mmpi lampiran manual inggris

University of Minnesota Press Minneapolis

Auke Tellegen Yossef S. Ben-Porath

Technical Manual

Response Bias Scale (RBS) Supplement

Excerpted from the 2011 corrected reprinting of the 2008 manual

Published by: University of Minnesota PressDistributed by: Pearson P.O. Box 1416 Minneapolis, MN 55440 800.627.7271 www.PsychCorp.com

MMPI-2-RF (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form) Technical ManualCorrected Reprinting

Copyright 2008, 2011 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc., P.O. Box 1416, Minneapolis, MN 55440. 800.627.7271 www.PsychCorp.com

Warning: Professional use only; resale not permitted. No part of this publication may be copied, reproduced, modified, or transmitted by any means, electronic or mechanical, without written permission from the University of Minnesota Press, 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290, Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520 (612-627-1964).

The following are registered trademarks of the Regents of the University of Minnesota: MMPI, MMPI-2-RF, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, and Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. The following are unregistered, common law trademarks of the University of Minnesota: MMPI-A, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent, MMPI-2, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2, and The Minnesota Report. Pearson, the PSI logo, and PsychCorp are trademarks in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s). DSM-III-R is a trademark of the American Psychiatric Association.

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 B C D E

iii

Contents

Introduction 1Table 1-1. (RBS added, p. 2) 2Development of Over-Reporting Indicators (RBS text inserted, p. 15) 3Table 3-2. (RBS added, p. 23) 4Validity of MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales (RBS text inserted, p. 26) 5Table 3-7. (RBS added, p. 27) 6Table 3-8. (RBS added, p. 27) 6Table 3-9. (RBS added, p. 27) 6Validity of Over-Reporting Indicators (RBS text inserted, p. 28) 7Table 3-10. (RBS added, p. 29) 8Table 3-11. (RBS added, p. 29) 8Table 3-12. (RBS added, p. 29) 8Table 3-13. (RBS added, p. 30) 9Table 3-14. (RBS added, p. 30) 9Table 3-15. (RBS added, p. 30) 9Validity of MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales (RBS text inserted, p. 31) 10MMPI-2-RF Scale Intercorrelations (RBS text inserted, p. 32) 11Table 3-17. (RBS added, pp. 3841) 12Table 3-18. (RBS added, pp. 4245) 16Table 3-19. (RBS added, pp. 4649) 20Table 3-20. (RBS added, pp. 5053) 24Table 3-21. (RBS added, pp. 5457) 28Table 3-22. (RBS added, pp. 5861) 32Table 3-23. (RBS added, pp. 6265) 36References (new and updated, pp. 67ff.) 40

AppendixesTable B-1. (RBS added, pp. 238ff.) 41Table B-6. (RBS added, pp. 271ff.) 51Table C-2. (RBS added, p. 288) 54Figure C-1. (RBS added, p. 290) 55Table C-4. (RBS added, p. 295) 56Figure C-6. (RBS added, p. 297) 57Figure C-7. (RBS added, p. 297) 57Table D-1. (RBS and new comparison groups added, pp. 304ff.) 58Table D-2. (new comparison groups added, p. 312) 70

Index (new entry for RBS, p. 404) 72

Note: A description of the change and page numbers of the 2008 manual are provided in parentheses following the entries.

1

Introduction

In August 2011, the University of Minnesota Press will publish and make available through its distributor, Pearson, corrected reprintings of the 2008 MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation and the 2008 MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual. The reprintings provide information on the Response Bias Scale (RBS), developed by Roger Gervais, which was recently added to the MMPI-2-RF. This brings the total number of MMPI-2-RF scales to 51 and the total number of validity indicators to 9. High scores on RBS indicate possible over-reporting of memory complaints.

Supplements to the manuals were developed to provide information about the RBS to MMPI-2-RF users who have already purchased test manuals, making it unnecessary for them to purchase the corrected reprintings.

This supplement to the technical manual consists of all text, tables, and figures containing substantive informa-tion on the RBS, excerpted from the 2011 reprinting of the manual. The new RBS material is boxed to make it easy to identify. Please note that text pages containing only changes in the total number of MMPI-2-RF scales (from 50 to 51) and the total number of validity indicators (from 8 to 9) are not included.

MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual 2

Validity Scales

VRIN-r Variable Response Inconsistency Random responding

TRIN-r True Response Inconsistency Fixed responding

F-r Infrequent Responses Responses infrequent in the general population

Fp-r Infrequent Psychopathology Responses Responses infrequent in psychiatric populations

Fs Infrequent Somatic Responses Somatic complaints infrequent in medical patient populations

FBS-r Symptom Validity Non-credible somatic and cognitive complaints

RBS Response Bias Scale Non-credible memory complaints

L-r Uncommon Virtues Rarely claimed moral attributes or activities

K-r Adjustment Validity Uncommonly high level of psychological adjustment

Higher-Order (H-O) Scales

EID Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction Problems associated with mood and affect

THD Thought Dysfunction Problems associated with disordered thinking

BXD Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction Problems associated with under-controlled behavior

Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

RCd Demoralization General unhappiness and dissatisfaction

RC1 Somatic Complaints Diffuse physical health complaints

RC2 Low Positive Emotions A distinctive, core vulnerability factor in depression

RC3 Cynicism Non-self-referential beliefs that others are bad and not to be trusted

RC4 Antisocial Behavior Rule breaking and irresponsible behavior

RC6 Ideas of Persecution Self-referential beliefs that others pose a threat

RC7 Dysfunctional Negative Emotions Maladaptive anxiety, anger, and irritability

RC8 Aberrant Experiences Unusual perceptions or thoughts associated with psychosis

RC9 Hypomanic Activation Over-activation, aggression, impulsivity, and grandiosity

Specific Problems (SP) Scales

Somatic/Cognitive Scales

MLS Malaise Overall sense of physical debilitation, poor health

GIC Gastrointestinal Complaints Nausea, recurring upset stomach, and poor appetite

HPC Head Pain Complaints Head and neck pain

NUC Neurological Complaints Dizziness, weakness, paralysis, loss of balance, etc.

COG Cognitive Complaints Memory problems, difficulties concentrating

Internalizing Scales

SUI Suicidal/Death Ideation Direct reports of suicidal ideation and recent suicide attempts

HLP Helplessness/Hopelessness Belief that goals cannot be reached or problems solved

SFD Self-Doubt Lack of self-confidence, feelings of uselessness

NFC Inefficacy Belief that one is indecisive and inefficacious

STW Stress/Worry Preoccupation with disappointments, difficulty with time pressure

AXY Anxiety Pervasive anxiety, frights, frequent nightmares

ANP Anger Proneness Easily angered, impatient with others

BRF Behavior-Restricting Fears Fears that significantly inhibit normal behavior

MSF Multiple Specific Fears Fear of blood, fire, thunder, etc.

Table 1-1.

The MMPI-2-RF Scales


A fourth over-reporting indicator, the Symptom Validity Scale (previously labeled the Fake Bad Scale and still abbreviated FBS), was added more recently to the MMPI-2 (Ben-Porath, Tellegen, & Graham, 2008). The FBS was developed by Lees-Haley, English, and Glenn (1991) to identify non-credible responding in test takers involved in personal injury litigation. These authors observed that the F Scale, a good indicator of over-reporting of symptoms of psychopathology, was not effective in personal injury evaluations, when over-reporting typically involves acting hurt rather than severely psychologically disordered. A recent meta-analysis (Nelson, Sweet, & Demakis, 2006) led to the conclusion that the FBS is the best MMPI-2 indicator of over-reporting cogni-tive and somatic symptoms by individuals involved in personal injury litigation.

