Personality assessmentPersonality assessment

Recent survey of practicing Ph.D.s, PsyD.s, and Recent survey of practicing Ph.D.s, PsyD.s, and Ed.s revealed that only 32% use personality tests Ed.s revealed that only 32% use personality tests and only 43% do treatment planning.and only 43% do treatment planning. De-emphasis in personality training occurred at De-emphasis in personality training occurred at the same time as Mischel shock in 1968, so the same time as Mischel shock in 1968, so clinicians trained in the late 1960s and 1970s did clinicians trained in the late 1960s and 1970s did not value personality assessment not value personality assessment Today, treatment planning based on assessments Today, treatment planning based on assessments is essential from both an ethical standpoint and for is essential from both an ethical standpoint and for insurance reimbursementinsurance reimbursement

Objective assessments?Objective assessments?

Personality assessment is subjective - for the most part it is, though subjective Personality assessment is subjective - for the most part it is, though subjective doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate or even less accurate.doesn't necessarily mean inaccurate or even less accurate.

How can personality assessment be more objectiveHow can personality assessment be more objective– assess any biases and correct for them (lie, defensiveness)assess any biases and correct for them (lie, defensiveness)– find a method to avoid such biasesfind a method to avoid such biases– look for convergence with reports from otherslook for convergence with reports from others– assess with low face valid instruments and look for consistent patterns (though this assess with low face valid instruments and look for consistent patterns (though this

only really addresses intentional faking)only really addresses intentional faking) Personality assessment is used to further describe the client, just as a diagnosis Personality assessment is used to further describe the client, just as a diagnosis

does (note that you would not say that depression is causing the patient's does (note that you would not say that depression is causing the patient's behaviors, you merely use the term to summarize a cluster of behaviors. The behaviors, you merely use the term to summarize a cluster of behaviors. The diagnosis itself also does not necessarily imply a causal mechanism nor an diagnosis itself also does not necessarily imply a causal mechanism nor an explanation - those from different perspectives would define it differently)explanation - those from different perspectives would define it differently)– e.g., if someone is depressed it could be explained biologically, cognitively, e.g., if someone is depressed it could be explained biologically, cognitively,

behaviorally, or even in psychodynamic termsbehaviorally, or even in psychodynamic terms

The structure of personalityThe structure of personality

Personality involves stable patterns of behavior, affect, and Personality involves stable patterns of behavior, affect, and cognitions. So how stable is stable? (states vs. traits) cognitions. So how stable is stable? (states vs. traits)

Levels of analysisLevels of analysis– 1. factors - groups of traits that show better global predictive 1. factors - groups of traits that show better global predictive

utility (e.g., Big 5 of N, E, O, A, C; The Big 3 of N, E, P; Big utility (e.g., Big 5 of N, E, O, A, C; The Big 3 of N, E, P; Big 2)2)

– 2. traits - clusters of consistent individual behaviors2. traits - clusters of consistent individual behaviors– 3. habits - consistent (over time) individual behaviors3. habits - consistent (over time) individual behaviors– 4. single acts - individual behaviors4. single acts - individual behaviors

All levels are used to predict future behavior with the top being All levels are used to predict future behavior with the top being the most robust the most robust

Consider this model when recommending or implementing Consider this model when recommending or implementing change in clientschange in clients

Predicting behaviorPredicting behavior

Difficult to predict specific single behaviors from global trends; Difficult to predict specific single behaviors from global trends; (Epstein, 1983)(Epstein, 1983)

For clinical evaluations, if the context of interest is known, then For clinical evaluations, if the context of interest is known, then you may want to trade off the generalizability and give a specific you may want to trade off the generalizability and give a specific predictionprediction– e.g., Pt.’s test scores indicate that he is generally impulsive. This may be e.g., Pt.’s test scores indicate that he is generally impulsive. This may be

exacerbated when in the company of other individuals who are also exacerbated when in the company of other individuals who are also impulsive and when the individual is drinking, as alcohol minimizes any impulsive and when the individual is drinking, as alcohol minimizes any inhibition processes that he might have. This substantially increases the inhibition processes that he might have. This substantially increases the likelihood that he will act impulsively when...likelihood that he will act impulsively when...

