But why does there need to be a separate MMPI for adolescents? Doesn’t the one for adults suffice?Although the MMPI-A very closely resembles the adult version of this personality test, clinicians were concerned that there was inadequate content on the MMPI-2 (the adult version) and that the items did not cover content relevant enough to adolescents, such as items addressing relations with peers or school.They also feared that there was a lack of appropriate norms which are necessary for addressing how an individual might be deviating from such norms.Adolescence is acritical period of development, so the norms for how a 14-year-old is expected to act would not be the same as an adult whose brain is finished maturing.When trying to decide whether to use adult norms that highly pathologized children or recently-published adolescent norms which hadn’t been extensively reviewed, psychologists could not even reach a consensus.Thus, it made sense to create a completely separate version of the MMPI for this population (Kaemmer, 1992).To test the new MMPI-A and establish new norms, psychologists recruited 1,620 individuals for the normative sample and 713 individuals for the clinical sample.This new version was praised for including more relevant item content, being shorter, and having a high degree of validity (Kaemmer, 1992).The MMPI-A resembles the MMPI-2 in many ways, one being that it, too, continues to be criticized.One of the major criticisms is that the clinical sample used to establish the norms was not a representative sample. All of the individuals were in treatment facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota, so it did not reflect geographic areas around the globe.Additionally, scholars argue that there is too much overlap across the 10 different clinical scales and that even though it is shorter compared to the original MMPI, it is still too long and advanced for adolescents (Whitcomb & Merrell, 2013). As a result, a new scale was established.

A couple of years after the MMPI-2 was released, the MMPI-A (A for adolescents) was developed to include individuals aged 14 to 18.

After empirical testing revealed that 12 and 13-year-olds could not sufficiently understand the questions, 14 was deemed the cutoff for this personality inventory.

To this day, there is still no version for children younger than 14. The MMPI-A contains 478 items, and adolescents are scored along the same 10 scales that are used for the MMPI-2 (Kaemmer, 1992).

But why does there need to be a separate MMPI for adolescents? Doesn’t the one for adults suffice?

Although the MMPI-A very closely resembles the adult version of this personality test, clinicians were concerned that there was inadequate content on the MMPI-2 (the adult version) and that the items did not cover content relevant enough to adolescents, such as items addressing relations with peers or school.

They also feared that there was a lack of appropriate norms which are necessary for addressing how an individual might be deviating from such norms.

Adolescence is acritical period of development, so the norms for how a 14-year-old is expected to act would not be the same as an adult whose brain is finished maturing.

When trying to decide whether to use adult norms that highly pathologized children or recently-published adolescent norms which hadn’t been extensively reviewed, psychologists could not even reach a consensus.

Thus, it made sense to create a completely separate version of the MMPI for this population (Kaemmer, 1992).To test the new MMPI-A and establish new norms, psychologists recruited 1,620 individuals for the normative sample and 713 individuals for the clinical sample.

This new version was praised for including more relevant item content, being shorter, and having a high degree of validity (Kaemmer, 1992).

The MMPI-A resembles the MMPI-2 in many ways, one being that it, too, continues to be criticized.

One of the major criticisms is that the clinical sample used to establish the norms was not a representative sample. All of the individuals were in treatment facilities in Minneapolis, Minnesota, so it did not reflect geographic areas around the globe.

Additionally, scholars argue that there is too much overlap across the 10 different clinical scales and that even though it is shorter compared to the original MMPI, it is still too long and advanced for adolescents (Whitcomb & Merrell, 2013). As a result, a new scale was established.

MMPI-2 RF

Ideas and theories are constantly evolving, and there are always ways to improve upon methodological flaws in the research design.

The research world is an endless cycle of testing, publishing, receiving critiques, and retesting. And the development of the MMPI followed this same pattern. After both the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-A received backlash from the academic community, both received revisions.

This new version has been extensively tested in the empirical setting and is able to differentiate between different clinical symptoms and broader diagnoses.

It only has 338 questions, significantly fewer than the MMPI-2, and takes around 35-50 minutes to complete.