A fifth over-reporting measure, the Response Bias Scale (RBS, Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007), was added to the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in 2011 following a review conducted by the test publisher. Gervais et al. developed the scale to detect non-credible symptom reporting in forensic neuro-psychological or disability assessment settings. The scale consists of 28 items that discriminated between individuals who passed or failed symptom validity testing in the context of disability evaluations.

In developing over-reporting indicators for the MMPI-2-RF, we sought to maintain a diverse set of indicators that function in a complementary fashion to detect different types of over-reporting in the various settings in which the test is used. As a first step, we added a new infrequency scale developed by Wygant, Ben-Porath, and Arbisi (2004) to identify uncommon somatic complaints. The 16 items selected for the Infrequent Somatic Responses Scale (Fs) describe somatic problems reported by 25% or less of men and women in several large samples of medical patients. Wygant (2007) presented evidence of the utility of Fs in identifying non-credible somatic symptom reporting in a variety of settings. These analyses also showed that Fs and FBS operate in a complementary manner, each scale outper-forming the other in some settings and tasks.

Of the 43 FBS items, 30 were retained in the 338-item MMPI-2-RF pool. Correlational analyses (reported in Chapter 3) indicated that scores on the 30-item version of the FBS were highly correlated (.96.99) with scores on the full version of the scale in samples that included large numbers of individ-uals who failed symptom validity tests. This 30-item version of FBS, now called the Symptom Validity

Scale and abbreviated FBS-r, was added to the MMPI-2-RF. Research summarized in Chapter 3 indicates how it can complement the other scales with respect to non-credible reporting of somatic and cognitive symptoms.

A meta-analysis by Rogers, Sewell, Martin, and Vitacco (2003) indicated that the FP Scale was the best MMPI-2 over-reporting indicator in studies involving over-reporting of psychopathology symp-toms. However, Gass and Luis (2001) had previously observed that the inclusion of four L items on FP (scored in the same direction) may compromise the utility of the scale. Although Arbisi, Ben-Porath, and McNulty (2003b) demonstrated that, overall, the FP Scale functions more effectively when the four items it shares with L are included, our goal to develop maximally distinctive scales for the MMPI-2-RF and the observation that in some cases, moderate eleva-tions on FP are primarily the product of the four L items, led us to drop these items from the revised version of the scale. In addition, we dropped three items from FP that were included on the Fs Scale. Correlational analyses indicated that two other FP items did not function as effectively as the others, while the addition of three items not scored on the original FP Scale was found to improve the scale. Analyses reported and summarized in Chapter 3 indicate that the 21-item MMPI-2-RF version of FP, labeled Infrequent Psychopathology Responses (Fp-r) is highly correlated with its MMPI-2 counter-part and is an effective predictor of symptom over-reporting by individuals tested in settings with high base rates of severe psychopathology.

As mentioned earlier, MMPI-2 studies have indi-cated that in some settings (e.g., correctional) F outperforms FP and that FB outperforms both these scales in detecting over-reporting of symptoms of depression. To ensure that the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting indicators would function adequately in a broad range of settings and assessments, we devel-oped a third infrequent response indicator designed to incorporate elements of both the F and FB Scales. As discussed previously, the primary difference between the two scales is that selection of the FB items was based on item response frequencies in the current normative sample, whereas the F items were selected by analyzing the original normative sample and some of these items are no longer infrequently endorsed by the current normative sample. We developed a revised F Scale for the MMPI-2-RF by identifying in the 338-item pool those items that were endorsed by 10% or less of both the men and the women in the normative sample and that were


Table 3-2.

Reliability and Standard Errors of Measurement for the MMPI-2-RF Validity ScalesTest-Retest

(rtr)Internal Consistency

(Alpha)Standard Error of

Measurement (SEM)

MMPI-2-RF Normative

Sample Subset

MMPI-2-RF Normative

Sample

Outpatients, Community Mental

Health Center

Psychiatric Inpatients, Community

Hospital

Psychiatric Inpatients,

VA Hospital

Normative (Test-

Retest)Normative

(Alpha)

Median Clinical (Alpha)

Men and Women (n = 193)

Men (n = 1,138)

Women (n = 1,138)

Men (n = 410)

Women (n = 610)

Men (n = 709)

Women (n = 473)

Men (n = 1,128)

Men and Women (n = 193)

Men (n = 1,138)

Women (n = 1,138)

Men and Women

(total n = 3,330)

VRIN-r .52 .39 .20 .33 .24 .27 .16 .24 7 9 8 9

TRIN-r .40 .37 .23 .37 .27 .41 .27 .40 8 9 8 8

F-r .82 .69 .71 .85 .85 .88 .87 .87 4 6 5 10

Fp-r .71 .41 .41 .57 .53 .60 .47 .54 5 8 8 10

Fs .51 .40 .45 .64 .68 .66 .60 .65 7 8 7 12

FBS-r .72 .50 .56 .75 .76 .71 .75 .74 5 6 7 8

RBS .71 .39 .46 .75 .76 .76 .75 .76 5 8 7 9

L-r .79 .60 .61 .65 .64 .63 .57 .57 5 6 6 7

K-r .84 .67 .68 .74 .67 .76 .75 .72 4 6 6 6


Substantive Scales The test-retest correlations and internal consistency values of the Higher-Order (H-O), Restructured Clinical (RC), and Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales for the most part exceed .80. Alpha values derived from the normative sample are, as expected, somewhat lower because of truncated distributions. Reliability estimates for the Somatic/Cognitive, Internalizing, Externalizing, and Interper-sonal Scales are somewhat lower than for the H-O, RC, and PSY-5 Scales, which is to be expected since the Specific Problems (SP) Scales of the MMPI-2-RF are shorter.

SEMs are predominantly eight T-score points or lower, and a majority are six points or lower. Excep-tions are SEMs of shorter and/or more highly truncated measures like Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helpless-ness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety (AXY), Behavior-Restricting Fears (BRF), and Disaffiliativeness (DSF), which in the clinical samples range from 9 to 11 points. Larger SEM values imply that more extreme T scores are needed to justify clinically significant inferences.

ValidityValidity Scales The MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales provide informa-tion about threats to the validity of a protocol that must be considered before scores on the substantive scales of the test are interpreted. Seven of the nine scalesVariable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r), True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r), Infrequent Responses (F-r), Infrequent Psychopathology Responses (Fp-r), Symptom Validity (FBS-r), Uncommon Virtues (L-r), and Adjustment Validity (K-r)are revised and generally shorter versions of the MMPI-2 Validity Scales. Infrequent Somatic Responses (Fs) and Response Bias Scale (RBS) are new scales designed to complement the revised Validity Scales with measures of infrequent somatic complaints and exaggerated memory complaints, respectively. For details about the development of these scales, see Chapter 2.

Inconsistent Responding Indicators. Handel, Ben-Porath, Tellegen, and Archer (2007) examined whether VRIN-r and TRIN-r could be used to identify protocols in which varying percentages of the original item responses were replaced with quasi-random and fixed responses, respectively. They compared the performance of the two scales with that of their MMPI-2 versions and found that VRIN-r and its MMPI-2 counterpart, VRIN, performed similarly in detecting quasi-random responding. TRIN-r outper-

formed the MMPI-2 TRIN scale in detecting protocols with varying degrees of simulated fixed responding. Both VRIN-r and TRIN-r demonstrated adequate sensitivity to levels of inconsistent responding that resulted in significantly attenuated validity coefficients for the substantive scales.