Readings/DiscussionReadings/Discussion

I will present all of the readings (see power point I will present all of the readings (see power point slides)slides)

Read material in advance and know your MMPI Read material in advance and know your MMPI You will generate 3 questions each for every You will generate 3 questions each for every

reading, at least one of which will be an reading, at least one of which will be an open-open-ended question leading to class discussionended question leading to class discussion..

Two scheduled “debates”: Two scheduled “debates”: 1.1. Should we use a unique or standardized test Should we use a unique or standardized test

battery? (Pros and Cons)battery? (Pros and Cons)2.2. Should we use projective tests? (Are projectives Should we use projective tests? (Are projectives

tests or techniques)tests or techniques)

Axis I and IIAxis I and II

Personality addresses both AXIS I and AXIS II disorders.Personality addresses both AXIS I and AXIS II disorders. What are some AXIS I disorders that might be related to personality traits?What are some AXIS I disorders that might be related to personality traits?

e.g., e.g., – depression and NA/Neuroticismdepression and NA/Neuroticism

– anxiety and NA/neuroticism anxiety and NA/neuroticism

– impulse control disorders & extraversion/sensation seekingimpulse control disorders & extraversion/sensation seeking

AXIS II personality disorders explicitly link up with personality assessments AXIS II personality disorders explicitly link up with personality assessments (video & DSM-IV)(video & DSM-IV)– Cluster A (odd): Paranoid, Schizoid, SchizotypalCluster A (odd): Paranoid, Schizoid, Schizotypal

– Custer B (emotional): ASPD, Borderline, Histrionic, NarcissisticCuster B (emotional): ASPD, Borderline, Histrionic, Narcissistic

– Cluster C (anxious): Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive Cluster C (anxious): Avoidant, Dependent, Obsessive-Compulsive

– PD NOS – features of several Dx,but does not meet criteria for any one.PD NOS – features of several Dx,but does not meet criteria for any one.

Selecting a test battery (see Beutler, 1995)Selecting a test battery (see Beutler, 1995)

What is the referral question? What is the referral question? – Single most important determinantSingle most important determinant

Are there any limiting factors with regard to the client?Are there any limiting factors with regard to the client? Context of the evaluation? (work, school, hospital, etc.)Context of the evaluation? (work, school, hospital, etc.) Follow up assessment relevant to trait findings (e.g., patients who Follow up assessment relevant to trait findings (e.g., patients who

show impulse control problems should also be assessed for potential show impulse control problems should also be assessed for potential for acting out violently)for acting out violently)

Problem focused or broad, multipurpose batteryProblem focused or broad, multipurpose battery– Nomothetic (allows for normative evaluations) or ipsative (allows for Nomothetic (allows for normative evaluations) or ipsative (allows for

the evaluation of the individual) analysisthe evaluation of the individual) analysis

Next ClassNext Class

Debate:Debate:Pros and cons of using a standardized test battery Pros and cons of using a standardized test battery

vs. a unique battery to meet the client’s vs. a unique battery to meet the client’s assessment needs.assessment needs.

- Use Beutler (1995) reading and any other sources.Use Beutler (1995) reading and any other sources.- 2 page paper and debate2 page paper and debate- For next Tues: Complete MMPI-2 and score For next Tues: Complete MMPI-2 and score

clinical scalesclinical scales

If using qualitative methods, consider:If using qualitative methods, consider:

1.1.  Method appropriateness – are there quantitative methods that Method appropriateness – are there quantitative methods that you could use instead? you could use instead?

