Talk:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 Portal |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, which collaborates on Psychology and related subjects on Wikipedia. To participate, help improve this article or visit the project page for details on the project.
|
||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| B | This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] Needs improvement
I think this really needs work... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 146.151.42.178 (talk • contribs) . 01:02, 20 February 2006
- Please improve it in any way you see fit. Jokestress 01:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
The article could use information about how the test works. I vaguely remember from a psychology 101 class I took a few years ago that the results are based entirely off empirical evidence or something(I guess as opposed to however that guy came up with his inkblot test)?RadioYeti 19:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, personality tests such as the MMPI go through a rigorous empirical process to develop. A few bored personality psych graduate students could probably provide a good overview.
The reference to Annie Murphy Paul, a former senior editor of Psychology Today, should really be qualified. It's useful to point out the criticisms of personality tests, but a blanket statement that these tests are unreliable and invalid is neither fair nor true. Especially with the MMPI. Again, we need some people to weigh in that have some training in this area. Ms. Paul, despite being editor of Psychology Today, has no training in the field. She has a degree in journalism. And, Psychology Today really isn't a good or reputable source. It's basically Cosmo with psychobabble. We would be better off citing peer reviewed journals that emphasize scientific rigor (e.g., the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology).
[edit] Clergy scale?
Is it true that they have to use a special scale to score the MMPI if the test is taken by a Catholic priest, otherwise the MMPI will say that he's a raving schizophrenic looney?
Alluded to at http://www.catholic.net/rcc/Periodicals/Homiletic/01-97/6/6.html , and I have heard it stated multiple times, more bluntly, that there are separate MMPI scales for the clergy. If the MMPI is a valid tool, it should not need separate scales. On the other hand, a few hours with Google has turned up nothing except the assertion. Can anyone here give further information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.68.254 (talk • contribs)
- Fremte writes: The MMPI and MMPI-2 were developed with particular reference groups. There is no stopping anyone from researching the personality profiles of any other group and publishing their scales. That said, there is no specific "clergy scale", nor scales for other groups that are specific to a diagnosis, e.g., lawyers. Though there is data to suggest that psychopaths and lawyers have similar personality profiles (okay that was both a joke and hopefully not too true!) Fremte 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
- Im not sure if this means that they have a specific test for these people,including seminary students, but it sounds like it to my untrained ear:
The Minnesota Report: Revised Personnel System, 3rd Edition Interpretive Report (Product Number 51442) This report presents the following MMPI-2 scales:
* Validity and Clinical Scales — profiled * Superlative Self-Presentation Subscales — scale scores reported only * Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes and Social Introversion subscales) — scale scores reported only * Content Scales — profiled * Content Component Scales — scale scores reported only * Supplementary Scales — profiled (includes the PSY-5 scales — scale scores reported only)
In addition, the report compares the profile data to data from occupation-specific research samples and provides occupation-specific mean profiles. The occupations that are considered in the interpretation are:
* Nuclear Power Facility * Law Enforcement * Airline Pilots * Medical and Psychology Students * Firefighters/Paramedics * Seminary Students * Other
Note: Air Traffic Controller was discontinued in 2001." from: http://www.pearsonassessments.com/tests/mmpi_2.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.136.206.184 (talk) 01:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scale 5
"it is used to measure how strongly an individual identifies with the traditional (pre-1960's) masculine or feminine role" As (for a man) a high Scale 5 score means that he is "like a woman" (e.g. because he likes flowers), I think we should rather say that this scale measures the opposite of how somebody identifies with traditional roles. Apokrif 21:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Starting revisions
After hearing a number of calls to update this particular page, I have gone ahead and started with the revisions of the first section, updating primarily the content of the test first to bring it more in line with what we actually use now. Any (constructive) commentary and criticism would be appreciated, along with links and references I may have forgotten or neglected to include. Revisions on the latter sections are forthcoming, and imput would again be appreciated. --Mavrik4 01:57, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Any chance of some references, external links to the test itself? LookingGlass 07:15, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Getting to the references now. You can always just Google the journal articles I cite in the blocks of text I write myself. I am trying to find free web-available versions of these articles, but most of the journals they are printed in require a subscription and are not available for free to the public (although they are available for free at most university research libraries). As for a link to the test, that's probably not going to happen; the test is copywrited and the test material is thus protected. Unless this was a request for a link to the official page of the test publisher, which I will add shortly.--Mavrik4 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Brain damage
A psychologist once told me that, prior to the development of MRI scanners, the MMPI was used to diagnose certain classes of brain damage. Does anyone know anything more about this? --Carnildo 22:33, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
This is true not necessarily of the MMPI but of the older neuropsychological tests, such as the Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. These tests were originally created to help identify the location of a lesion in the brain based on the subject's impaired performance on a particular task. Psychmama (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Scoring and interpretation
The second paragraph starts: "The scales on the MMPI-2 are generally interpreted in the positive direction. What this means is that while a high score on any of the Depression scales may suggest the individual is significantly more depressed than we would expect a random individual to be, a low score is not interpreted to mean the individual is significantly less depressed than the average individual."