Tables 3-7 through 3-9 present correlations between the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-2 Validity Scales in the data set used by Handel et al. (2007), the MMPI-2 normative sample. Subjects were excluded if their scores on MMPI-2 Validity Scales other than the one under scrutiny suggested questionable response validity. In the analyses focusing on VRIN-r and VRIN (Table 3-7), subjects were excluded if they did not provide scorable responses to 30 or more of the items or scored higher than 80T on TRIN, F, FP, or L, higher than 90T on FB, or higher than 75T on K or S. In the analyses of TRIN-r and TRIN (Tables 3-8 and 3-9), the same exclu-sion criteria were applied except that a score higher than 80T on VRIN replaced the criterion for TRIN.

In the VRIN-r analyses (Table 3-7) the responses of half of the 2,465 subjects were altered by replacing a randomly selected 70% of the participants item responses with randomly keyed (50% True, 50% False) responses. The resulting correlation between VRIN-r and VRIN (.84) indicates that the two scales, while functionally similar, are not inter-changeable. However, as just mentioned, the two versions performed comparably in the detection of quasi-random responding. Moreover, examination of correlations between VRIN-r and the other MMPI-2 Validity Scales (the first column of Table 3-7) and VRIN and the other MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales (the first row of Table 3-7) indicates that under the conditions simulated in these analyses, the two versions of VRIN produce very similar correlations with the other Validity Scales (e.g., a correlation of .84 between VRIN-r and F and a correlation of .83 between VRIN and F-r).

In the analyses focusing on fixed responding in the True direction (Table 3-8), the responses of half of the 2,475 subjects were manipulated by replacing 70% of the original item responses with a True response. The resulting correlation between TRIN-r and TRIN (.95) indicates that the two scales function very similarly. In the analyses of fixed responding in the False direction (Table 3-9), a False response replaced 70% of the original responses in half the sample. The resulting correlation between TRIN-r and TRIN (.91) again indicates that the two scales respond similarly. And, as mentioned earlier, Handel et al. (2007) found that in the detection of protocols


Table 3-7.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsHandel et al. (2007) Normative Sample with Random Response Insertion (N = 2,465)

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

VRIN .84 .19 .83 .80 .75 .63 .74 .55 .14

TRIN .26 .42 .26 .28 .24 .21 .22 .18 .11

F .84 .18 .91 .90 .84 .67 .79 .59 .11

FB .83 .23 .91 .87 .80 .68 .78 .60 .14

FP .81 .19 .84 .95 .80 .64 .76 .63 .08

FBS .58 .14 .64 .61 .61 .93 .63 .46 .07

L .49 .11 .51 .51 .48 .45 .52 .87 .15

K .07 .18 .10 .04 .09 .07 .10 .10 .79

Table 3-9.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsHandel et al. (2007) Normative Sample with Fixed (False) Response Insertion (N = 2,475)


VRIN .44 .49 .51 .50 .46 .45 .45 .45 .09

TRIN .01 .91 .53 .72 .63 .62 .55 .79 .58

F .16 .85 .70 .86 .73 .65 .64 .78 .43

FB .33 .18 .59 .44 .41 .36 .42 .23 .15

FP .11 .85 .60 .90 .68 .63 .59 .84 .49

FBS .09 .75 .57 .67 .64 .93 .62 .72 .44

L .03 .85 .51 .73 .63 .65 .58 .96 .61

K .13 .80 .32 .60 .47 .50 .39 .74 .86

Table 3-8.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsHandel et al. (2007) Normative Sample with Fixed (True) Response Insertion (N = 2,475)


VRIN .70 .71 .74 .73 .72 .59 .71 .07 .53

TRIN .55 .95 .93 .92 .90 .72 .88 .11 .64

F .60 .94 .97 .97 .94 .74 .91 .10 .67

FB .60 .95 .98 .96 .93 .75 .92 .11 .67

FP .59 .93 .95 .98 .93 .73 .89 .13 .64

FBS .33 .47 .50 .49 .52 .89 .55 .13 .35

L .36 .59 .60 .59 .58 .40 .53 .53 .57

K .52 .81 .83 .81 .80 .65 .79 .01 .89


with varying degrees of simulated fixed responding, TRIN-r outperformed TRIN.

The descriptive statistics reported in Appendix D indicate that mean scores and standard deviations of VRIN-r and TRIN-r are quite comparable across a variety of clinical and non-clinical samples (with T-score means ranging from 48 to 54, and standard deviations from 8 to 11). Exceptions are found in samples of individuals who completed the MMPI-2 in pre-employment screening settings: mean VRIN-r scores ranged from 41 to 43 (scores on TRIN-r do not go below 50 by design), and standard deviations of the two scales ranged from 6 to 8. Lower mean scores and standard deviations are expected in settings in which there is a strong incentive to present oneself in a favorable and consistent manner. These findings are additional evidence that the inconsistent response indicators operate effectively.

Over-Reporting Indicators. The MMPI-2-RF includes five measures designed to provide comple-mentary indications of possible over-reporting of problems: Infrequent Responses (F-r), Infrequent Psychopathology Responses (Fp-r), Infrequent Somatic Responses (Fs), Symptom Validity (FBS-r), and Response Bias Scale (RBS). Wygant et al. (2008) examined the performance of the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting indicators in the detection of feigned psychiatric, somatic, and neurocognitive symptoms in the context of civil and criminal forensic litiga-tion. They found the scales to be effective at detecting various threats to protocol validity in these forensic settings. Wygant, Gervais, and Ben-Porath (2007) evaluated the MMPI-2-RF over-reporting scales as indicators of identified malingered neuro-cognitive dysfunction as defined by the criteria developed by Slick, Sherman, and Iverson (1999). They found F-r and FBS-r to be particularly effective at this task.

A series of studies has established the utility of RBS as a measure of non-credible memory complaints (Gervais, Ben-Porath, & Wygant, 2009; Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2007; Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green, 2008; Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Sellbom, 2010; Lange, Sullivan, & Scott, 2010; Nelson, Sweet, & Heilbronner, 2007; Smart et al., 2008; Van Dyke, Axelrod, & Schutte, 2010; Whitney, Davis, Shephard, & Herman, 2008; Wygant et al., 2010).

Tables 3-10 through 3-13 present correlations of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in a number of existing MMPI-2 data sets collected for

earlier Validity Scale investigations. These findings from simulation studies indicate that functionally the MMPI-2-RF Scales F-r, Fp-r, and FBS-r and their MMPI-2 counterparts are largely interchangeable. For example, in a sample of psychiatric inpatients, when approximately half the participants were instructed to over-report their symptoms (Table 3-10), correlations between F-r and F, Fp-r and Fp, and FBS-r and FBS were .95, .99, and .97, respec-tively. In a comparable study of medical patients, approximately half of whom were instructed to over-report medical problems and associated emotional difficulties (Table 3-11), correlations between the two versions of these scales were .96, .98, and .97.

In two samples of test takers who were involved in personal injury litigation (Table 3-12) or were simu-lating symptoms of head injury (Table 3-13), corre-lations between the two versions of F and of Fp were not as high. However, in the same samples, correla-tions (of .96 and .98, respectively) between the two versions of FBS, the most effective MMPI-2 Validity Scale in detecting non-credible somatic and cogni-tive symptom reporting, indicated that these two versions function in essentially the same way.

