Personality Assessment With the MMPI-2; Historical Roots, International Adaptations, And Current Challenges

Personality Assessment with the MMPI-2:Historical Roots, International Adaptations, and

Current Challenges

James N. Butcher* and Carolyn L. Williams1

University of Minnesota, USA

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is the mostwidely used personality test in psychological practice. Although originally devel-oped during the middle of the last century in the United States, its use todayextends around the world. The MMPI-2 is a robust measure given its strongempirical tradition and many innovations. Recent years have seen controversialchanges to this standard of psychological assessment. New scales were added in2003 (i.e. the Restructured Clinical or RC Scales) and the Fake Bad Scale (FBS)was included in the MMPI-2 in 2007. A new instrument called the MMPI-2Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) was released in 2008 with the RC Scalesreplacing the well-validated MMPI-2 Clinical Scales; 40 per cent of its itemseliminated; a shortened FBS included; and most of its 50 scales introduced forthe first time. This article traces the history of the evolvingMMPI-2 with specialattention to its international applications, and offers a perspective on the radicaldeparture from past MMPI-2 research represented by the RC Scales, FBS, theMMPI-2-RF, and other recent changes to this standard in the field.

Keywords: Fake Bad Scale, FBS, FBS-r, MMPI, MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, RCScales, Restructured Clinical Scales

INTRODUCTION

Minnesota celebrated its 150th anniversary as a state in 2007, and to mark theoccasion, the Minnesota Historical Society selected 150 Minnesota notables

* Address for correspondence: James N. Butcher, Department of Psychology, University ofMinnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. Email: [email protected]

1 Each author participated in the development of the MMPI-2 andMMPI-A, including manyof their existing scales. Neither author receives income for their contributions to those instru-ments. The first author developed a computerised interpretive system, the Minnesota Reports,for the original MMPI and updated it for the MMPI-2. His co-author on this paper is also aco-author on the Adolescent Interpretive System of the Minnesota Report and consults on theother Minnesota Reports. Each author receives royalties from the University of Minnesota Pressfor the Minnesota Reports. The authors provide a comprehensive disclosure statement at http://www1.umn.edu/mmpi/disclosure.php.

APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: HEALTH AND WELL-BEING, 2009, 1 (1), 105135doi:10.1111/j.1758-0854.2008.01007.x

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ,UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.

and accomplishments to highlight (Roberts, 2007). TheMinnesotaMultipha-sic Personality Inventory (MMPI, MMPI-2)2 was selected, which undoubt-edly would have surprised its developers, psychologist Starke Hathaway andpsychiatrist J.C. McKinley. In fact, writing in 1959, Hathaway describedhaving been rejected multiple times by publishers before the University ofMinnesota Press accepted the MMPI for publication in 1941 (Hathaway,1972). The previous year, 1940, marked the first journal articles on theMMPI, establishing its methodology and shaping the direction of clinicalpsychological assessment for the next 70 years (Hathaway & McKinley,1940a, 1940b). The following year marked the publication of the instrument,then called the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Schedule (Hathaway &McKinley, 1942). To date, more than 19,000 books and articles have beenpublished on the MMPI instruments and the test is used in many settingsaround the world. In fact, the MMPI and MMPI-2 are among the mostwidely used personality measures in practice (e.g. Camara, Nathan, &Puente, 2000; Dai, Zheng, Ryan, & Paolo, 1993).Hathaway and McKinley (1940a, 1940b, 1942) originally developed the

MMPI for use in medical or psychiatric clinics and its use in those settingscontinues (e.g. Butcher, 2006). It is also widely used outside of medical andmental health settings for personnel screening for sensitive jobs like airlinepilots, police, or nuclear power plant operators (Butcher, Ones, & Cullen,2006). There is significant use of the MMPI-2 in forensic settings as well (e.g.Greene, 2007; Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2006), including for correctional (e.g.Megargee, 2006; Sneyers, Sloore, Rossi, & Derksen, 2007), family custody(e.g. Ezzo, Pinsoneault, & Evans, 2007), and personal injury evaluations(e.g. Butcher & Miller, 2006; Livingston, Jennings, Colotla, Reynolds, &Shercliffe, 2006).

INTERNATIONAL APPLICATIONS OF THE MMPI AND MMPI-2

Efforts at translating and adapting the MMPI to other languages and cul-tures began during the post-World War II period. Such dissemination cameabout in several ways. Many international scholars initiated visits withMMPI researchers at the University of Minnesota: Hathaway (e.g. Nunezfrom Mexico) and Butcher (e.g. Jing from China) or Dahlstrom at the Uni-versity of North Carolina (e.g. Hama from Japan). Pre-doctoral students andpost-doctoral fellows at the University of Minnesota developed several adap-tations (e.g. Gur from Israel, Emiru from Ethopia, Sarma from Latvia, Han

2 The MMPI family includes a version for adolescents, the MMPI-A (Butcher et al., 1992);however, it will not be covered in this article except to note that there are 16 translations of theMMPI-A and an international case book (Butcher et al., 2000) is available online at http://www1.umn.edu/mmpi/adolescent.php

106 BUTCHER AND WILLIAMS

2009 The Authors. Journal compilation 2009 International Association of AppliedPsychology.

from Korea, Pongpanich from Thailand). Finally, international scholarsbecame involved in adaptations after attending one of the MMPI/MMPI-2meetings or International Personality Assessment conferences sponsored bythe University of Minnesota.Perhaps one of the earliest MMPI translations was undertaken by a promi-

nent Cuban psychologist, Idelfonso Bernal del Riesgo, in consultation withStarke Hathaway, who spoke Spanish and was interested in Latin America(Quevedo & Butcher, 2005). The CubanMMPI, released in 1951, was initiallyused in private practice, but came to be used in the public mental health sectoreven after the 1959 Cuban Revolution and the increasing influence of Sovietpsychology (Quevedo & Butcher, 2005).Other pioneering MMPI adaptations occurred in Italy by Reda in 1948

(Pancheri, Sirigatti, & Biondi, 1996), in Germany (Sundberg, 1956), and inJapan by Abe in 1955 (Butcher & Pancheri, 1976). In the years that followed,the MMPI came to be widely used in 46 countries (Butcher, 1996; Butcher &Pancheri, 1976). Butcher and Pancheri (1976) reported on MMPI adapta-tions in Pakistan, Israel, Costa Rica, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Switzerland,Belgium, Puerto Rico, Spain, and Denmark; described some of the earlywork on cross-national computer interpretations;3 and included an appendixof 35 MMPI adaptations. Two decades later, Butcher (1996) listed MMPI-2adaptations into Arabic, Chinese, Farsi, Flemish/Dutch, French, Greek,Hebrew, Hmong, Icelandic, Italian, Japanese, Korean, Norwegian, Russian,Spanish, Thai, Turkish, and Vietnamese.Interestingly, the MMPI was used and researched during the Cold War in

countries like the former Soviet Union (Koscheyev & Leon, 1996), Iran(Nezami & Zamani, 1996) and, as described above, Cuba (Quevedo &Butcher, 2005). Even though these governments had disagreements with theUS, psychologists in these countries used the MMPI in government-relatedactivities such as cosmonaut selection (Koscheyev & Leon, 1996) and navypersonnel screening (Nezami & Zamani, 1996).The MMPI and MMPI-2 have been adapted for Asian populations in

China and Hong Kong (Cheung, Song, & Zhang, 1996), Korea (Han, 1996),and Thailand (Pongpanich, 1996). At one point, there were 15 competingtranslations of the MMPI in Japan (Clark, 1985). However, a single Japanesetranslation of the MMPI-2 was accomplished concurrently with the MMPIRestandardization Project (Shiota, Krauss, & Clark, 1996). More recently,Cheung and Butcher (2008) conducted a case study in which 15 patients fromHong Kong were administered the MMPI-2 and the protocol was processedthrough a computer-based interpretation program based on the US norms.