2.2.  Openness – make clear the theoretical orientation that Openness – make clear the theoretical orientation that undergirds the qualitative assessment undergirds the qualitative assessment

3.3.    Theoretical sensitivity – use qualitative methods that are based Theoretical sensitivity – use qualitative methods that are based on accepted theories not your own theories 4.on accepted theories not your own theories 4.    Bracketing of Bracketing of expectation – you must explicitly state where your conclusions expectation – you must explicitly state where your conclusions depart from accepted theories 5.depart from accepted theories 5.    Responsibility – how were the Responsibility – how were the qualitative methods administered and interpreted qualitative methods administered and interpreted

6.6.  Saturation/generalizability – when assessing traits, sample Saturation/generalizability – when assessing traits, sample from a large number and wide range of situations from a large number and wide range of situations 7.7.  verification verification of methods – cross-validate your methods using other reports, of methods – cross-validate your methods using other reports, other test material to see if it agrees with your conclusions, do other test material to see if it agrees with your conclusions, do findings predict outcomes, etc.findings predict outcomes, etc.

If using qualitative methods, consider: (cont)If using qualitative methods, consider: (cont)

8.8.  grounding – stay close to the data when making interpretations grounding – stay close to the data when making interpretations (no big theoretical leaps)(no big theoretical leaps)

9.9.  coherence – do all of the interpretations fit together to make a coherence – do all of the interpretations fit together to make a coherent story coherent story

10.10.  believability/usefulness – does the use of the qualitative believability/usefulness – does the use of the qualitative method provide more info on the client, or just raise more method provide more info on the client, or just raise more questions? Does it result in a believable narrative? questions? Does it result in a believable narrative?

11. I11. Intelligibility – Is the report readable and jargon free?ntelligibility – Is the report readable and jargon free?

MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943)MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943)

10 clinical scales and 3 validity scales10 clinical scales and 3 validity scales EmpiricalEmpirical scale development with items selected scale development with items selected

based on their ability to differentiate normals, from based on their ability to differentiate normals, from a target group (another clinical group with similar a target group (another clinical group with similar symptoms was sometimes also employed)symptoms was sometimes also employed)

Clients should be 18 or older & 6Clients should be 18 or older & 6 thth grade education grade education Generally lower face validity (breaks with tradition Generally lower face validity (breaks with tradition

of items that clearly sample the domain of of items that clearly sample the domain of interest); most relevant for clinical populationinterest); most relevant for clinical population

MMPI developmentMMPI development

Item pool derived from psychological and Item pool derived from psychological and psychiatric reports, textbooks, previous scales, etc. psychiatric reports, textbooks, previous scales, etc.

Criterion group compositionCriterion group composition– Minnesota normals – 724 relatives and visitors of patients Minnesota normals – 724 relatives and visitors of patients

at the U. of M. Hospitals, 265 recent high school grads, at the U. of M. Hospitals, 265 recent high school grads, 265 administration workers, and 254 medical patients265 administration workers, and 254 medical patients

– Clinical groups – 221 patients representing the major Clinical groups – 221 patients representing the major psychiatric categories (excludes those with multiple psychiatric categories (excludes those with multiple diagnoses, or questionable diagnoses) diagnoses, or questionable diagnoses)

Item analysis to identify those items differentiating Item analysis to identify those items differentiating the clinical and normal groupsthe clinical and normal groups

MMPI development – cont.MMPI development – cont.

The items that could differentiate were then cross The items that could differentiate were then cross validated with new groups of normals and patientsvalidated with new groups of normals and patients

Later developed two non-clinical scalesLater developed two non-clinical scales– M/F – initially to identify male homosexuals was M/F – initially to identify male homosexuals was

augmented with broader itemsaugmented with broader items– Si – derived from an introversion/extraversion scale and Si – derived from an introversion/extraversion scale and

cross validated by predicting involvement in college cross validated by predicting involvement in college activities in a second sample (all female college activities in a second sample (all female college students) students)

Validity scales were either derived rationally (L & Validity scales were either derived rationally (L & K) or from baserates in the normal group (F)K) or from baserates in the normal group (F)

Utility of the MMPIUtility of the MMPI

Not considered a diagnostic inventory (as Not considered a diagnostic inventory (as was originally intended)was originally intended)

Ineffective at differential diagnosis (based Ineffective at differential diagnosis (based on how it was originally developed)on how it was originally developed)