Descriptive statistics presented in Appendix D indicate considerable variation across settings. As would be expected, mean T scores and standard deviations of the over-reporting indicators are higher than average in clinical settings and below average in personnel screening samples. The highest scores and greatest degree of variability are found in a sample of forensic disability claimants that includes a relatively large number of individuals who failed symptom validity tests.

Under-Reporting Indicators. The MMPI-2-RF includes two measures of under-reporting, Uncommon Virtues (L-r) and Adjustment Validity (K-r), which are revised versions of MMPI-2 Scales L and K. Sellbom and Bagby (2008) evaluated L-r and K-r as detectors of under-reporting in clinical and non-clin-ical settings. They found both scales to be effective at identifying simulating test takers as well as test takers in real-life settings who would be expected to under-report given the context of their evaluation (e.g., child custody litigants). They also concluded that the two measures complement each other and provide incrementally valid information. Extending Sellbom and Bagbys simulation findings, Wygant, Ben-Porath, and Tellegen (2007) similarly found in two other samples that L-r and K-r performed well in the identification of individuals simulating under-reporting.


Table 3-10.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsArbisi and Ben-Porath (1998) Psychiatric Inpatient Over-Reporting Sample (N = 67)


VRIN .67 .00 .25 .18 .18 .05 .18 .27 .40

TRIN .26 .50 .25 .20 .21 .14 .14 .09 .15

F .01 .07 .95 .97 .95 .76 .84 .23 .48

FB .02 .09 .97 .92 .90 .77 .87 .22 .53

FP .00 .08 .88 .99 .93 .72 .77 .37 .38

FBS .07 .04 .73 .66 .72 .97 .80 .27 .25

L .26 .14 .02 .05 .10 .20 .82 .86 .35

K .12 .31 .47 .42 .45 .26 .44 .12 .87

Table 3-11.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsSellbom et al. (2005) Medical Patient Over-Reporting Sample (N = 86)


VRIN .65 .10 .39 .40 .41 .44 .43 .06 .42

TRIN .16 .46 .10 .09 .14 .15 .15 .20 .13

F .52 .02 .96 .96 .89 .74 .84 .24 .49

FB .49 .02 .97 .94 .86 .75 .87 .17 .58

FP .58 .03 .89 .98 .82 .64 .74 .38 .35

FBS .33 .00 .72 .60 .79 .97 .81 .19 .36

L .26 .20 .06 .20 .10 .22 .07 .86 .43

K .29 .26 .56 .44 .45 .40 .58 .21 .90

Table 3-12.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsWygant, Sellbom, et al. (2007) Personal Injury/ Disability Sample (N = 140)


VRIN .43 .20 .27 .38 .31 .23 .29 .08 .47

TRIN .11 .43 .32 .19 .15 .08 .16 .01 .29

F .34 .24 .86 .82 .65 .52 .73 .06 .62

FB .25 .32 .90 .69 .62 .58 .74 .06 .65

FP .16 .21 .50 .73 .40 .28 .40 .18 .39

FBS .17 .16 .58 .42 .62 .96 .70 .01 .40

L .07 .08 .20 .09 .13 .03 .01 .91 .29

K .44 .32 .61 .52 .57 .38 .54 .21 .92


Table 3-13.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsDearth et al. (2005) Neuropsychology Sample (N = 79)


VRIN .56 .07 .12 .06 .08 .06 .12 .14 .11

TRIN .12 .56 .37 .27 .25 .22 .32 .04 .38

F .23 .31 .91 .92 .82 .64 .79 .27 .57

FB .08 .40 .92 .88 .78 .62 .76 .23 .58

FP .24 .26 .71 .97 .63 .40 .55 .06 .35

FBS .03 .27 .69 .40 .79 .97 .84 .36 .64

L .08 .18 .44 .29 .37 .41 .40 .86 .35

K .24 .41 .71 .48 .67 .61 .68 .23 .94

Table 3-14.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsBagby, Rogers, Buis, and Kalemba (1994) Under-Reporting Sample (N = 82)


VRIN .60 .21 .53 .51 .44 .28 .49 .12 .53

TRIN .01 .47 .13 .06 .01 .11 .02 .03 .02

F .52 .22 .86 .73 .61 .42 .67 .09 .42

FB .42 .28 .79 .77 .45 .44 .65 .00 .45

FP .37 .25 .65 .80 .41 .18 .56 .43 .17

FBS .23 .01 .46 .28 .39 .91 .41 .03 .18

L .12 .01 .02 .06 .05 .03 .07 .91 .38

K .41 .27 .54 .39 .53 .28 .38 .27 .88

Table 3-15.

MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale CorrelationsDragon and Ben-Porath (2007) Under-Reporting Sample (N = 192)


VRIN .68 .02 .45 .47 .42 .25 .30 .28 .45

TRIN .06 .46 .23 .15 .17 .20 .13 .07 .25

F .49 .13 .79 .76 .68 .33 .54 .25 .58

FB .56 .24 .81 .69 .61 .44 .48 .23 .54

FP .22 .13 .44 .73 .38 .21 .26 .27 .10

FBS .21 .05 .43 .29 .48 .93 .44 .08 .20

L .30 .16 .32 .30 .26 .02 .11 .93 .63

K .40 .31 .53 .47 .51 .20 .36 .56 .88


Descriptive statistics reported in Appendix D portray an expected pattern of variation across settings. Mean T scores on L-r range from average to moderately above average in most clinical and non-clinical settings, with the expected exception of personnel screening evaluations, which result in T-score means that are considerably above average. Mean T scores on K-r are considerably below average in clinical settings and average in non-clinical settings, with the expected exception of considerably above-average means in personnel screening settings. The finding that mean scores on L-r and K-r are appre-ciably higher than average in settings with demand characteristics that encourage under-reporting of symptoms adduces further evidence of the utility of these two scales.

In summary, the revised versions of the MMPI-2-RF protocol validity indicators have been found to per-form as well as the original scales, and the new Fs and RBS scales have proved to be effective indicators of non-credible somatic symptom reporting (e.g., Wygant et al., 2008).

Substantive Scales External Correlates. External validity data gathered from a wide range of settings in which the MMPI-2-RF is likely to be used document the convergent and discriminant validity, and corroborate the construct validity of the substantive scales. Our focus in the MMPI-2-RF test manuals is on the convergent find-ings, which comprise the external correlates of the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales. In Appendix A, empirical correlates of these scales are reported for clinical, forensic, medical, and non-clinical samples. These correlates represent a broad array of criteria, including therapist ratings, clinical diagnoses, ratings by intake staff and admission records, biographical information, and additional self-report measures. The results include relevant empirical correlates for each of the 42 MMPI-2-RF substantive scales.

Correlates for a community mental health outpa-tient sample collected by Graham Ben-Porath, and McNulty (1999) are reported in Tables A-1 through A-24. The criteria in Tables A-1 through A-8 are based on ratings provided by mental health intake workers (mainly social workers) following an initial interview with the patient and before administration of the MMPI-2. The correlates reported in Tables A-9 through A-24 are based on ratings of these partici-pants by their therapists following the third therapy session but before the therapists saw their clients MMPI-2 results. The ratings were made on a 188-item list of symptoms and personality character-

istics (the Patient Description Form [PDF]) culled from the MMPI and MMPI-2 correlate literature. Correlations between the MMPI-2-RF Scales and a set of scales Graham et al. (1999) created by combining PDF items into composite measures are reported in Tables A-9 through A-16. Correlations with the individual PDF items are reported in Tables A-17 through A-24. Detailed item-level criteria were particularly helpful in identifying correlates for the more narrowly focused Specific Problems Scales.