3 A full discussion of international computerised MMPI and MMPI-2 interpretations isbeyond the scope of this article.

PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT WITH THE MMPI-2 107


The computer-derived narratives were found to substantially match thesymptoms and problems reported by the patients psychologist.The US is a multicultural society with a large and increasing population of

Spanish-speaking individuals, as well as others with limited English profi-ciency. Even though the test is widely used internationally, its appropriate-ness with American minorities has been questioned (e.g. Dana, 2005; Hays,2001). Much has been written in the US about cultural factors that can affectpsychological assessment and how to use the MMPI-2 with minorities (e.g.Butcher, Cabiya, Lucio, & Garrido, 2007; Garrido & Velasquez, 2006; Gray-Little, in press; Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999; Hays, 2001). In addition to thetranslations of the MMPI-2 in other countries, there are several versions ofthe instrument for use with non-English speaking people living in the US,including Vietnamese (Tran, 1996), Hmong from Laos (Deinard, Butcher,Thao, Vang, & Hang, 1996), and Spanish (Butcher et al., 2007).A successful adaptation of the MMPI-2 to another culture (either within a

multicultural society like the US or across national boundaries) entails farmore than just assuring a solid linguistic translation, although that is anessential process (Geisinger & Carlson, in press). Butcher and Pancheri (1976)and Butcher (1996) document the research procedures underlying the adap-tation process. These include, for example, procedures for test item transla-tions, assuring psychological equivalence of items, pretest field studies,bilingual retest methods, development of culturally appropriate norms, andvalidity studies in the target culture. When such procedures are completed,the resulting adaptation of the MMPI or MMPI-2 is recognisable to expertsaround the world.Fowler (2008) described an experience with an MMPI adaptation on his

first visit to China in 1980 at a small psychiatric clinic in Chengdu, Sichuanprovince. Shortly after he arrived, the only psychologist at the clinic handedhim an MMPI profile on one of their patients. Fowler was somewhat takenaback to see such a familiar American profile in this distant clinic, but aftera few moments of recovery from his surprise, he proceeded to give therequested interpretation of the MMPI, carefully prefacing it with, Wellif this were a patient in the United States I would say . . .. When he wasthrough with his interpretation, the Chinese psychologist promptly said,Ah, that is just what I thought about the patient.

WHAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE SUCCESS OF THEMMPI AND MMPI-2?

A number of reasons can be found for the broad research attention, clinicalapplication, and international adaptation of the MMPI instruments. First,the original developers, Hathaway and McKinley, had a unique vision,carefully selected an item pool that covered the symptoms of patients in



psychiatric and medical clinics, and then insisted on rigorous research todevelop the MMPI scales. Hathaway and McKinley (1940a, 1940b, 1942)required that the items and the scales they incorporated into their multipha-sic inventory had to demonstrate empirically the personality characteristicsand symptom clusters the scales were supposed to predict.Hathaway and McKinley also recognised that the validity and utility of an

individuals self-report could be compromised by test-taking attitudes. Insome circumstances individuals may want to distort responses to test itemsin order to present a particularly virtuous presentation of self or to avoidadmission of psychological problems (i.e. under-reporting). Other timesindividuals may want to present as psychologically disturbed (i.e. over-reporting). Another major innovation of Hathaway, McKinley, and Meehlwas the development of three Validity Scales to assess these test-taking atti-tudes on the MMPI (Bagby, Marshall, Bury, Bacchiocchi, & Miller, 2006):the L Scale that measured an unsophisticated and virtuous self-presentation;the F Scale based on the endorsement of rare or infrequent symptoms; andthe K Scale, a measure of overly defensive responding (Hathaway & McK-inley, 1942; Meehl & Hathaway, 1946). While other validity measures havebeen added to the MMPI-2 over time, the L, K, and F scales remain astandard part of an MMPI-2 evaluation and each has received substantialempirical support since their introduction in the 1940s (Bagby et al., 2006).In addition to the Validity and Clinical Scales, early developers added

measures of normal personality. For example, the MMPI and MMPI-2include measures of personality constructs such as Ego Strength (Es; Baron,1953), Dominance (Do; Gough, McClosky, & Meehl, 1951), Responsibility(Re; Gough, McClosky, & Meehl, 1952), and Social IntroversionExtraversion (Si; Drake, 1946). Hathaway andMcKinleys encouragement ofthe leading researchers of the day to work on the MMPIs development isanother crucial reason for the instruments success. Their openness to othersprovided a model for the field that eventually led to the broad expansion ofthe instrument, not only in the US, but internationally as well. Eventuallythousands of psychologists contributed external validation for the originalMMPI scales and their construct validity was firmly established. Frequently,this research was the result of countless PhD theses, as in the case of the twoauthors of this article.Over the years, Hathaway and McKinleys empirical scale development

method was augmented by other approaches to scale construction such asdeductive methods, which resulted in the MMPI Content Scales (Wiggins,1966) and the MMPI-2 Content Scales (Butcher, Graham, Williams, &Ben-Porath, 1990); or the factor-analytic approach resulting in scales suchas the Welsh Anxiety and Repression scales (Welsh, 1956) and the PSY-5scales (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995). In fact, by 1975, there were455 scales for the original MMPI (Dahlstrom, Welsh, & Dahlstrom, 1975).



Eventually, more scales were developed for the MMPI than there were itemson the test, and included scales like the Tired Housewife, Worried Bread-winner, and Success in Baseball (Dahlstrom et al., 1975), or others thatsimply duplicated existing scales.Because of this proliferation of scales, Butcher and Tellegen (1978) pre-

sented guidelines for evaluating the utility of new MMPI scales. Theseincluded comparing the reliability and validity of any new scale with estab-lished, widely used MMPI scales. Only those new scales that produced scoresof greater reliability and validity, or those assessing constructs not measuredby existing scales, meet the criteria for new scales suggested by Butcher andTellegen (1978). A number of authors (Butcher, Graham, & Ben-Porath,1995; Butcher, Graham, Kamphuis, & Rouse, 2006; Butcher & Williams,2000) continued to emphasise the importance of fully exploring the relation-ships of new measures with existing scales on the MMPI-2 in order to dem-onstrate their uniqueness and/or greater reliability and validity.Hathaway and McKinleys (1940a, 1940b, 1942) version of the MMPI

lasted 50 years until an extensive program of research was completed andthe MMPI-2 was published in 1989 and the MMPI-A in 1992. The MMPIRestandardization Project involved modification and expansion of the itempool; collecting a representative sample from the general population in theUS for developing new norms; and collection of a broad variety of clinicaland other research samples (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &Kaemmer, 1989; Butcher & Williams, 2000).

ATTEMPTS TO DEVELOP MMPI AND MMPI-2 SHORT FORMS

Another active research area in the 1970s and 1980s involved efforts to reducethe number of items on the test, while still retaining the broad-based clinicalassessment provided by the MMPI. Several short forms of the MMPI weredeveloped, including the Mini-Mult (Kincannon, 1968), the FaschingbauerAbbreviated MMPI (FAM; Faschingbauer, 1974), and the MMPI-168(Overall & Gomez-Mont, 1974). Short forms have also been attempted forthe MMPI-2 (e.g. Dahlstrom & Archer, 2000; McGrath, Terranova, Pogge,& Kravic, 2003). Unfortunately, these shortened forms did not capture themeanings of the full MMPI scale scores (Butcher & Hostetler, 1990; Butcher,Graham, et al., 2006; Dahlstrom, 1980; Gass & Luis, 2001) and this failure toperform as alternative forms resulted in their not being widely adopted inclinical assessment.Earlier, Hathaway (1972, p. ix) had cautioned MMPI researchers about

the need for at least 30 MMPI items to measure the constructs in the ClinicalScales, and, if a criterion group was not homogeneous, as with schizo-phrenic patients, then many more responses were required. He also



expressed concern about the loss of information that would result if only apart of the MMPI was administered to an individual:

If you choose to for any reason to administer only part of the test, you shouldbe aware of how this would affect the interpretations and the consequenceswhich you would subsequently find through your interpretation. I, for one,would never administer only part of the test. I suspect the increment of newinformation would fall short . . . (Hathaway, 1975)

As noted below, concerns about the heterogeneity of the constructs underly-ing MMPI-2 Clinical Scales remain an issue regarding the latest attempts toshorten these scales (e.g. Gordon, 2006; Rogers & Sewell, 2006).

CHANGES TO THE MMPI-2 SINCE 2001

After its publication in 1989, the transition from MMPI to MMPI-2 wasrelatively smooth and research continued, leading to interpretive refinements,particularly with the validity scales; introduction of two new validity scales,Infrequency-Psychopathology (Fp; Arbisi & Ben-Porath, 1995) and Superla-tive Self-Presentation (S; Butcher & Han, 1995); introduction of two newmeasures related to alcohol and drug problems (Weed, Butcher, McKenna, &Ben-Porath, 1992); and the development of the PSY-5 scales (Harkness et al.,1995). The MMPI-2 manual was updated to reflect these and other changes(Butcher et al., 2001). However, the most recent five years have witnessedseveral controversial changes to the MMPI-2 that present challenges thatHathaway cautioned about in 1959:

Because the need for tests is great, there is always a danger that research energywill be dissipated by wide and improper use of an instrument. To prevent this,it is necessary that the methods and promise of a test be sharply understood andruthlessly evaluated. (Hathaway, 1972)

Restructured Clinical (RC) ScalesWith encouragement and funding from the MMPI-2 test publisher, the Uni-versity of Minnesota Press, Tellegen and his colleagues sought to completework he began shortly after the publication of the MMPI-2 in 1989 todevelop a set of MMPI-2 scales within the framework of Watson andTellegens (1985) model of Positive Affect and Negative Affect (Tellegenet al., 2003). And, in 2002, the year prior to the publication of the RC Scalesmonograph, Tellegen and Ben-Porath began receiving support from the Uni-versity of Minnesota Press to develop a short form of the MMPI-2 based on



the RC Scales (this became known as the MMPI-2 Restructured Form orMMPI-2-RF; see below).Pearson Assessments (2003), the distributor of the MMPI-2, announced

the inclusion of the RC Scales in one of their products, the Extended ScoreReport, three months prior to the release of its monograph, indicatingthat The RC Scales can clarify which of the Clinical Scale correlatesshould be emphasized . . .. Although this announcement called uponresearchers to explore the utility of the RC Scales, no mention was made ofplans to use the RC Scales to develop a shortened version of the test byreplacing the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales with the RC Scales (Pearson Assess-ments, 2003).