MMPI-A RF

TheMMPI-A RFwas first published in 2016 and sought to address the many criticisms that the original adolescent multiphasic inventory received.

Additionally, this version tries to do a better job of increasing discriminant validity, which occurs when non-overlapping factors do, in fact, not overlap (Handel, 2016).

The MMPI-A RF is one of the most commonly used psychological tools among the adolescent population (Whitcomb & Merrell, 2013).

MMPI-2In 1989, the first major revision of this tool occurred, producing the MMPI-2. To address the concern that the initial inventory was not tested on a representative sample, the MMPI-2 was standardized based on 2,600 individuals who were from more diverse backgrounds (Gregory, 2004).Additionally, some of the items on the test were revised and some sub-scales were introduced to better help the clinicians administering the MMPI interpret the results.The MMPI-2 is meant for adults and contains 576 true/false items that typically take around one to two hours to complete. It is designed for all adults over the age of 18 and requires a sixth-grade reading level (Gregory, 2004).Although this specific test isn’t made for those who are younger than 18, an adolescent version of the MMPI has also been created.

In 1989, the first major revision of this tool occurred, producing the MMPI-2. To address the concern that the initial inventory was not tested on a representative sample, the MMPI-2 was standardized based on 2,600 individuals who were from more diverse backgrounds (Gregory, 2004).Additionally, some of the items on the test were revised and some sub-scales were introduced to better help the clinicians administering the MMPI interpret the results.The MMPI-2 is meant for adults and contains 576 true/false items that typically take around one to two hours to complete. It is designed for all adults over the age of 18 and requires a sixth-grade reading level (Gregory, 2004).Although this specific test isn’t made for those who are younger than 18, an adolescent version of the MMPI has also been created.

In 1989, the first major revision of this tool occurred, producing the MMPI-2. To address the concern that the initial inventory was not tested on a representative sample, the MMPI-2 was standardized based on 2,600 individuals who were from more diverse backgrounds (Gregory, 2004).

The MMPI-2 is meant for adults and contains 576 true/false items that typically take around one to two hours to complete. It is designed for all adults over the age of 18 and requires a sixth-grade reading level (Gregory, 2004).

Administration

The MMPI-2 includes a restandardization of the test, which includes 567 items and takes approximately 60 to 90 minutes to complete. Like the MMPI, the updated version has 10 clinical scales with each scale having approximately 32 to 78 items each.

The vast majority of people obtain a few scores on each scale. However, those administering the test are looking for a higher-than-average score on a scale to indicate a potential problem.

There are multiple different reasons for administering the MMPI. A clinician will typically decide to administer this test to help develop treatment plans for a patient and assist with differential diagnosis.It can also be used as part of the therapeutic assessment procedure or to help answer legal questions (Butcher & Williams, 2009).Another common usage for the MMPI is to screen job candidates during the personnel selection process, where applicants are vetted, especially in careers such as law enforcement.The MMPI may also be used during college, career, and marital counseling, as well as in child custody disputes and substance abuse programs (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008).

There are multiple different reasons for administering the MMPI. A clinician will typically decide to administer this test to help develop treatment plans for a patient and assist with differential diagnosis.

It can also be used as part of the therapeutic assessment procedure or to help answer legal questions (Butcher & Williams, 2009).Another common usage for the MMPI is to screen job candidates during the personnel selection process, where applicants are vetted, especially in careers such as law enforcement.

The MMPI may also be used during college, career, and marital counseling, as well as in child custody disputes and substance abuse programs (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008).

The scores will then be converted into what are called normalized T scores, ranging from 30-120. The normal range is from 50-65, and anything outside of this range is marked as clinically significant (Framingham, 2016).

Over time, a set of standard clinical profiles, or “codetypes,” have emerged. A codetype is when two clinical scales have high T scores.

It is important to note that the MMPI-2 is not administered in a vacuum. A participant’s background is taken into account, and this test is typically not the only evaluative tool that will be given to a person. Nevertheless, the MMPI-2 itself is an incredibly valuable tool for identifying psychopathology in people around the world.

10 Clinical Scales

The MMPI is designed to evaluate the thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that make up an individual’s personality.