Correlates for a psychiatric inpatient sample collected by Arbisi, Ben-Porath, and McNulty (2003a) are reported in Tables A-25 through A-72. The Record Review Form (RRF) developed by Arbisi and Ben-Porath (2003a) provided the criteria for these analyses. At the time the MMPI-2 was administered as well as at discharge, the RRF was completed on the basis of a systematic review of the patients chart, primarily the admitting psychiatrists intake report, and provided extensive information on the patients history, mental status, presenting complaints, intake diagnoses, and medication on admission.

Correlates for samples of Veterans Administration (VA) mental health, medical, and substance abuse treatment patients are reported in Tables A-73 through A-88. The criteria used in these analyses were self-report measures, which for the mental health and medical outpatients consisted of brief measures thought to represent the primary areas assessed by the MMPI-2 Clinical and Content Scales. For the substance abuse treatment sample, the domain and facet scales of the NEO Personality InventoryRevised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992) were chosen.

Correlates for a forensic sample of disability claim-ants are reported in Tables A-89 through A-104. Two self-report measures provided the criteria for these analyses: the Multifactor Health InventoryRevised (MHI-R; Hase, 1996) and the Detailed Assessment of Post-Traumatic Stress (DAPS; Briere, 2001). The MHI-R, which assesses both specific physical health concerns and general preoccupation with poor health, was particularly helpful in identifying fine-grained correlates of the Somatic/Cognitive Scales. The DAPS data were helpful in identifying symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.

Correlates for a forensic sample of criminal defen-dants are reported in Tables A-105 through A-128. Archival data collected at the Court Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic provide court-ordered psycho-legal evaluations (e.g., competence to stand trial and not guilty by reason of insanity). A Record Review Form developed by Ben-


Porath and Stafford (1993) was completed on the basis of a systematic review of the charts of defendants evaluated at this facility. Extensive information was gathered on family, social, educational, mental health, and medical history, including substance abuse and prior criminal behavior, and on mental status at the time of the evaluation, medication, and diagnoses.

Correlates for a sample of college students who completed the Multidimensional Personality Ques-tionnaire (MPQ; Tellegen & Waller, 2008) are reported in Tables A-129 through A-136. Corre-lations between the MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and the MPQ Superfactor, Primary, and Subscales are reported. These findings, along with those reported in Tables A-81 through A-84 for the NEO PI-R, link the MMPI-2-RF scales to contemporary personality constructs.

Overall, the empirical results reported in Appendix A bear out the validity of the MMPI-2-RF scales in the form of meaningful replicated correlates in a variety of settings. A scale-by-scale list of correlates based on these findings is presented in Chapter 5 (Tables 5-11 through 5-52) of the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. With the exception of the original Clinical Scales, no other MMPI or MMPI-2 scales have been as exten-sively validated against a variety of criteria in as broad a range of settings as have the MMPI-2-RF scales.

Correlations with MMPI-2 Substantive Scales. Correlations of the 42 substantive scales of the MMPI-2-RF with the 103 MMPI-2 substantive scales (the Clinical Scales, Harris-Lingoes and Si subscales, Content Scales, Content Component Scales, Supplementary Scales, and PSY-5 Scales) are presented in Appendix E of this manual. A summary is provided in Table 3-16, which lists for each of the MMPI-2 substantive scales the three highest corre-lated MMPI-2-RF substantive scales in five clinical samples. In addition to summarizing the findings reported in Appendix E, this table helps MMPI-2 users locate the MMPI-2-RF measures that are likely to provide the information currently available from the MMPI-2.

These results indicate that for most of the substan-tive MMPI-2 scales, a substantially correlated MMPI-2-RF scale can be found. Furthermore, the correlations shown in Table 3-16 indicate that the substantive MMPI-2-RF scales are associated in expected ways with similar measures on the MMPI-2. On the other hand, the correlations were not expected to reach levels suggesting that the MMPI-2 and

MMPI-2-RF scales are so similar as to be inter-changeable. Indeed, they are not. The restructuring of the MMPI-2 was designed to yield a smaller set of non-redundant scales that assess the constructs embedded in the MMPI-2 in a more efficient, concep-tually focused, and structurally coherent manner.

Intercorrelations. Tables 3-17 through 3-23 provide a complete matrix of correlations between the 51 scales of the MMPI-2-RF for the normative sample, the community mental health center outpa-tient samples, and the psychiatric inpatient samples. Structural findings with the normative sample (Tables 3-17 and 3-18) generally mirror those with the clinical samples (Tables 3-19 through 3-23), although the magnitude of the correlations in the former is generally lower, owing to truncated scale score distributions.

Some general patterns emerge from these correla-tions. Of the Validity Scales, F-r has the highest correlations overall with the substantive scales. As is true for its MMPI-2 counterpart, we expect this scale to be substantially elevated among individuals experiencing genuine psychopathology. The corre-sponding correlations of Fp-r with the substantive scales are lower, indicating that scores on this scale are less confounded with psychopathology. As was expected, Fs, FBS-r, and RBS are most highly corre-lated with scales assessing somatic and cognitive complaints. Correlations of K-r with the substantive scales are generally higher than the corresponding correlations of L-r, with the exception of some scales associated with behavioral dysfunction (e.g., SUB and DISC-r), which show higher correlations with L-r. This pattern reflects the two types of under-reporting associated with these scales: denial of moral character flaws (L-r) and denial of psycho-logical adjustment problems (K-r).

Intercorrelations between the 42 substantive scales correspond generally to the recommended interpretive structure for the MMPI-2-RF described in Chapter 5 of the MMPI-2-RF Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. This structure is broadly defined by the H-O Scales (EID, THD, and BXD), which represent the major functional domains of emotion, thought, and behavior, respectively. These three scales show substantial and generally distinctive correlations, discernible in Tables 3-17 through 3-23, with the RC, SP, and PSY-5 Scales specifically recommended for identifying dysfunction in each of the three domains. The EID, THD, and BXD measures, although distinctive and largely independent, are not uncorrelated. The manifestations of psychopathology


Table 3-17.

MMPI-2-RF Scale IntercorrelationsNormative SampleMen (N = 1,138)