Concerns about Theoretical Assumptions of the RC Scales. Tellegen andcolleagues (2003) hypothesised that the first factor of theMMPI, identified byWelsh (1956; the well known Anxiety or A Scale), was the MMPI-2 equiva-lent of the Pleasantness-versus-Unpleasantness (PU) axis in Watson andTellegens (1985) personality model. They renamed Welshs (1956) construct,Demoralization, and the following were included among their hypotheses(Tellegen et al., 2003):

1. The MMPI-2 Clinical Scales have a significant number of items mea-suring Demoralization.

2. Demoralization is a clinically relevant construct that warrants separatemeasurement.

3. Demoralization is not an essential part of any of the MMPI-2 ClinicalScales.

4. Removal of Demoralization items from the MMPI-2 Clinical Scaleswill result in more valid scales than the original versions that havedefined the MMPI-2 since the 1940s.

With this theoretical basis, they began a series of steps to identify Demorali-zation items and remove them from the Clinical Scales. According to them,the purpose of the RC Scales was to attempt to preserve the core constructsof the Clinical Scales and improve their effectiveness by reducing itemoverlap, reducing scale intercorrelation, eliminating the so-called subtle items(that is, items without content validity), and improving convergent anddiscriminant validity.Tellegen et al. (2003) did not include a rationale for the selection of the first

authors model of personality as the guide for their work, they did notdescribe other competing models, nor did they mention criticisms of theWatson and Tellegen model in the literature (Ranson, Nichols, Rouse, &Harrington, in press). Others, however, have pointed to flaws in thisapproach and the resulting RC Scales (e.g. Butcher, Hamilton, Rouse, &



Cumella, 2006; Caldwell, 2006; Gordon, 2006; Nichols, 2006; Ranson et al.,in press; Rogers & Sewell, 2006; Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, & Jordan, 2006).For example, Rogers and Sewell (2006, pp. 176177) described the RC Scalesas a radical retrofitting of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and Rogers et al.(2006) cautioned against the use of the RC Scales in professional practice.Gordon (2006) indicated that the RC Scales are based on false assumptionsabout psychopathology (i.e. that consistent items are needed to assess allpsychopathologies), pointing to complex diagnostic conditions like Hysteria,Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, and Borderline Personality Disorder that arebetter understood with a psychodynamic formulation recognising internalconflicts and contradictions. He indicates that a simplistic behavioralapproach with an insistence on more internally consistent and distinct scalesdoes not produce more external validity or useful measures for many of thecomplex disorders found in clinical practice.The differing types of psychopathology mentioned by Gordon (2006) are

not the only examples of complex diagnostic categories that share symptomsacross discrete disorders. Medicine also provides examples similar to therelationship of Demoralization to the constructs underlying the MMPI-2Clinical Scales. Consider the example of back pain. Its presentation couldindicate visceral (e.g. kidney stone; tumor), muscular skeletal (e.g. herniateddisk; muscle strain), psychogenic problems, or a combination of one or moreproblems. Even though it is a symptom for all these specific diagnoses, backpain remains an integral part of the description of each of these individualdiseases or conditions. There are multiple other examples in medicine: short-ness of breath is a key diagnostic sign for several diseases affecting the lungsand heart or it could indicate a broken rib; numbness and/or tingling handscould indicate carpal tunnel syndrome, myocardial ischemia, or a stroke; andfever is another non-specific, but key, symptom (or item to use a psychomet-ric term) of many different diseases.It would represent a fundamental departure from standard medical care to

remove symptoms like back pain, shortness of breath, numbness/tinglinghands, or fever from the diagnostic assessment of the various diseases orinjuries in which these symptoms are part of the clinical picture, and insteadconsider those symptoms as part of a stand-alone diagnostic entity. Such adeparture in standard practice would have to be supported by extensive,independently replicated research that unequivocally demonstrated the supe-riority of the radically different approach. Yet, the developers of the RCScales and its offshoot, theMMPI-2-RF, have been arguing for such a radicalprocedure with regard to the eight MMPI-2 Clinical Scales: the statisticalremoval of items (i.e. symptoms) they defined as measuring demoralization(which is better known as Welshs A, an MMPI-2 construct first identified in1956) from each of the Clinical Scales, and putting these items into a separatescale they call Demoralization.



Methodological Issues and Findings. Despite their name, which implies aclose link to the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales, the Restructured Clinical Scales arenot simply shortened or alternative forms of the Clinical Scales (Butcher,Hamilton, et al., 2006; Nichols, 2006; Rouse, Greene, Butcher, Nichols, &Williams, 2008; Simms, Casillas, Clark, Watson, & Doebbeling, 2005), eventhough the RC Scales replace the Clinical Scales in the new MMPI-2-RF(Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). As Simms and colleagues (2005, p. 357)explained:

Also, despite the temptation to do so, it also is apparent that the RC scalescannot be interpreted on the basis of previous empirical studies of the originalscales; the RC scales represent new measures whose meanings now must bedetermined empirically.

Rogers and Sewell (2006, p. 177) also expressed concern about the recom-mendation by the authors of the RC Scales to use them to refine interpreta-tions of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales:

This recommendation is lacking in both conceptual and empirical foundation.Conceptually, the RC scales are fundamentally different from the clinical scalesin their focus and coverage. With such core differences, RC scales cannot beused to clarify clinical scales. Empirically, RC scales would need to demonstrateincremental validity before their use in augmenting traditional interpretations.

There are three major problems regarding studies of the utility of RCScales in MMPI-2 assessments:

1. The developers did not follow long-established guidelines for evaluat-ing the utility of new MMPI or MMPI-2 scales.

2. The RC scales do not capture the constructs of the original MMPIclinical scales to a degree that they can provide useful informationabout them.

3. The RC scales appear to have low sensitivity to clinical symptoms andpsychopathology.

As noted above, there are established procedures for evaluating newlydeveloped MMPI measures (Butcher et al., 1995; Butcher, Graham, et al.,2006; Butcher & Tellegen, 1978; Butcher & Williams, 2000). These include athorough comparison of the proposed new scales with extant MMPI-2 scalesto determine if the proposed scales are unique or demonstrate greater reli-ability or validity than the extant scales. Such comparisons utilising thecomplete set of MMPI-2 scales (e.g. the Content Scales, PSY-5, Supplemen-tary) were not included in the RC manual, which instead was limited exclu-sively to comparisons with the Clinical Scales (Tellegen et al., 2003). These



comparisons are also missing from most of their later studies, again with thefocus on comparing the RC Scales only to the Clinical Scales (e.g. Arbisi,Sellbom, & Ben-Porath, 2008; Forbey & Ben-Porath, 2008; Handel & Archer,2008; Sellbom & Ben-Porath, 2005; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008;Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory, 2008).However, a recent study raises significant concerns about this limiting of

comparisons of the RC Scales only to their parent Clinical Scales. Rouseet al. (2008) used 49 samples across the various settings in which the MMPI-2is used (e.g. mental health, forensic, medical, personnel, general population)with a total of 78,159 subjects to determine the relationship of the RC Scaleswith extant MMPI-2 scales. For over half the RC Scales, the correlationsacross 49 samples from Rouse et al. (2008, Table 3) are strong enough toconclude that the RC Scales are alternative forms of several extant MMPI-2scales with rich empirical foundations:

RC1 is redundant withMMPI-2 Content Scale Health Concerns (HEA;Mean correlation = .90).

RC3 is redundant with MMPI-2 Content Scale Cynicism (CYN; Meancorrelation = .91).

RC7 is redundant with Supplementary Scale Anxiety (A; Mean corre-lation = .88).

RC8 is redundant with MMPI-2 Content Scale Bizarre Mentation(BIZ; Mean correlation = .89).

RCd is redundant with Supplementary Scale Anxiety (A; Meancorrelation = .92).