Numerical scale labels was intended to Numerical scale labels was intended to further minimize the connection with a further minimize the connection with a specific diagnostic labelspecific diagnostic label

Some problems with MMPISome problems with MMPI

Method of determining the criterion groupMethod of determining the criterion group The PIGs were not a truly random group (relatives The PIGs were not a truly random group (relatives

and friends of those in the hospital – though and friends of those in the hospital – though largely the medical patients); convenientlargely the medical patients); convenient

Criterion and PIGs were largely from the midwest, Criterion and PIGs were largely from the midwest, in the late 1930s/early 1940sin the late 1930s/early 1940s

Utility of some of the scales as it matched Utility of some of the scales as it matched diagnostic concerns of that era, dated and culture-diagnostic concerns of that era, dated and culture-specific item content, and representativeness of specific item content, and representativeness of the norm group.the norm group.

MMPI vs. MMPI-2 (1989)MMPI vs. MMPI-2 (1989)

MMPI was the most widely used personality test in MMPI was the most widely used personality test in all pops (though only validated for inpatient adult all pops (though only validated for inpatient adult samples)samples)

MMPI validation and norm samples were ones of MMPI validation and norm samples were ones of convenience with limited variability on education convenience with limited variability on education (M=8 years), coming from a rural background in (M=8 years), coming from a rural background in the midwest the midwest

Normative data collected in the 1930sNormative data collected in the 1930s Clinical cut-off now defined by t-score of 65 vs. 70 Clinical cut-off now defined by t-score of 65 vs. 70

on the MMPIon the MMPI

MMPI vs. MMPI-2MMPI vs. MMPI-2

Advantages of updating the testAdvantages of updating the test– more representative norms (based on projected census more representative norms (based on projected census

data)data)– relevance of the itemsrelevance of the items– language employed for the items (both temporally laden language employed for the items (both temporally laden

references like “drop the hanky”, and gender biases in references like “drop the hanky”, and gender biases in item content)item content)

– addition of new scales of relevance todayaddition of new scales of relevance today– Uniform T-score transformation now used so that T-Uniform T-score transformation now used so that T-

scores reflect percentile ranks that are the same across scores reflect percentile ranks that are the same across all clinical scalesall clinical scales

MMPI vs. MMPI-2MMPI vs. MMPI-2

Disadvantages to all updatesDisadvantages to all updates– over 20,000 published studies no longer applyover 20,000 published studies no longer apply– MMPI-2 must revalidate all of the scalesMMPI-2 must revalidate all of the scales– inability to make comparisons with adolescent inability to make comparisons with adolescent

scores (MMPI-2 vs. MMPI-A)scores (MMPI-2 vs. MMPI-A)– Many of the new scales are very short and lack Many of the new scales are very short and lack

appropriate psychometric propertiesappropriate psychometric properties– How often should we redevelop or renorm the How often should we redevelop or renorm the

scale?scale?

MMPI-2 (1989): 567 itemsMMPI-2 (1989): 567 items

Norm group = 2,600 community based Norm group = 2,600 community based subjects subjects – 1138 m & 1462 f, aged 18-85 (M=41, SD15.3), 1138 m & 1462 f, aged 18-85 (M=41, SD15.3),

education 3 yrs - 20+, 61% married median education 3 yrs - 20+, 61% married median incomes $25-$35,000, 3% of m and 6% of f incomes $25-$35,000, 3% of m and 6% of f receiving mental health treatmentreceiving mental health treatment

– 81% Caucasian, 12% A-A, 3% Hispanic, 3% 81% Caucasian, 12% A-A, 3% Hispanic, 3% Native American, 1% Asian-American Native American, 1% Asian-American

Validity scalesValidity scales

Assumption that the clinical population will not be able to Assumption that the clinical population will not be able to answer forthright answer forthright

Lie – naive or unsophisticated lying (low SES and Lie – naive or unsophisticated lying (low SES and education)education)

K – less obvious (high SES and education) defensiveness K – less obvious (high SES and education) defensiveness is a component of all respondingis a component of all responding