While reading the reference 'Test interpretation and description of scales (pdf)' given at the bottom of the page
http://edtech.tph.wku.edu/~rgrieve/Personality/LectureNotes/MMPI-2Interpretation.pdf, which is a reference guide on how to score the test, I found the opposite to be true.
Could this be cited on the page itself as a reference? LookingGlass 07:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
From D. Scale 2: Depression(D)
...
4) T-Scores > 65 (marked elevation) are indicative of individuals who:
a. display depressive symptoms
1. especially if T-Score > 70
b. feel blue, unhappy, and dysphoric
c. are quite pessimistic about the future
d. have self-deprecatory and guilt feelings
e. may cry, refuse to speak, and show psychomotor retardation
f. often are given depressive diagnoses
...
6) Normal range: T-Score 40-57
7) T-Scores < 40 (low scores) are indicative of individuals who:
a. do not experience much tension, anxiety, guilt, or depression
b. feel relaxed and at ease
c. are self-confident
d. are emotionally stable and capable of effective functioning in most
situations
e. feel cheerful and optimistic
f. have little difficulty in verbal expression
g. are alert, active, and energetic
h. are competitive and seek out additional responsibilities
i. Are at ease in social situations
j. seek out leadership roles
...
Assuming the reference link is accurate the current way the MMPI is graded, then the test measures both positive traits and negative traits. It gives much more graditions for high scores than for low scores, but the lowest rank is always a negative trait.
[edit] Scoring and Interpretation
It appears this link goes to the notes page from an individual lecture, and I am not sure exactly what studies this information is based on. However, it does contradict the recommendations given in the test manual, by the authors, which do not list any known empirical correlates or interpretational implications for low scores on any of the clinical scales(pg 29 - 31)(not just scale 2, and the notes page seems to have interpretations for all the clinical scales) outside of scales 5 and 0. Furthermore, although I do believe some researchers advocate interpretation of low scores on some clinical scales, this is the first time I have seen someone advocate interpreting different levels of low scores. Therefore, I would say the original paragraph is correct, that low scores are not normally interpreted; regardless of if some people ignore the recommendations of the test authors and do it anyway.
Source: Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation of the MMPI-2, Revised Edition (Butcher, Graham, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, Dahlstrom & Kaemmer, 2001)
--Mavrik4 20:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism and controversy
I know there is valid criticism of the MMPI, and I believe that the writers of this section wanted to convey the gist of the problems with the MMPI. But this section is way, WAY, WAY "POV". It needs a re-write. And so, I'm adding the POV tag to it. Please don't take offense, take it as an opportunity to tighten up this section. Proxy User (talk) 03:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Criticism and Controversy revision
I went ahead and redid this section. I think it needs a paragraph or two focusing on the historical criticisms of the instrument, and maybe on psychometrics in general, but I tried to keep the conversation relevant to the MMPI-2, not to personality testing in general. Feel free to revert the page back to a previous version if you think this was too much of a change, but I think the general consensus seemed to be that this section needed to be redone.--Mavrik4 (talk) 17:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Too many references?
There's a big block of 20 references all in one place at the end of the "history" section, are all of these really necessary? It seems a bit excessive. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