In general, Rouse et al. (2008, Tables 2 and 3) report that the remaining fourRC Scales (RC2, RC4, RC6, RC9) are more closely related to other existingand well-validated MMPI-2 scales than to their parent clinical scales:

RC2 was more closely related to the PSY-5 Scale Introversion/LowPositive Emotionality (INTR; Mean correlation = .78) than its parentScale 2 (Mean correlation = .70).

RC4 was more closely related to the Supplementary Scale AddictionAcknowledgment Scale (AAS; Weed et al., 1992; Mean correla-tion = .78) than its parent Scale 4 (Mean correlation = .52).

RC6 is more closely related to PSY-5 Scale Psychoticism (PSYC; Meancorrelation = .76) than its parent Scale 8 (Mean correlation = .60).

RC9 is more closely related to the Supplementary Scale Hostility (HO;Cook & Medley, 1954; Mean correlation = .66), than its parent Scale 9(Mean correlation = .63).

Figure 1 for men and Figure 2 for women dramatically demonstrate theremarkably close relationships of the RC Scales with the above extant



MMPI-2 scales that replicates across genders, with the exception of a littlemore divergence for women showing for RC2 and INTR. Figures 1 and 2 areplotted using the data from the chronic pain sample (n = 104 men; n = 316women) included among the 49 samples used by Rouse et al. (2008). Weselected the chronic pain sample (Caldwell, 1998)4 because of the relativehomogeneity of symptom presentation on the MMPI-2 by patients in thismedical setting (Arbisi & Seime, 2006).Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and Sellbom (2008) challenge these findings about

the scale intercorrelations and reliabilities of the RC Scales in the 49 samplesexamined by Rouse et al. (2008), suggesting instead that their studies,

4 The authors are grateful to Alex Caldwell for granting us use of this data set.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

RC Scales

MMPI-2 Scales

Welsh A HEA INTR CYN AAS PSYC A BIZ HO 55 70 55 50 51 50 51 51 49

RCD RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9 59 73 60 50 51 51 52 52 46

FIGURE 1. MMPI-2 RC Scales plotted with Redundant or Most HighlyCorrelated MMPI-2 scales: Chronic pain men (n = 104).

Note: Rouse et al. (2008) demonstrated redundancies with RC1 and HEA; RC3and CYN; RC7 and A; RC8 and BIZ. The remaining RC Scales were more closelyrelated to the MMPI-2 scales in this table (i.e. RC2 and INTR; RC4 and AAS; RC6and PSYC; and RC9 and Ho) than they were to their parent Clinical Scale.Source: Rouse et al. (2008).



particularly ones on validity, are more informative, even though the RCmonograph (Tellegen et al., 2003) does not include HEA, CYN, A, BIZ,INTR, AAS, PSYC, or Ho in any of their analyses. A subsequent study didexamine the incremental validity of the RC Scales in private practice settingsand included the Content Scales (Sellbom, Graham, & Schenk, 2006); andanother included A, HEA, INTR, CYN, and BIZ (but not AAS, PSYC, orHo) in a correlate study using a college counseling sample (Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2006). The incremental validity study was not conclusiveabout the superiority of the RC Scales over the corresponding extant scales.For example, in the private practice setting, the magnitude of the incremen-tal prediction was small for RC1 over HEA, RC1 was more stronglycorrelated with Panic/Anxiety than would be expected from previousresearch, and RC3 did not add incrementally to CYN in the prediction of

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

RC Scales

MMPI-2 Scales

Welsh A HEA INTR CYN AAS PSYC A BIZ HO 53 66 44 47 51 49 53 50 47

RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9 56 68 59 48 51 51 49 51 46

FIGURE 2. MMPI-2 RC Scales plotted with Redundant or Most HighlyCorrelated MMPI-2 scales: Chronic pain women (n = 316).

Note: Rouse et al. (2008) demonstrated redundancies with RC1 and HEA; RC3and CYN; RC7 and A; RC8 and BIZ. The remaining RC Scales were more closelyrelated to the MMPI-2 scales in this table (i.e. RC2 and INTR; RC4 and AAS; RC6and PSYC; and RC9 and Ho) than they were to their parent Clinical Scale.Source: Rouse et al. (2008).



Paranoia/Mistrust (Sellbom, Graham, & Schenk, 2006, p. 204). In thecollege counseling sample, the authors were not able to sufficiently explorethe convergent validity of RC3 or RC8 due to a lack of relevant criterionmeasures (Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2006, p. 97).Rogers et al. (2006, p. 145) indicated that the Tellegen et al. (2003) data

on convergent and discriminant validity are complex and difficult to inter-pret. These researchers suggested that items associated with demoralizationshould also be removed from the external criteria in validity studies of the RCScales. They also questioned some of the individual decisions made to elimi-nate important aspects of the Clinical Scales (e.g. removal of identity prob-lems and alienation from Sc). And they pointed to the Tellegen et al. (2003)report of low correlations between RC4 and criminal justice involvement (.06for women and .16 for men), but relatively high correlations with substanceabuse (.55 and .47, respectively). This is consistent with the Rouse et al.(2008) findings of the stronger association of RC4 with the substance abusemeasure AAS, compared with the broader construct measured by Pd (Scale4) that has been demonstrated empirically since the inception of theMMPI inthe 1940s.The conclusions of Rogers and Sewell (2006) and Simms et al. (2005) that

the RC Scales differ fundamentally from the Clinical Scales is most clearlyillustrated by the drastic change to Hy with its restructuring and theresulting RC3 (Butcher, Hamilton, et al., 2006; Gordon, 2006; Nichols,2006). The Hy scale is a well-established construct for understanding medical/psychological conditions such as chronic pain (Arbisi & Seime, 2006). In fact,Hathaway (1972, p. xiv) had this to say about the utility of Hy as part of the13/31 code type:

Working psychologists cannot yet afford the luxury of throwing away a tool forits lack of constructural quality. For practical decisions, the MMPI offers itsmodest validities with an occasional bonus in a few high-probability correlates. . . even an amateur reader of MMPI profiles who sees a code 13 . . . can for amoment feel professional identity in giving a little interpretive statement aboutthe modal person who produces such a profile . . . He is, for example, rathersafe if he asks what disablement the person developed when he encountered aperiod of psychological stress.

Yet, RC3 does not address these constructs. Rather, the RC authorschanged the scale by dropping most of the somatic items and reversing itsscoring direction. So, RC3 actually measures a different construct than thesomatisation, denial, and other issues captured by the Hy construct. RC3 isa measure of cynicism, which is already well captured with the MMPI-2Content Scale Cynicism (see above). The cynicism construct has been a majorcomponent in understanding the factor structure of MMPI items for some



time, as unveiled in factor analytic studies such as the large item factoranalysis conducted by Johnson, Butcher, Null, and Johnson (1984).A final concern is that the RC Scales may be less sensitive in identifying

psychopathology than the Clinical Scales. Thus, a psychologist can reachdifferent, and potentially conflicting, interpretations when using the RCScales in place of the MMPI-2 Clinical Scales or if they use the RC Scales toalter interpretive statements based on the Clinical Scales. For example, thestudies by Rogers et al. (2006) and Wallace and Liljequist (2005) reportedthat almost half of their clinical cases have normal limits RC Scales, com-pared with around a third for the Clinical Scales.This can be illustrated with the data from the same chronic pain sample

(n = 104 men; n = 316 women) used in Figures 1 and 2, and reported in Rouseet al. (2008). Figures 3 and 4 present the meanMMPI-2 T scores for men andwomen, respectively, for the Clinical Scales and RC Scales. The MMPI-2Clinical Scales perform as expected for these subjects in this chronic paintreatment setting (i.e. both genders show clinical elevations on Scales Hs, D,

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

RC Scales

Clinical Scales

Welsh A Hs D Hy Pd Pa Pt Sc Ma 55 74 70 73 60 58 64 63 50


FIGURE 3. MMPI-2 Clinical Scales plotted with RC Scales: Chronic pain men(n = 104).

Source: Rouse et al. (2008).



and Hy or what is known as the 1-2-3 code type). However, the mean RCScales profile for these same subjects is within the normal range with theexception of an elevation on RC1. Missing from this interpretive picture arethe well-known elevations on Scale 2 and 3, and the resulting 1-2-3 code typewith its empirically determined correlates. The RC Scales under-represent thepsychopathology found in chronic pain patients on the MMPI-2 ClinicalScales. As noted above, this RC Scale artifact probably results from theremoval of many symptoms through the purging of demoralization items.Symptoms of demoralization are part of this clinical construct.

The Fake Bad ScaleIn January 2007, the MMPI publisher and distributor announced the addi-tion of the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) to the MMPI-2 standard scoring materials(Pearson Assessments, 2007). The FBS was developed by Lees-Haley,English, and Glenn (1991) to evaluate individuals claiming personal injuries.