These clinical scales help illustrate certain forms of psychopathology that an individual may have. The 10 clinical scales are as follows:

Together, these 10 dimensions comprise the clinical scales of the MMPI. Although there are many supplementary scales, these are the main 10 that guide a clinician’s evaluation of an individual. However, to accompany these 10 scales, a series of validity scales are also used to ensure the accuracy of the results.

Validity Scales

Validity refers to how accurately a method is actually measuring what it intends to measure. A common analogy for validity involves a dart board.

If all of the arrows are close to the bullseye, that is an example of strong validity because all of the arrows are close to what they are supposed to be close to. Even if some are slightly too high and some are slightly too low, if all of the arrows are close to the middle, that indicates high validity.

For the MMPI, there are not only studies that investigate the validity of the MMPI as a tool, but the instrument itself has its own validity scales to ensure that the test taker’s answers aren’t over-reported, under-reported, or flat out dishonest. In other words, the following scales help ensure that the respondent’s answers reflect what they should actually be reflecting (Framingham, 2016):

Empirical Studies Validating MMPI

As mentioned, high validity occurs when a tool measures what it claims to be measuring. So, in the case of the MMPI, high validity means that this inventory is actually measuring different types of psychopathology as it claims to be.

In other words, if someone actually has depression and was diagnosed with depression through other means, the MMPI would be deemed valid if it also revealed depressive traits in an individual.

Specifically, a 1999 meta-analysis compared the validity of the MMPI with theRorschach inkblot test, finding very similar validity coefficients for both. A validity coefficient is a way of quantifying a test’s validity and ranges from 0-0.5, and anything that falls between 0.21-0.35 is labeled as likely to be useful. The validity coefficient was 0.3 for the MMPI and 0.29 for the Rorschach test.

Additionally, when broken down further, the researchers found that the MMPI had larger validity coefficients for studies using psychiatric diagnoses and self-report measures, but the Rorschach had higher validity coefficients for studies that used objective criterion variables (Hiller et al., 1999).

Another study measured the extent to which the MMPI can discriminate between sex offenders and controls. In the study, 479 men took the MMPI and were scored on scales measuring sexual behavior and deviance, substance abuse, personality, violence, and more.

The examination of these scales revealed that the MMPI could help to screen sex offenders at a rate that is better than chance, demonstrating that this is a valid tool for correctly identifying sex offenders (Langevin et al., 1990).

Validity studies don’t only measure the MMPI in general, but some studies measure the validity of the validity scales themselves. For example, one study looked at the validity of the FBS scale which is used to identify individuals who are over-reporting somatic symptoms.

The researchers measured associations between scores on the MMPI-FBS scale and a symptom validity test (SVT) in 127 criminal defendants and 141 civil claimants. The researchers found that scores on the FBS were, in fact, associated with SVT failure (incorrectly reporting symptoms) in both the criminal and civil defendants (Wygant et al., 2007).

This study helps support the utility of the FBS as an indicator of inaccurate reporting of both somatic and cognitive complaints.Another study observed the validity of the F and Fp scales in detecting psychopathology in a criminal forensic setting.

One hundred twenty-five criminal defendants were given a Structured Interview of Reported Symptoms (SIRS) and the MMPI-2 RF. The results revealed that the two MMPI-2 RF scales created to detect over-reported psychopathology were able to properly differentiate between those who were actually ill and those who were faking it, supporting the validity of these scales (Sellbom et al., 2010).

Together, these studies help to demonstrate that the MMPI-2 is a valid test. Not only does it have validity scales in place, but these scales themselves are valid too.

Empirical Research

Research on the MMPI-2 extends beyond its validity. Several research studies have examined this tool in various settings and with different populations. One study relied on the MMPI-2 for identifying key disorders among battered women in transition.

Of the 31 women who were evaluated, 90% scored high on the psychopathy, paranoia, and schizophrenia scales (Khan et al., 1993). This study demonstrates how the MMPI-2 can be used in the clinical setting to not only help diagnose but to then help identify proper intervention strategies once an individual’s symptoms are identified.

And because these symptoms were so universally prevalent, it helps clinicians target treatment approaches among a wider population.Another population that has been targeted is college students.