Validity Scales


VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r EID THD BXD

VRIN-r 1.00 .07 .41 .35 .28 .19 .31 .02 .32 .35 .33 .27TRIN-r .07 1.00 .17 .04 .09 .03 .03 .04 .27 .11 .18 .16F-r .41 .17 1.00 .48 .52 .35 .47 .04 .46 .57 .64 .39Fp-r .35 .04 .48 1.00 .34 .18 .33 .10 .30 .36 .40 .23Fs .28 .09 .52 .34 1.00 .30 .41 .06 .29 .36 .51 .27FBS-r .19 .03 .35 .18 .30 1.00 .39 .14 .09 .43 .19 .09RBS .31 .03 .47 .33 .41 .39 1.00 .22 .22 .41 .24 .12L-r .02 .04 .04 .10 .06 .14 .22 1.00 .29 .21 .07 .27K-r .32 .27 .46 .30 .29 .09 .22 .29 1.00 .69 .35 .37EID .35 .11 .57 .36 .36 .43 .41 .21 .69 1.00 .29 .20THD .33 .18 .64 .40 .51 .19 .24 .07 .35 .29 1.00 .35BXD .27 .16 .39 .23 .27 .09 .12 .27 .37 .20 .35 1.00RCd .36 .23 .62 .39 .34 .46 .40 .17 .63 .88 .35 .28RC1 .34 .01 .58 .33 .54 .58 .44 .07 .34 .43 .39 .21RC2 .12 .23 .27 .20 .16 .30 .38 .14 .27 .61 .03 .13RC3 .30 .26 .40 .33 .24 .14 .20 .03 .64 .38 .41 .31RC4 .28 .09 .40 .26 .27 .03 .03 .24 .36 .27 .30 .86RC6 .33 .15 .60 .45 .34 .17 .26 .06 .33 .33 .74 .27RC7 .44 .31 .56 .33 .39 .27 .33 .20 .70 .73 .47 .36RC8 .33 .21 .62 .34 .54 .17 .24 .00 .37 .29 .87 .43RC9 .26 .27 .39 .24 .24 .04 .08 .23 .52 .26 .44 .71MLS .15 .04 .41 .23 .31 .35 .29 .09 .40 .51 .17 .09GIC .13 .06 .32 .18 .31 .41 .20 .02 .21 .27 .20 .14HPC .24 .03 .37 .21 .33 .55 .28 .02 .26 .30 .27 .15NUC .22 .02 .50 .24 .44 .33 .33 .07 .20 .29 .32 .17COG .39 .20 .59 .34 .45 .35 .54 .08 .46 .54 .39 .27SUI .20 .10 .43 .23 .24 .29 .21 .04 .27 .40 .27 .13HLP .27 .12 .35 .25 .25 .28 .30 .01 .40 .53 .18 .05SFD .30 .20 .42 .29 .27 .26 .32 .17 .54 .72 .24 .19NFC .36 .25 .41 .29 .25 .24 .38 .13 .51 .60 .26 .16STW .35 .12 .44 .26 .28 .34 .22 .18 .55 .65 .33 .29AXY .36 .14 .51 .38 .31 .33 .31 .03 .35 .50 .36 .18ANP .35 .06 .41 .25 .27 .17 .25 .13 .56 .47 .28 .39BRF .32 .14 .37 .37 .27 .21 .24 .11 .25 .31 .32 .12MSF .22 .09 .19 .15 .14 .12 .13 .02 .23 .23 .17 .01JCP .23 .14 .33 .20 .21 .07 .04 .15 .28 .15 .28 .77SUB .15 .07 .20 .19 .17 .08 .01 .22 .18 .16 .12 .56AGG .28 .14 .45 .29 .25 .05 .09 .22 .51 .34 .38 .69ACT .19 .23 .29 .15 .23 .04 .08 .10 .37 .17 .41 .40FML .27 .11 .41 .32 .24 .14 .13 .19 .49 .44 .35 .32IPP .03 .18 .08 .03 .02 .12 .25 .02 .09 .15 .16 .32SAV .07 .22 .09 .08 .08 .12 .30 .04 .11 .36 .06 .21SHY .25 .24 .24 .17 .19 .15 .27 .16 .43 .57 .13 .05DSF .28 .07 .34 .32 .18 .09 .29 .11 .21 .29 .16 .06AES .01 .09 .06 .07 .00 .01 .10 .07 .04 .01 .11 .10MEC .08 .15 .07 .03 .08 .06 .04 .01 .07 .07 .11 .28AGGR-r .09 .19 .19 .11 .10 .12 .17 .04 .19 .08 .27 .50PSYC-r .35 .19 .64 .43 .52 .21 .26 .06 .36 .30 .95 .35DISC-r .21 .16 .29 .17 .21 .12 .17 .27 .28 .11 .27 .92NEGE-r .40 .11 .54 .31 .33 .35 .28 .20 .69 .73 .40 .35INTR-r .00 .30 .06 .07 .03 .17 .34 .00 .02 .34 .18 .32


Table 3-17. (continued)




RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9 MLS GIC HPC NUC COG

VRIN-r .36 .34 .12 .30 .28 .33 .44 .33 .26 .15 .13 .24 .22 .39TRIN-r .23 .01 .23 .26 .09 .15 .31 .21 .27 .04 .06 .03 .02 .20F-r .62 .58 .27 .40 .40 .60 .56 .62 .39 .41 .32 .37 .50 .59Fp-r .39 .33 .20 .33 .26 .45 .33 .34 .24 .23 .18 .21 .24 .34Fs .34 .54 .16 .24 .27 .34 .39 .54 .24 .31 .31 .33 .44 .45FBS-r .46 .58 .30 .14 .03 .17 .27 .17 .04 .35 .41 .55 .33 .35RBS .40 .44 .38 .20 .03 .26 .33 .24 .08 .29 .20 .28 .33 .54L-r .17 .07 .14 .03 .24 .06 .20 .00 .23 .09 .02 .02 .07 .08K-r .63 .34 .27 .64 .36 .33 .70 .37 .52 .40 .21 .26 .20 .46EID .88 .43 .61 .38 .27 .33 .73 .29 .26 .51 .27 .30 .29 .54THD .35 .39 .03 .41 .30 .74 .47 .87 .44 .17 .20 .27 .32 .39BXD .28 .21 .13 .31 .86 .27 .36 .43 .71 .09 .14 .15 .17 .27RCd 1.00 .40 .44 .37 .34 .36 .68 .35 .32 .44 .27 .29 .27 .58RC1 .40 1.00 .27 .25 .22 .32 .39 .40 .22 .50 .50 .70 .72 .43RC2 .44 .27 1.00 .05 .03 .08 .18 .07 .25 .54 .14 .16 .21 .26RC3 .37 .25 .05 1.00 .27 .42 .50 .37 .47 .20 .11 .16 .16 .35RC4 .34 .22 .03 .27 1.00 .26 .33 .38 .47 .14 .15 .15 .17 .28RC6 .36 .32 .08 .42 .26 1.00 .40 .49 .32 .21 .16 .23 .25 .36RC7 .68 .39 .18 .50 .33 .40 1.00 .49 .53 .29 .24 .27 .27 .57RC8 .35 .40 .07 .37 .38 .49 .49 1.00 .49 .15 .20 .27 .34 .48RC9 .32 .22 .25 .47 .47 .32 .53 .49 1.00 .08 .14 .18 .15 .32MLS .44 .50 .54 .20 .14 .21 .29 .15 .08 1.00 .25 .33 .37 .31GIC .27 .50 .14 .11 .15 .16 .24 .20 .14 .25 1.00 .25 .21 .23HPC .29 .70 .16 .16 .15 .23 .27 .27 .18 .33 .25 1.00 .30 .30NUC .27 .72 .21 .16 .17 .25 .27 .34 .15 .37 .21 .30 1.00 .33COG .58 .43 .26 .35 .28 .36 .57 .48 .32 .31 .23 .30 .33 1.00SUI .41 .27 .19 .22 .16 .27 .31 .26 .16 .30 .25 .21 .13 .27HLP .49 .33 .37 .35 .09 .21 .43 .15 .17 .34 .17 .23 .19 .38SFD .77 .28 .37 .29 .24 .25 .51 .25 .21 .32 .19 .17 .21 .45NFC .65 .30 .30 .39 .19 .29 .63 .27 .27 .30 .16 .21 .22 .51STW .60 .34 .20 .37 .30 .33 .62 .31 .39 .28 .21 .27 .21 .43AXY .51 .34 .19 .28 .20 .37 .56 .32 .24 .23 .23 .23 .20 .37ANP .42 .33 .08 .38 .31 .26 .63 .30 .51 .22 .19 .20 .23 .37BRF .31 .28 .12 .26 .12 .26 .40 .29 .19 .20 .16 .17 .21 .31MSF .18 .23 .10 .27 .02 .18 .29 .15 .12 .20 .09 .15 .17 .22JCP .22 .17 .05 .27 .79 .26 .25 .34 .40 .08 .12 .10 .13 .24SUB .21 .07 .01 .10 .70 .08 .19 .22 .29 .04 .08 .04 .06 .14AGG .36 .24 .00 .39 .54 .32 .51 .39 .70 .18 .14 .20 .19 .29ACT .24 .19 .24 .30 .28 .24 .44 .49 .71 .02 .10 .15 .14 .28FML .46 .25 .15 .34 .40 .31 .49 .35 .42 .22 .13 .20 .17 .34IPP .10 .04 .41 .22 .16 .12 .06 .17 .47 .05 .02 .05 .05 .03SAV .16 .09 .55 .00 .08 .01 .10 .08 .30 .17 .03 .06 .07 .06SHY .41 .19 .32 .24 .10 .13 .53 .15 .09 .17 .10 .14 .14 .31DSF .26 .20 .24 .27 .09 .21 .24 .14 .09 .15 .08 .12 .16 .24AES .10 .00 .06 .00 .08 .08 .02 .14 .13 .00 .05 .00 .02 .05MEC .03 .05 .23 .12 .12 .07 .11 .13 .30 .06 .03 .05 .01 .05AGGR-r .03 .11 .40 .34 .30 .20 .17 .27 .64 .00 .04 .09 .10 .03PSYC-r .36 .42 .04 .41 .30 .70 .48 .87 .44 .16 .22 .30 .30 .42DISC-r .21 .14 .17 .22 .80 .18 .26 .36 .62 .03 .12 .11 .11 .20NEGE-r .66 .42 .21 .44 .33 .37 .82 .40 .51 .35 .26 .30 .29 .48INTR-r .14 .09 .74 .09 .15 .05 .05 .23 .52 .27 .05 .03 .07 .02