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

RC Scales

Clinical Scales

Welsh A Hs D Hy Pd Pa Pt Sc Ma 53 72 68 74 59 58 61 61 50


FIGURE 4. MMPI-2 Clinical Scales plotted with RC Scales: Chronic painwomen (n = 316).

Source: Rouse et al. (2008).



It is based on its authors premise that many psychologists and plaintiffsattorneys coach clients in advance of independent medical evaluations tocreate false claims. Prior to 2007, individual psychologists made the decisionwhether to score the FBS and include it in their MMPI-2 interpretations.Now, however, the MMPI-2 Extended Score Report includes the FBS on thevalidity scales profile with the well-established MMPI-2 Validity Scalesacross all settings.The FBS was added to the MMPI-2 without a test manual or manual

supplement providing information to assist in psychologists use of the scale(e.g. item/scale membership, scored direction, endorsement frequencies bygender, T-score conversion tables). Instead of a manual or supplement, thedistributors and publishers websites included brief statements (Ben-Porath& Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) recommending raw score cut-offs for interpreta-tion of the FBS and referred users to a book chapter by Greiffenstein, Fox,and Lees-Haley (2007) for more information on using the FBS. Over time, thewebsite statements have changed in notable ways (i.e. a discrepancy in cut-offraw score recommendations on the publishers and distributors websites waseliminated; the scales name was changed from Fake Bad Scale to SymptomValidity Scale). Test users were not alerted to these changes, either with anerratum or other indication of a revision, which may cause confusion forthose downloading the statements at different times.

Methodological Issues. The development of the FBS did not follow theresearch standards set by Hathaway and others for MMPI scale develop-ment. Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally, and Williams (2008, p. 2) describednumerous methodological flaws in the scale construction procedures used byLees-Haley et al. (1991), including inadequate description of item selectionprocedures; lack of independent and empirical verification of the rationallyselected items; lack of explicit and independently verified criteria to classifysubjects into credible versus malingering groups; no information about thepopulation from which the subjects were selected; use of small samples thatcan lead to unstable findings; lack of descriptive information, other thanmean age and sex; and failure to consider sex differences, or other keydifferences (e.g. disability status, health or mental health problems) inresponding to the selected items.The FBS was developed originally to identify malingering of emotional

distress by personal injury claimants. Now, however, proponents claim it canidentify exaggerated claims of disability (what has been called somatic orcognitive malingering) in forensic neuropsychological evaluations (e.g. Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b; Greiffenstein et al., 2007; Larrabee, 1998;Pearson Assessments, 2007). However, methodological problems are evidentin work subsequent to the original scale development article. For example,Larrabee (1998) based his recommendation to use the FBS to identify



somatic malingering of brain injury claimants using a convenience sampleof 12 of his patients, 100 per cent of whom he identified as malingerers. Hehad no comparison or control group, but Larrabee (1998) concluded that theFBS was a more accurate measure of malingering than the F Scale (anMMPI-2 validity scale in use since the original MMPI was developed)because the FBS identified 11 of his patients as malingerers, whereas the FScale only identified three of his patients as malingerers.Butcher et al. (2008) provide additional information about the method-

ological problems with the FBS. They suggest that the FBS could be moreaptly named the Litigated Personal Injury Scale, given that most of theempirical studies of the FBS are based on discriminations of litigating per-sonal injury cases from non-litigating controls. Butcher et al. (2008) alsodescribe concerns about item biases, particularly for women and persons withdisabilities, and high false positive rates across various patient samples (seealso, Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003). The false positive rates forwomen in a tertiary care inpatient unit for eating disordersa group that isextremely unlikely to malinger given the clinical nature of their disorders andtheir close observation by a large multi-disciplinary treatment teamrangedfrom 11 per cent using the cut-off raw score of 29 or higher currently recom-mended by the publisher (Ben-Porath&Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) or 62 per centusing the cut-off suggested by Lees-Haley et al. (1991). Another recent studyalso found substantial gender effects (Dean et al., 2008), calling into questionthe practice of using the same raw score cut-offs for women and men(Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) or non-gendered T-Scores(Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; see below).

Response to the FBS by the Courts and Media. Use of the FBS as part ofan MMPI-2 evaluation is coming under increasing scrutiny by the courts andthe media (Armstrong, 2008; Hsieh, 2008a, 2008b; Morris, 2008) because it isbeing used for high stakes decision-making (e.g. Should an individual becompensated for a brain injury or is the person malingering? Should aninsurance company pay for mental health treatment/hospitalisation or is theindividual feigning a psychological disorder? Does this veteran have psycho-logical or brain injuries resulting from his war experiences, thus being eligiblefor benefits?). Either Frye or Daubert standards are used in US courts todetermine whether a test can be used as part of expert witness testimony(Pope et al., 2006). Until recently, the scientific soundness of the MMPI,MMPI-2, and MMPI-A and their underlying methodologies, scales, andinterpretive statements was widely accepted in expert witness testimony in UScourthouses (Pope et al., 2006).However, in the last two years the FBS has failed four Frye challenges in

Florida (Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al., 2007; Stith v. State FarmInsurance, 2008; Vandergracht v. Progressive Express et al., 2007;Williams v.



CSX Transportation, Inc., 2007) resulting in its exclusion from expert witnesstestimony. Judge Hoys ruling in August 2008 in Stith v. State Farm Insuranceillustrates the concerns:

The evidence presented at the hearing supports the conclusion that the FBS isnot an objective measurement of malingering, exaggerating or over reporting ofsymptoms. The FBS is inherently unreliable because it scores points in malin-gering, exaggerating or over reporting when a patient has true symptoms ofphysical injury or physical distress. The FBS has the significant potential tonegatively impact persons with true disabilities. The evidence presented showedthat the test is biased against women because they tend to score higher on theFBS than men, particularly when they have verifiable injuries.

In addition to the four Frye hearings, use of the FBS as a measure ofmalingering did not fare well in a recent California jury trial (Hsieh, 2008a).In this case, the injured womans attorney challenged the psychologistsconclusions in cross-examination that his client was malingering based on herFBS score. The psychologist revealed that many FBS items were symptomsthat could be found in patients with chronic pain, sleep disturbances, andemotional distress. After three hours of deliberation the jury returned averdict in favor of the plaintiff.While it is appropriate for psychologists to research controversial MMPI-2

scales, publishers and distributors should err on the side of caution beforeadding measures like the FBS to an assessment standard that affects thepractice of all psychologists using the MMPI-2. If publishers go forward withsuch a controversial change, then it remains incumbent on them to provide amanual or supplement, not simply a brief website statement, fully describingthe psychometric properties of the scale. And, if questions are raised aboutbias against groups of people (e.g. women, persons with disabilities, personswith psychological problems like PTSD or somatisation), then surelypsychologists must be made aware of those concerns.

The MMPI-2-RFIn August 2008 the University of Minnesota Press and Pearson Assessmentsreleased a new version of the MMPI-2, called the MMPI-2-RF, that reducedthe existing 567-item MMPI-2 booklet to a 338-item measure with 50 scales(Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). The publishercited the positive reception of the RC Scales by many test users andresearchers as the rationale for supporting the development of a new formof the MMPI-2 with the RC Scales at its core (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008,p. xi). However, as Geisinger and Carlson (in press) have pointed out, testdevelopers are required to provide evidence that scores are equivalent across



different forms of the test. In the section above about the RC Scales, weindicated that they are not alternative or equivalent forms of their parentClinical Scales, and described multiple concerns raised by independentresearchers about what, in fact, they measure, and whether they covered thesame broad domains of psychopathology as in the MMPI-2.Of the remaining 42 MMPI-2-RF scales (i.e. those other than the eight RC

Scales), seven are revisions of extant MMPI-2 Validity Scales (i.e. VRIN-r,TRIN-r, F-r, Fp-r, FBS-r, L-r, and K-r) and five are revisions of the PSY-5scales (i.e. AGGR-r, PSYC-r, DISC-r, NEGE-r, and INTR-r). Therefore,almost two-thirds of the MMPI-2-RF is made up of measures being intro-duced for the first time. This presents a particularly challenging task ofproviding evidence of equivalence across the different forms of a test when atest has been changed so drastically as has the MMPI-2-RF.The PSY-5 Scales are the only other clinically relevant set of MMPI-2

scales that were revised and included in the MMPI-2-RF. Given that two ofthe five constructs measured by the PSY-5 Scales may already be captured bytwo of the RC Scales (Rouse et al., 2008), this is an interesting choice since thegoals were to develop a comprehensive set of scales to provide an exhaustiveassessment of the clinically relevant variables in the MMPI-2 item pool usingthe fewest items possible. (See above for a description of the strong associa-tions between RC2 and the PSY-5 INTR and RC6 and the PSY-5 PSYC.)