Specifically, one study administered the MMPI-2 to 515 male and 797 female college students from four different universities. The researchers found that college students respond to the MMPI-2 in a very similar manner to the normative sample (Butcher et al., 1990).

This helped to demonstrate that the MMPI-2 norms are appropriate for college participants.One notable setting in which the MMPI-2 has been studied is the workplace. Bullying at work, defined as exposure to psychological violence and harassment, can place an unnecessary strain on employees and greatly affect their productivity.

The study attempted to use the MMPI-2 to identify psychological correlates of bullying among 85 former and current victims. The researchers found that bullied victims had an elevated personality profile on the MMPI-2 and that the personality profiles of the victims were directly related to the type and intensity of behaviors the victim experienced (Matthiesen & Einarsen, 2001).

These are just a couple of examples that serve to demonstrate the expansive literature on the MMPI-2. Researchers target varying populations, settings, and even versions of this test.

Critical Evaluation

Although it is clear that the MMPI-2 is a widely used and highly valid test, it does not come without its criticisms.One major criticism is racial disparity (McCreary & Padilla, 1977).

Studies done in divergent populations such as incarcerated people, medical patients, and high school students have found that Black respondents usually score higher than whites on many of the scales.

However, researchers note that there is not a higher level of psychopathology among racial and ethnic minorities, pointing to flaws in the test design as an explanation for this disparity instead.

Another main criticism relates to the validity of the FBS scale. Butcher and colleagues (2008) argue that is not actually measuring the degree to which participants are over-reporting their symptoms.

They also claim that this scale has the potential for bias against women, those with disabilities and physical illness, psychiatric inpatients, and those exposed to traumatic situations.

Finally, they note that the criteria used to define malingering (exaggerating or feigning illness) is not replicable.

In a separate paper, the same researchers argued that the MMPI-2 RF is not a viable replacement for the MMPI-2 in certain crucial evaluations, such as when dealing with child custody cases (Butcher & Williams, 2012).

However, there is a lot of pushback from the scientific community on Butcher and Williams’ critique, arguing that it is misleading and that the examples the researchers include are cherry-picked.

FAQs

How many different scales are used to compile a profile from the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)?The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) uses 10 clinical scales to compile a profile. However, in its latest version, MMPI-2-RF, there are 50 scales, including validity, substantive, and supplementary, to provide more detailed personality and psychopathology assessments.What is one main difference between the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) and the Rorschach inkblot test?One main difference is that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a self-report inventory with specific, structured questions, while theRorschach Inkblot Testis a projective test where individuals interpret ambiguous inkblots, revealing unconscious desires and conflicts.What is the purpose of the MMPI?The purpose of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is to assess and measure various aspects of an individual’s personality, mental health, and psychopathology, providing valuable insights for clinical diagnosis, treatment planning, and research in fields such as psychology, psychiatry, and counseling.

How many different scales are used to compile a profile from the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)?The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) uses 10 clinical scales to compile a profile. However, in its latest version, MMPI-2-RF, there are 50 scales, including validity, substantive, and supplementary, to provide more detailed personality and psychopathology assessments.

How many different scales are used to compile a profile from the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI)?

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) uses 10 clinical scales to compile a profile. However, in its latest version, MMPI-2-RF, there are 50 scales, including validity, substantive, and supplementary, to provide more detailed personality and psychopathology assessments.

What is one main difference between the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) and the Rorschach inkblot test?One main difference is that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a self-report inventory with specific, structured questions, while theRorschach Inkblot Testis a projective test where individuals interpret ambiguous inkblots, revealing unconscious desires and conflicts.

What is one main difference between the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) and the Rorschach inkblot test?

One main difference is that the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a self-report inventory with specific, structured questions, while theRorschach Inkblot Testis a projective test where individuals interpret ambiguous inkblots, revealing unconscious desires and conflicts.

What is the purpose of the MMPI?The purpose of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is to assess and measure various aspects of an individual’s personality, mental health, and psychopathology, providing valuable insights for clinical diagnosis, treatment planning, and research in fields such as psychology, psychiatry, and counseling.