Externalizing Scales

SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF JCP SUB AGG ACT

VRIN-r .20 .27 .30 .36 .35 .36 .35 .32 .22 .23 .15 .28 .19TRIN-r .10 .12 .20 .25 .12 .14 .06 .14 .09 .14 .07 .14 .23F-r .43 .35 .42 .41 .44 .51 .41 .37 .19 .33 .20 .45 .29Fp-r .23 .25 .29 .29 .26 .38 .25 .37 .15 .20 .19 .29 .15Fs .24 .25 .27 .25 .28 .31 .27 .27 .14 .21 .17 .25 .23FBS-r .29 .28 .26 .24 .34 .33 .17 .21 .12 .07 .08 .05 .04RBS .21 .30 .32 .38 .22 .31 .25 .24 .13 .04 .01 .09 .08L-r .04 .01 .17 .13 .18 .03 .13 .11 .02 .15 .22 .22 .10K-r .27 .40 .54 .51 .55 .35 .56 .25 .23 .28 .18 .51 .37EID .40 .53 .72 .60 .65 .50 .47 .31 .23 .15 .16 .34 .17THD .27 .18 .24 .26 .33 .36 .28 .32 .17 .28 .12 .38 .41BXD .13 .05 .19 .16 .29 .18 .39 .12 .01 .77 .56 .69 .40RCd .41 .49 .77 .65 .60 .51 .42 .31 .18 .22 .21 .36 .24RC1 .27 .33 .28 .30 .34 .34 .33 .28 .23 .17 .07 .24 .19RC2 .19 .37 .37 .30 .20 .19 .08 .12 .10 .05 .01 .00 .24RC3 .22 .35 .29 .39 .37 .28 .38 .26 .27 .27 .10 .39 .30RC4 .16 .09 .24 .19 .30 .20 .31 .12 .02 .79 .70 .54 .28RC6 .27 .21 .25 .29 .33 .37 .26 .26 .18 .26 .08 .32 .24RC7 .31 .43 .51 .63 .62 .56 .63 .40 .29 .25 .19 .51 .44RC8 .26 .15 .25 .27 .31 .32 .30 .29 .15 .34 .22 .39 .49RC9 .16 .17 .21 .27 .39 .24 .51 .19 .12 .40 .29 .70 .71MLS .30 .34 .32 .30 .28 .23 .22 .20 .20 .08 .04 .18 .02GIC .25 .17 .19 .16 .21 .23 .19 .16 .09 .12 .08 .14 .10HPC .21 .23 .17 .21 .27 .23 .20 .17 .15 .10 .04 .20 .15NUC .13 .19 .21 .22 .21 .20 .23 .21 .17 .13 .06 .19 .14COG .27 .38 .45 .51 .43 .37 .37 .31 .22 .24 .14 .29 .28SUI 1.00 .27 .25 .23 .29 .27 .20 .15 .15 .12 .09 .19 .11HLP .27 1.00 .39 .43 .35 .28 .31 .26 .25 .07 .01 .19 .09SFD .25 .39 1.00 .52 .40 .31 .29 .20 .16 .16 .14 .26 .17NFC .23 .43 .52 1.00 .48 .37 .34 .36 .30 .15 .11 .24 .23STW .29 .35 .40 .48 1.00 .46 .43 .29 .21 .18 .20 .37 .28AXY .27 .28 .31 .37 .46 1.00 .33 .32 .19 .15 .11 .26 .20ANP .20 .31 .29 .34 .43 .33 1.00 .25 .17 .24 .16 .52 .28BRF .15 .26 .20 .36 .29 .32 .25 1.00 .31 .12 .02 .18 .17MSF .15 .25 .16 .30 .21 .19 .17 .31 1.00 .06 .05 .07 .09JCP .12 .07 .16 .15 .18 .15 .24 .12 .06 1.00 .34 .41 .25SUB .09 .01 .14 .11 .20 .11 .16 .02 .05 .34 1.00 .32 .16AGG .19 .19 .26 .24 .37 .26 .52 .18 .07 .41 .32 1.00 .38ACT .11 .09 .17 .23 .28 .20 .28 .17 .09 .25 .16 .38 1.00FML .20 .28 .33 .32 .40 .31 .39 .18 .13 .23 .20 .38 .30IPP .00 .01 .13 .12 .03 .03 .24 .00 .05 .18 .06 .30 .25SAV .07 .13 .13 .10 .08 .07 .04 .01 .02 .11 .08 .05 .20SHY .17 .28 .38 .43 .33 .21 .17 .21 .18 .07 .07 .12 .09DSF .12 .23 .19 .19 .16 .23 .22 .20 .10 .08 .04 .14 .03AES .05 .01 .06 .02 .02 .06 .03 .03 .03 .07 .03 .01 .11MEC .03 .00 .00 .02 .02 .03 .10 .08 .03 .17 .05 .24 .18AGGR-r .06 .03 .09 .08 .11 .09 .37 .06 .07 .29 .13 .57 .32PSYC-r .28 .19 .25 .28 .32 .37 .29 .30 .17 .29 .12 .37 .42DISC-r .07 .03 .14 .10 .20 .10 .25 .06 .10 .71 .58 .51 .37NEGE-r .32 .42 .48 .55 .80 .50 .69 .37 .27 .22 .19 .50 .37INTR-r .07 .16 .13 .06 .00 .04 .03 .01 .01 .16 .12 .17 .50