Questions about the Revised PSY-5 Scales. The MMPI-2-RF Manualindicates that Harkness and McNulty (2007) independently revised thePSY-5 Scales.5 Presumably, Harkness and McNulty (2007) should includesufficient details about the revision process for test users to determine if therevised PSY-5 Scales are equivalent to their originals, since this informationis not included in the test manual. However, quite simply put, Harkness andMcNulty (2007), a chapter in a book said to be edited by Butcher, does notexist. There is a similarly titled book edited by Butcher (2006) with a chapterby Harkness and McNulty (2006), but there is no mention in that chapter ofany revision of the PSY-5 Scales or any data that would establish the equiva-lence of the MMPI-2-RF versions of the PSY-5 Scales with the originals(Harkness & McNulty, 2006).The MMPI-2-RF manual refers test users to a technical manual for more

information about the revised PSY-5 and other MMPI-2-RF scales (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008). In the case of therevised PSY-5 Scales, a one-paragraph summary describes the revision

5 This citation in the MMPI-2-RF manual is: Harkness, A.R., & McNulty, J.L. (2007). Anoverview of personality: The MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five scales (PSY-5). In J.N.Butcher (Ed.), Pathways to MMPI-2 use: A practitioners guide to test usage in diverse settings.Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.



process used by Harkness and McNulty (2007), an appendix includesexternal correlate information for the revised scales, and a data table fromfive clinical samples shows that the strongest correlate of each original PSY-5Scale is its MMPI-2-RF counterpart. No other details are provided com-paring the psychometric performance of the revised PSY-5 Scales with theoriginals to help psychologists determine their equivalence. The citation forthe development of the PSY-5 Scales in the technical manual is an unpub-lished presentation (Harkness &McNulty, 2007), and it is unclear if test userswill have sufficient access to it and if the materials from it will be sufficientlydetailed.

Concerns about Non-Gendered T-Scores. Another major departure is theuse of non-gendered T-scores for deriving MMPI-2-RF interpretive state-ments (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). The MMPI-2-RF combined gendernormative sample was formed by randomly eliminating 324 women from theMMPI-2 normative sample (n = 1,138 men; n = 1,462 women). The approachof using the same T-score distribution for both men and women is contraryto Hathaway and McKinleys (1940a, 1940b, 1942) work with the originalMMPI and with the development of MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989; Butcheret al., 2001). Hathaway and McKinley (1940b, p. 85) reported that normalwomen endorsed more items than men, noting, for example, in their descrip-tion of the development of the Depression Scale:

The most constant difference, however, is that between sexes. At present theauthors are not willing to interpret this difference but it may be due to somegeneral bias in response that is not particularly related to depression.

They dealt with these observed sex differences by using norms in whichwomen were compared with women and men with men for the MMPI-2Clinical Scales. And, with the exception of the FBS and the newMMPI-2-RFscales, all future MMPI-2 scale development researchers presented separatenorms for men and women.Non-gendered T-scores were developed to meet concerns about using

gender-based norms in personnel screening (Ben-Porath & Forbey, 2003;Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008). Although these non-gendered norms havebeen readily available in clinical and research settings for five years, they havenot been widely used in professional practice for MMPI-2 interpretationsother than their limited use in some personnel selection settings. Further-more, psychologists are given the option to suppress reporting of these non-gendered norms for their individual patients in several MMPI-2 productsdistributed by Pearson Assessments to avoid possible interpretation conflicts.

Gender Bias on the FBS-r. The differential responses of men and womento the FBS items provides a contemporary example of Hathaway and



McKinleys (1940b) concerns about a general bias in response styles of menand women that is not related to the construct purportedly being measuredby the scale. Proponents of the FBS and FBS-r claim that elevations on theFBS and FBS-r are related to over-reporting of symptoms that have atvarious times been described as emotional distress or somatic or cognitivesymptoms related to brain injury (e.g. Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b,2008; Greiffenstein et al., 2007; Lees-Haley et al., 1991; Larrabee, 1998;Pearson Assessments, 2007). As described above, the FBS, especially since itsadoption into the MMPI-2, is being used for high stakes decisions thatsignificantly impact peoples well-being.Sex differences in responses to the FBS items have been extensively

reported in the literature (e.g. Butcher et al., 2003; Butcher et al. 2008; Deanet al., 2008; Greiffenstein et al., 2007). Butcher et al. (2008) reported that theMMPI-2 T-score equivalent of the recommended FBS raw score cut-off of 29or higher for identifying non-credible responding on the MMPI-2 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2007a, 2007b) for women is 87, but for men it is 95, closeto a full standard deviation higher. Furthermore, they described item-levelbiases in the FBS content (e.g. MMPI-2 normative women were more likelyto report hot flushes13% versus 2% for menand not excessively usingalcohol21% for women versus 44% for men) that contribute to womenshigher scores given the scored direction for these items. Those two exampleitems from Butcher et al. (2008) were dropped from the 30-item FBS-rversion of the Fake Bad Scale, although they remain on the MMPI-2 versionof the FBS.Unfortunately, though, almost half of the FBS-r items (i.e. FBS-r item

numbers 36, 45, 55, 88, 99, 133, 141, 162, 187, 189, 193, 234, 247, 261) showitem endorsement differences between the MMPI-2 normative men andwomen of five percentage points or higher (mean = 8.7; range 518). Inaddition to reporting non-gendered T-scores exclusively in the MMPI-2-RFManual, only mean raw scores for the combined gender sample are reported.Test users are referred to Appendix D of the Technical Manual for gender-based norms, although only mean T-score values are reported, not rawscores. Descriptive statistics by sex for raw scores that would facilitate anunderstanding of the impact of the differential response rates for men andwomen to the FBS-r items are not provided. Furthermore, that is true for allthe scales introduced in theMMPI-2-RF, the combined gender sample is usedto generate raw score means and standard deviations, which does not allowusers to determine whether Hathaway and McKinleys (1940b) observationsabout differential responding by men and women on MMPI scales is an issueon the MMPI-2-RF.

Hathaways Challenge. This has been a brief description of some of theimmediate concerns regarding the introduction of theMMPI-2-RF into clini-



cal practice. It is not a comprehensive review, as we received theMMPI-2-RFmaterials for the first time one week before the present article was due. Weurge potential users of the MMPI-2-RF to evaluate carefully the trade-offof around half an hour of test administration time with the loss ofwell-established MMPI-2 measures like the Clinical, Content, and Supple-mentary Scales that have been the standard in the field. As with the manyother changes to the MMPI and MMPI-2, including its numerous interna-tional adaptations, Hathaways challenge to sharply understand and ruth-lessly evaluate this new product is in order.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Over the past 70 years, the MMPI instruments have been adapted into otherlanguages and cultures, researched extensively, and used in settings verydiverse from the University of Minnesota Hospitals where they were devel-oped originally to improve the health and well-being of their patients. TheMMPI-2 has been so successful because of its rich empirical tradition and theresearch efforts of thousands of psychologists. There should be no halo effectfor new versions of this standard. A test must have its own substantialresearch base or its equivalence to its predecessor be firmly established.Psychologists must carefully evaluate the last five years of changes to the

MMPI-2 and critically examine the research supporting claims that the RCScales are a major improvement over the Clinical Scales and capture the fullrange of psychopathology measured by them; that the Fake Bad Scale and itsvariants should be used to discredit an individuals self-report on theMMPI-2 (and/or his or her performance on neuropsychological tests and/orhis or her reports of symptoms associated with brain injury); and that theMMPI-2-RF is a viable alternative to a standard MMPI-2 assessment. It isimportant to understand the nature of the constructs assessed by these newmeasures and how they differ from well-established MMPI-2 scales. Highstakes measures like theMMPI instruments must be free of unintended biasesthat can be introduced into psychological assessments due to methodologicalflaws in scale development and a lack of attention to details in the underlyingresearch studies. Othersthe courts and the mediaare looking over psy-chologists shoulders to see if we still adhere to the rigorous standards of ourpredecessors.

REFERENCES

Arbisi, P.A., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). An MMPI-2 infrequency scale for use withpsychopathological populations: The Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale, F(p).Psychological Assessment, 7, 424431.



Arbisi, P.A., & Seime, R.J. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in medical settings. In J.N.Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 273299). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Arbisi, P.A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008). Empirical correlates of theMMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric patients. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 90, 122129.

Armstrong, D. (2008, March 5). Personality check: Malingerer test roils personal-injury law. Wall Street Journal, p. 1.

Bagby, R.M., Marshall, M.B., Bury, A., Bacchiocchi, J.R., & Miller, L. (2006).Assessing underreporting and overreporting styles on the MMPI-2. In J.N.Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 3969). Washington,DC: American Psychological Association.