What is the purpose of the MMPI?

The purpose of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is to assess and measure various aspects of an individual’s personality, mental health, and psychopathology, providing valuable insights for clinical diagnosis, treatment planning, and research in fields such as psychology, psychiatry, and counseling.

References

Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2012). Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form) manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in mental health, forensic, and nonclinical settings: An Introduction.Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 119-121.

Briggs-Myers, I., & Myers, P. B. (1995). Gifts differing: Understanding personality type.

Butcher, J. N., Gass, C. S., Cumella, E., Kally, Z., & Williams, C. L. (2008). Potential for bias in MMPI-2 assessments using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS).Psychological Injury and Law, 1(3), 191-209.

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Dahlstrom, W. G., & Bowman, E. (1990). The MMPI-2 with college students.Journal of Personality Assessment, 54(1-2), 1-15.

Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (2009). Personality assessment with the MMPI‐2: Historical roots, international adaptations, and current challenges.Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 1(1), 105-135.

Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (2012). Problems with using the MMPI–2–RF in forensic evaluations: A clarification to Ellis.Journal of Child Custody, 9(4), 217-222.

Framingham, J. (2016). Minnesota Multiphasic personality Inventory (MMPI). Retrieved from https://psychcentral.com/lib/minnesota-multiphasic-personality-inventory-mmpi#What-Does-the-MMPI-2-Test?

Gregory, R. J. (2004). Psychological testing: History, principles, and applications. Allyn & Bacon.

Handel, R. W. (2016). An introduction to the Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory-adolescent-restructured form (MMPI-A-RF).Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 23(4), 361-373.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. The Journal of Psychology, 10(2), 249-254.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley J. C. (1942). Manual for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The MMPI. Minneapolis.

Hiller, J. B., Rosenthal, R., Bornstein, R. F., Berry, D. T., & Brunell-Neuleib, S. (1999). A comparative meta-analysis of Rorschach and MMPI validity.Psychological Assessment, 11(3), 278.

Kaemmer, B. (1992). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent Version (MMPI-A): Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation.

Khan, F. I., Welch, T. L., & Zillmer, E. A. (1993). MMPI-2 profiles of battered women in transition.Journal of Personality Assessment, 60(1), 100-111.

Langevin, R., Wright, P., & Handy, L. (1990). Use of the MMPI and its derived scales with sex offenders: I. Reliability and validity studies.Annals of Sex Research, 3(3), 245-291.

Matthiesen, S. B., & Einarsen, S. (2001). MMPI-2 configurations among victims of bullying at work. European Journal of work and organizational Psychology, 10(4), 467-484.

Sellbom, M., Toomey, J. A., Wygant, D. B., Kucharski, L. T., & Duncan, S. (2010). Utility of the MMPI–2-RF (Restructured Form) validity scales in detecting malingering in a criminal forensic setting: A known-groups design.Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 22.

McCreary, C., & Padilla, E. (1977). MMPI differences among black, Mexican‐American, and white male offenders.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 33(S1), 171-177.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Development, validation, and interpretation.

Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form) technical manual. Minneapolis. University of Minnesota Press.

Tupes, E. C., & Christal, R. E. (1992). Recurrent personality factors based on trait ratings.Journal of personality, 60(2), 225-251.

Whitcomb, S., & Merrell, K. W. (2013). Behavioral, social, and emotional assessment of children and adolescents. Routledge.

Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Stafford, K. P., Freeman, D. B., & Heilbronner, R. L. (2007). The relation between symptom validity testing and MMPI-2 scores as a function of forensic evaluation context.Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(4), 489-499.

Further Reading

Saul McLeod, PhD

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul McLeod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

Charlotte RuhlResearch Assistant & Psychology GraduateBA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard UniversityCharlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.

Charlotte RuhlResearch Assistant & Psychology GraduateBA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl

Research Assistant & Psychology Graduate

BA (Hons) Psychology, Harvard University

Charlotte Ruhl, a psychology graduate from Harvard College, boasts over six years of research experience in clinical and social psychology. During her tenure at Harvard, she contributed to the Decision Science Lab, administering numerous studies in behavioral economics and social psychology.