Interpersonal Scales

Interest Scales

Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales

FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

VRIN-r .27 .03 .07 .25 .28 .01 .08 .09 .35 .21 .40 .00TRIN-r .11 .18 .22 .24 .07 .09 .15 .19 .19 .16 .11 .30F-r .41 .08 .09 .24 .34 .06 .07 .19 .64 .29 .54 .06Fp-r .32 .03 .08 .17 .32 .07 .03 .11 .43 .17 .31 .07Fs .24 .02 .08 .19 .18 .00 .08 .10 .52 .21 .33 .03FBS-r .14 .12 .12 .15 .09 .01 .06 .12 .21 .12 .35 .17RBS .13 .25 .30 .27 .29 .10 .04 .17 .26 .17 .28 .34L-r .19 .02 .04 .16 .11 .07 .01 .04 .06 .27 .20 .00K-r .49 .09 .11 .43 .21 .04 .07 .19 .36 .28 .69 .02EID .44 .15 .36 .57 .29 .01 .07 .08 .30 .11 .73 .34THD .35 .16 .06 .13 .16 .11 .11 .27 .95 .27 .40 .18BXD .32 .32 .21 .05 .06 .10 .28 .50 .35 .92 .35 .32RCd .46 .10 .16 .41 .26 .10 .03 .03 .36 .21 .66 .14RC1 .25 .04 .09 .19 .20 .00 .05 .11 .42 .14 .42 .09RC2 .15 .41 .55 .32 .24 .06 .23 .40 .04 .17 .21 .74RC3 .34 .22 .00 .24 .27 .00 .12 .34 .41 .22 .44 .09RC4 .40 .16 .08 .10 .09 .08 .12 .30 .30 .80 .33 .15RC6 .31 .12 .01 .13 .21 .08 .07 .20 .70 .18 .37 .05RC7 .49 .06 .10 .53 .24 .02 .11 .17 .48 .26 .82 .05RC8 .35 .17 .08 .15 .14 .14 .13 .27 .87 .36 .40 .23RC9 .42 .47 .30 .09 .09 .13 .30 .64 .44 .62 .51 .52MLS .22 .05 .17 .17 .15 .00 .06 .00 .16 .03 .35 .27GIC .13 .02 .03 .10 .08 .05 .03 .04 .22 .12 .26 .05HPC .20 .05 .06 .14 .12 .00 .05 .09 .30 .11 .30 .03NUC .17 .05 .07 .14 .16 .02 .01 .10 .30 .11 .29 .07COG .34 .03 .06 .31 .24 .05 .05 .03 .42 .20 .48 .02SUI .20 .00 .07 .17 .12 .05 .03 .06 .28 .07 .32 .07HLP .28 .01 .13 .28 .23 .01 .00 .03 .19 .03 .42 .16SFD .33 .13 .13 .38 .19 .06 .00 .09 .25 .14 .48 .13NFC .32 .12 .10 .43 .19 .02 .02 .08 .28 .10 .55 .06STW .40 .03 .08 .33 .16 .02 .02 .11 .32 .20 .80 .00AXY .31 .03 .07 .21 .23 .06 .03 .09 .37 .10 .50 .04ANP .39 .24 .04 .17 .22 .03 .10 .37 .29 .25 .69 .03BRF .18 .00 .01 .21 .20 .03 .08 .06 .30 .06 .37 .01MSF .13 .05 .02 .18 .10 .03 .03 .07 .17 .10 .27 .01JCP .23 .18 .11 .07 .08 .07 .17 .29 .29 .71 .22 .16SUB .20 .06 .08 .07 .04 .03 .05 .13 .12 .58 .19 .12AGG .38 .30 .05 .12 .14 .01 .24 .57 .37 .51 .50 .17ACT .30 .25 .20 .09 .03 .11 .18 .32 .42 .37 .37 .50FML 1.00 .14 .02 .20 .17 .09 .03 .20 .32 .24 .48 .04IPP .14 1.00 .31 .22 .06 .10 .17 .88 .16 .28 .09 .37SAV .02 .31 1.00 .33 .25 .17 .24 .30 .05 .24 .08 .84SHY .20 .22 .33 1.00 .18 .11 .02 .19 .15 .02 .37 .23DSF .17 .06 .25 .18 1.00 .02 .00 .01 .17 .03 .21 .22AES .09 .10 .17 .11 .02 1.00 .00 .06 .12 .13 .01 .18MEC .03 .17 .24 .02 .00 .00 1.00 .25 .12 .42 .04 .29AGGR-r .20 .88 .30 .19 .01 .06 .25 1.00 .25 .39 .20 .40PSYC-r .32 .16 .05 .15 .17 .12 .12 .25 1.00 .27 .40 .17DISC-r .24 .28 .24 .02 .03 .13 .42 .39 .27 1.00 .23 .35NEGE-r .48 .09 .08 .37 .21 .01 .04 .20 .40 .23 1.00 .02INTR-r .04 .37 .84 .23 .22 .18 .29 .40 .17 .35 .02 1.00


Table 3-18.

MMPI-2-RF Scale IntercorrelationsNormative SampleWomen (N = 1,138)

Validity Scales








Interest Scales





Table 3-19.

MMPI-2-RF Scale IntercorrelationsOutpatients (Community Mental Health Center)Men (N = 410)

Validity Scales








Interest Scales





Table 3-20.

MMPI-2-RF Scale IntercorrelationsOutpatients (Community Mental Health Center)Women (N = 610)

Validity Scales








Interest Scales



VRIN-r .05 .03 .06 .02 .06 .02 .04 .05 .10 .10 .07 .10TRIN-r .16 .09 .11 .14 .09 .06 .04 .15 .28 .08 .15 .17F-r .51 .18 .42 .42 .44 .07 .02 .04 .75 .21 .71 .45Fp-r .37 .08 .30 .30 .47 .04 .03 .10 .58 .26 .46 .29Fs .32 .08 .24 .26 .28 .02 .07 .07 .62 .19 .50 .24FBS-r .28 .26 .35 .37 .22 .02 .03 .13 .44 .01 .60 .45RBS .34 .33 .51 .44 .40 .13 .07 .15 .58 .04 .57 .58L-r .24 .01 .01 .17 .08 .14 .01 .02 .03 .40 .28 .00K-r .56 .15 .30 .50 .22 .11 .10 .02 .46 .18 .77 .28EID .47 .40 .54 .66 .34 .11 .11 .24 .41 .08 .79 .64THD .41 .05 .18 .21 .32 .02 .04 .24 .96 .22 .51 .11BXD .34 .21 .04 .06 .13 .04 .16 .44 .35 .89 .36 .11RCd .48 .33 .39 .54 .29 .03 .08 .18 .44 .16 .76 .50RC1 .31 .18 .32 .34 .24 .07 .01 .03 .51 .06 .56 .38RC2 .29 .51 .62 .53 .35 .17 .10 .38 .24 .04 .51 .84RC3 .39 .01 .21 .30 .33 .14 .01 .19 .51 .15 .51 .15RC4 .46 .02 .07 .18 .15 .05 .05 .22 .33 .79 .40 .03RC6 .43 .02 .20 .22 .34 .04 .01 .19 .80 .13 .48 .16RC7 .52 .25 .41 .60 .35 .04 .10 .04 .60 .17 .87 .37RC8 .38 .04 .17 .22 .29 .06 .07 .23 .89 .29 .53 .11RC9 .37 .41 .19 .04 .09 .13 .13 .62 .45 .57 .43 .36MLS .35 .27 .41 .42 .25 .07 .07 .15 .39 .01 .58 .52GIC .17 .11 .17 .23 .11 .05 .03 .04 .30 .05 .40 .22HPC .28 .17 .29 .30 .21 .08 .01 .04 .39 .07 .52 .36NUC .30 .11 .27 .24 .23 .01 .05 .04 .50 .10 .

mmpi lampiran manual inggris

Documents