Baron, F. (1953). An ego strength scale which predicts response to psychotherapy.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 17, 327333.

Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Forbey, J.D. (2003). Non-gendered norms for the MMPI-2.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2007a).MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Retrieved3 September 2007, from http://www.upress.umn.edu/tests/mmpi2_fbs.html

Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2007b).MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Retrieved3 September 2007, from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/resources/fbs.html

Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Tellegen, A. (2008). MMPI-2RF: Manual for administration,scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J.N. (1996). International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinicalapplications. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J.N. (Ed.). (2006). MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook. Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Butcher, J.N.,Arbisi, P.A.,Atlis,M.M.,&McNulty, J.L. (2003). The construct validityof the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale: Does this scalemeasure somaticmalingering andfeigned emotional distress? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 18, 473485.

Butcher, J.N., Cabiya, J., Lucio, E.M., & Garrido, M. (2007). Assessing Hispanicclients using the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association.

Butcher, J.N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989).Manual for the restandardized Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory:MMPI-2. An administrative and interpretive guide. Minneapolis, MN: Universityof Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J.N., Ellertsen, B., Ubostad, B., Bubb, E., Lucio, E., Lim, J. et al. (2000).International case studies on the MMPI-A: An objective approach. Retrieved 8October 2008, from http://www1.umn.edu/mmpi/adolescent.php

Butcher, J.N., Gass, C.S., Cumella, E., Kally, Z., & Williams, C.L. (2008). Potentialfor bias in MMPI-2 assessments using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS). PsychologicalInjury and the Law. Advanced online publication. Retrieved 14 July 2008.doi:10.1007/s12207-007-9002-z

Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). Methodological problemsand issues in MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A research. Psychological Assessment, 7,320329.



Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Tellegen, Y.S., Dahlstrom, W.G., &Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual foradministration and scoring (revised edn.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-sota Press.

Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Kamphuis, J., & Rouse, S. (2006). Evaluating MMPI-2research: Considerations for practitioners. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: Thepractitioners handbook (pp. 1538). Washington, DC: American PsychologicalAssociation.

Butcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., Williams, C.L., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1990).Developmentand use of the MMPI-2 Content Scales. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minne-sota Press.

Butcher, J.N., Hamilton, C.K., Rouse, S.V., & Cumella, E.J. (2006). The deconstruc-tion of the Hy scale of MMPI-2: Failure of RC3 in measuring somatic symptomexpression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 199205.

Butcher, J.N., & Han, K. (1995). Development of an MMPI-2 scale to assess thepresentation of self in a superlative manner: The S Scale. In J.N. Butcher & C.D.Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 10, pp. 2550). Hills-dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Butcher, J.N., & Hostetler, K. (1990). Abbreviating MMPI item administration: Pastproblems and prospects for the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment: A Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 1222.

Butcher, J.N., & Miller, K. (2006). Personality assessment in personal injury litiga-tion. In A. Hess & I.B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of forensic psychology (2nd edn.,pp. 140167). New York: Wiley.

Butcher, J.N., Ones, D.S., & Cullen, M. (2006). Personnel screening with theMMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook (pp. 381406). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Butcher, J.N., & Pancheri, P. (1976). Handbook of cross-national MMPI research.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J.N., & Tellegen, A. (1978). MMPI research: Methodological problemsand some current issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 620628.

Butcher, J.N., &Williams, C.L. (2000).Essentials of theMMPI-2 andMMPI-A clinicalinterpretation (2nd edn.). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J.N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Archer,R.P. et al. (1992). Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation of theMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents: MMPI-A. Minne-apolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Caldwell, A.B. (1998). MMPI-2 data research file for pain patients. Unpublished rawdata.

Caldwell, A.B. (2006). Maximal measurement or meaningful measurement: The inter-pretive challenges of the MMPI-2 restructured clinical (RC) scales. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 87, 193201.

Camara, W.J., Nathan, J.S., & Puente, A.E. (2000). Psychological test usage: Impli-cations in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-tice, 31(2), 141154.



Cheung, F., & Butcher, J.N. (2008). Cross-cultural application of the MMPI-2 and theadaptation of the Minnesota Report Computer System for the MMPI-2 in HongKong. Hong Kong, China: Chinese University of Hong Kong.

Cheung, F.M., Song, W., & Zhang, J. (1996) The Chinese MMPI-2: Researchand applications in Hong Kong and the Peoples Republic of China. InJ.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research andclinical applications (pp. 137161). Minneapolis, MN: University of MinnesotaPress.

Clark, L.A. (1985). A consolidated version of the MMPI in Japan. In J.N. Butcher &C.D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in personality assessment (Vol. 4, pp. 95130).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cook, W.W., & Medley, D.M. (1954). Proposed hostility and pharisaic virtue scalesfor the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 39, 123139.

Dahlstrom, W.G. (1980). Altered forms of the MMPI. In W.G. Dahlstrom & L.E.Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI (pp. 386393). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Dahlstrom, W.G., & Archer, R.P. (2000). A shortened version of the MMPI-2.Assessment, 7, 131137.

Dahlstrom, W.G., Welsh, G.S., & Dahlstrom L.E. (1975). An MMPI handbook:Volume 1. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Dai, X.Y., Zheng, I.X., Ryan, J.I., & Paolo, A.M. (1993). Applications of psycho-logical testing in Chinese clinical psychology and comparisons with Americandata. Chinese Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1, 4750.

Dana, R. (2005). Multicultural assessment: Principles, applications, and examples.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al., Case #05-4320 (Hillsborough County,Florida, 2007).

Dean, A.C., Boone, K.R., Kim, M.S., Curiel, A.R., Martin, D.J., Victor, T.L. et al.(2008). Examination of the impact of ethnicity on the Minnesota MultiphasicPersonality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) Fake Bad Scale. The Clinical Neuropsycholo-gist, 1, 17.

Deinard, A.S., Butcher, J.N., Thao, U.D., Moua Vang, S.H., & Hang, K. (1996).Development of a Hmong translation of the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.),International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 194205). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Drake, L.E. (1946). A social I-E scale for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology,30, 5154.

Ezzo, F.R., Pinsoneault, T.B., & Evans, T.M. (2007). A comparison of MMPI-2profiles between child maltreatment cases and two types of custody cases. Journalof Forensic Psychology Practice, 7, 2943.

Faschingbauer, T.R. (1974). A 166 item short form for the group MMPI: The FAM.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42, 645655.

Forbey, J.D., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a nonclinical setting. Journal of PersonalityAssessment, 90, 136141.

Fowler, R.D. (2008, September). Personal communication.



Garrido, M., & Velasquez, R. (2006). Interpretation of Latino/Latina MMPI-2profiles: Review and application of empirical findings and cultural-linguisticconsiderations. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI-2: The practitioners handbook(pp. 477504). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Gass, C.S., & Luis, C.A. (2001). MMPI-2 Short Form: Psychometric characteristics ina neuropsychological setting. Assessment, 8(2), 213219.

Geisinger, K.F., & Carlson, J.F. (in press). Standards and standardization. In J.N.Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality and clinical assessment. New York:Oxford University Press.

Gordon, R.M. (2006). False assumptions about psychopathology, hysteria and theMMPI-2 restructured clinical scales. Psychological Reports, 98, 870872.

Gough, H.G., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P.E. (1951). A personality scale for domi-nance. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 360366.

Gough, H.G., McClosky, H., & Meehl, P.E. (1952). A personality scale for socialresponsibility. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 7380.

Gray-Little, B. (in press). The assessment of psychopathology in racial and ethnicminorities. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality and clinicalassessment. New York: Oxford University Press.

Greene, R.L. (2007). Forensic applications of the Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory-2. In A.M. Goldstein (Ed.), Forensic psychology: Emerging topics andexpanding roles (pp. 7396). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Greiffenstein, M.F., Fox, D., & Lees-Haley, P.R. (2007). The MMPI-2 Fake BadScale in detection of noncredible brain injury claims. In K. Boone (Ed.), Detectionof noncredible cognitive performance (pp. 210235). New York: Guilford Press.

Hall, G.C.N., Bansal, A., & Lopez, I.R. (1999). Ethnicity and psychopathology:A meta-analytic review of 31 years of comparative MMPI/MMPI-2 research.Psychological Assessment, 11(2), 186197.

Han, K. (1996). The Korean MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adapta-tions of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 88136). Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Handel, R.W., & Archer, R.P. (2008). An investigation of the psychometric propertiesof the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales with mental health patients.Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 239249.

Harkness, A.R., & McNulty, J.L. (2006). An overview of personality: The MMPI-2Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.),MMPI-2:The practitioners handbook (pp. 7397). Washington, DC: American Psychologi-cal Association.

Harkness, A.R., & McNulty, J.L. (2007, August). Restructured versions of theMMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales. Paper presented at themeeting of the American Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.

Harkness, A., McNulty, J., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1995). The Personality Psychopa-thology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Psychological Assessment,7, 104114.

Hathaway, S.R. (1972). Foreword to the First Edition. In W.G. Dahlstrom, G.S.Welsh, & L.E. Dahlstrom (Eds.), AnMMPI handbook: Volume I: Clinical interpre-tation: A revised edition (p. xi). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.



Hathaway, S.R. (1975, February). Comment on MMPI abbreviated forms. In Whoowns test items? Present confusions and anxieties about 1984. Symposium onRecent Developments in the Use of the MMPI, St Petersburg, FL.

Hathaway, S.R., &McKinley, J.C. (1940a). A multiphasic personality schedule (Min-nesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249254.

Hathaway, S.R., &McKinley, J.C. (1940b). A multiphasic personality schedule (Min-nesota) III. The measurement of symptomatic depression. Journal of Psychology,14, 7384.

Hathaway, S.R., & McKinley, J.C. (1942). The Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalitySchedule manual. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Hays, P. (2001). Addressing cultural complexities in practice: A framework for clini-cians and counselors. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Hsieh, S. (2008a, April 7). Defense experts are using controversial malingering test.Lawyers USA, pp. 1, 32.

Hsieh, S. (2008b, May 19). Plaintiff turns tables on Fake Bad Scale. Lawyers USA,pp. 1, 29.

Johnson, J.H., Butcher, J.N., Null, C., & Johnson, K. (1984). Replicated item levelfactor analysis of the full MMPI. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47,105114.

Kincannon, J. (1968). Prediction of the standard MMPI scale scores from 71items: The Mini-Mult. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 32, 319325.

Koscheyev, V.S., & Leon, G.R. (1996). The Russian translation and preliminaryadaptation of the MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of theMMPI-2 (pp. 385394). Minnesota, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Larrabee, G.J. (1998). Somatic malingering on the MMPI and MMPI-2 in personalinjury litigants. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 179188.

Lees-Haley, P.R., English, L.T., & Glenn, W.J. (1991). A Fake Bad Scale on theMMPI-2 for personal injury claimants. Psychological Reports, 68, 203210.

Livingston, R.B., Jennings, E., Colotla, V.A., Reynolds, C.R., & Shercliffe, R.J.(2006). MMPI2 Code-type congruence of injured workers. Psychological Assess-ment, 18, 126130.

McGrath, R.E., Terranova, R., Pogge, D.L., & Kravic, C. (2003). Development of ashort form for the MMPI-2 based on scale elevation congruence. Assessment,10(1), 1328.

Meehl, P.E., & Hathaway, S.R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in theMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology,30(5), 525564.

Megargee, E.I. (2006). Use of the MMPI-2 in criminal justice and correctional settings.Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Morris, J. (2008, July/August). Smoke and mirrors: Warning: Concealing productdangers and funding of science by industry may be hazardous to the health ofhundreds of thousands of workers. Mother Jones, 26, 2829, 8283.

Nezami, E., & Zamani, R. (1996). The Persian MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.),International adaptation of the MMPI-2 (pp. 506522). Minnesota, MN: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press.



Nichols, D.S. (2006). The trials of separating bath water from baby: A review andcritique of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales. Journal of Personality Assess-ment, 87, 121138.

Overall, J.E., & Gomez-Mont, F. (1974). The MMPI-168 for psychiatric screening.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 34, 315319.

Pancheri, P., Sirigatti, S., & Biondi, M. (1996). Adaptation of the MMPI-2 in Italy.In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research andclinical applications (pp. 416441). Minneapolis. MN: University of MinnesotaPress.

Pearson Assessments. (2003). The University of Minnesota Press and Pearson Assess-ments introduce the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales [Press Release].Retrieved 29 January 2003 from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/news/pr012203.htm

Pearson Assessments. (2007). FBS (Symptom Validity Scale) added to MMPI-2 stan-dard scoring materials: Scale helps identify non-credible reporting [Press Release].Retrieved 11 January 2007 from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/news/pr011107.htm

Pongpanich, L. (1996). Use of the MMPI-2 in Thailand. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.),International adaptations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp.162174). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Pope, K.S., Butcher, J.N., & Seelen, J. (2006). TheMMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in court(3rd edn.). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Quevedo, K.M., & Butcher, J.N. (2005). The use of MMPI and MMPI-2 in Cuba: Ahistorical overview from 1950 to the present. International Journal of Clinical andHealth Psychology, 5(2), 335347.

Ranson, M., Nichols, D.S., Rouse, S.V., & Harrington, J. (in press). Changing orreplacing an established personality assessment standard: Issues, goals, and prob-lems, with special reference to recent developments in the MMPI-2. In J.N.Butcher (Ed.), Oxford handbook of personality and clinical assessment. New York:Oxford University Press.

Roberts, K. (2007).Minnesota 150: The people, places, and things that shape our state.St Paul, MN: Minnesota Historical Society.

Rogers, R., & Sewell, K.W. (2006). MMPI-2 at the crossroads: Aging technology orradical retrofitting? Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 175178.

Rogers, R., Sewell, K.W., Harrison, K.S., & Jordan, M.J. (2006). The MMPI-2Restructured Clinical scales: A paradigmatic shift in scale development. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 87, 139147.

Rouse, S.V., Greene, R.L., Butcher, J.N., Nichols, D.S., & Williams, C.L. (2008).What do the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical scales reliably measure? Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 90, 435442.

Sellbom,M., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2005). Mapping theMMPI-2 Restructured Clinicalscales onto normal personality traits: Evidence of construct validity. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 85, 179187.

Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Bagby, R.M. (2008). Personality and psychopa-thology: Mapping the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales onto the five factor modelof personality. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22, 291312.



Sellbom,M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Baum, L.J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictivevalidity of the MMPI-2 Restructured (RC) scales in a batterers interventionprogram, Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 129135.

Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Graham, J.R. (2006). Correlates of the MMPI-2Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a college counseling setting. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 86, 8999.

Sellbom, M., Graham, J.R., & Schenk, P.W. (2006). Incremental validity of theMMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales in a private practice setting. Journal ofPersonality Assessment, 86, 194205.

Shiota, N.K., Krauss, S.S., & Clark, L.A. (1996). Adaptation and validation of theJapanese MMPI-2. In J.N. Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of theMMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp. 6787). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota Press.

Simms, L.J., Casillas, A., Clark, L.A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B.N. (2005).Psychometric evaluation of the Restructured Clinical scales of MMPI-2. Psycho-logical Assessment, 17, 345358.

Sneyers, M., Sloore, H., Rossi, G., & Derksen, J.J.L. (2007). Using the Megargeesystem among Belgian prisoners: Cross-cultural prevalence of the MMPI-2 basedtypes. Psychological Reports, 100, 746754.

Stith v. State Farm Mutual Insurance, Case No. 50-2003 CA 010945AG (Palm BeachCounty, Florida, 2008).

Sundberg, N.D. (1956). The use of the MMPI for cross-cultural personality study: Apreliminary report on the German translation. Journal of Abnormal and SocialPsychology, 52, 281283.

Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2008).MMPI-2-RF technical manual. Minneapolis,MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J., Arbisi, P., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer,B. (2003).MMPI-2: Restructured clinical (RC) scales. Minneapolis, MN: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Sellbom, M. (2008). Construct validity of theMMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Reply to Rouse, Greene, Butcher,Nichols, and Williams. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 435442. doi:10.1080/00223890802248695

Tran, B.N. (1996). Vietnamese translation and adaptation of the MMPI-2. In J.N.Butcher (Ed.), International adaptations of the MMPI-2 (pp. 175193). Minnea-polis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Vandergracht v. Progressive Express et al., Case #02-04552 (Hillsborough County,Florida, 2007).

Wallace, A., & Liljequist, L. (2005). A comparison of the correlational structures andelevation patterns of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales.Assessment, 12, 290294.

Watson, D., & Tellegen, A. (1985). Toward a consensual structure of mood. Psycho-logical Bulletin, 98, 219235.

Weed, N.C., Butcher, J.N., McKenna, T., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (1992). New measuresfor assessing alcohol and drug abuse with the MMPI-2: The APS and AAS.Journal of Personality Assessment, 58(2), 389404.



Welsh, G.S. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G.S. Welsh & W.G. Dahlstrom(Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 264281).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Wiggins, J.S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool.Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 80(22 Whole No. 630).

Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc., Case #04-CA-008892 (Hillsborough County,Florida, 2007).



Documents

Personality Assessment With the MMPI-2; Historical Roots, International Adaptations, And Current Challenges