F – answering questions in such a way so as to be different F – answering questions in such a way so as to be different from 90% or more of the population (non-normative from 90% or more of the population (non-normative responses); See fake bad/fake good profilesresponses); See fake bad/fake good profiles

F – K Index = can be used to indicate fake bad, with larger F – K Index = can be used to indicate fake bad, with larger numbers making it more likely (little evidence to suggest numbers making it more likely (little evidence to suggest that fake good can be detected); see p. 38that fake good can be detected); see p. 38

Clinical ScalesClinical Scales

1. Hs - exaggerated concerns re: physical 1. Hs - exaggerated concerns re: physical illness, or tendency to report symptomsillness, or tendency to report symptoms

2. D - Clinical dep; unhappy & pessimistic 2. D - Clinical dep; unhappy & pessimistic about the futureabout the future

3. Hy - conversion reactions (substitute illness 3. Hy - conversion reactions (substitute illness for emotions) for emotions)

4. Pd - History of delinquency, antisocial 4. Pd - History of delinquency, antisocial behavior (non-conventional re: moral behavior (non-conventional re: moral standards)standards)

Clinical scales - continuedClinical scales - continued

5. Mf - prototypical gender identity (military 5. Mf - prototypical gender identity (military recruits, stewardesses, homosexual males recruits, stewardesses, homosexual males students)students)

6. Pa - paranoid symptoms (ideas of reference, 6. Pa - paranoid symptoms (ideas of reference, persecution, grandeur)persecution, grandeur)

7. Pt - anxious, obsessive-compulsive, guilt 7. Pt - anxious, obsessive-compulsive, guilt ridden, self-doubtsridden, self-doubts

8. Sc - thought disorder, perceptual 8. Sc - thought disorder, perceptual abnormalities (various types of Schiz.) abnormalities (various types of Schiz.)

Clinical Scales - continuedClinical Scales - continued

9. Ma - exhibition of mania, elevated mood, 9. Ma - exhibition of mania, elevated mood, excessive activity, distractibility, (possible excessive activity, distractibility, (possible manic-depression or BP II)manic-depression or BP II)

10. Si - college students scoring in the extreme 10. Si - college students scoring in the extreme range on introversion - extra.range on introversion - extra.

Costa & McCrae (1990) suggest that the Costa & McCrae (1990) suggest that the MMPI-2 wont work in the normal pop. As MMPI-2 wont work in the normal pop. As people don’t respond “passively” to items people don’t respond “passively” to items

New Validity IndexesNew Validity Indexes

Basic validity comes from L, F, & KBasic validity comes from L, F, & K VRIN (variable response inconsistency) VRIN (variable response inconsistency)

– 47 pairs of items that should be answered 47 pairs of items that should be answered similarly or the opposing direction. Client gets a similarly or the opposing direction. Client gets a point for each inconsistent response. point for each inconsistent response.

– A completely random response set results in T A completely random response set results in T scores of 96 for m and 98 for f (>80 inval.)scores of 96 for m and 98 for f (>80 inval.)

– acquiescent responding T = 50acquiescent responding T = 50

New Validity – cont.New Validity – cont.

TRIN (true response inconsistency) TRIN (true response inconsistency) – 23 pairs of items that are opposite in content23 pairs of items that are opposite in content– either T/T or F/F to assess acquiescent or non-either T/T or F/F to assess acquiescent or non-

acquiescent responding acquiescent responding – larger raw scores = true responding while larger raw scores = true responding while

smaller raw scores = false responding smaller raw scores = false responding – raw scores should be between 6 and 12 in order raw scores should be between 6 and 12 in order

to consider the profile validto consider the profile valid Fb - back infrequency items for latter partFb - back infrequency items for latter part

Coding the ProfileCoding the Profile

List scale # codes in order of their T-score List scale # codes in order of their T-score elevations (from highest to lowest)elevations (from highest to lowest)– usually only interpret 4 scale codes and order usually only interpret 4 scale codes and order

does not matterdoes not matter

Welsh coding system involves adding Welsh coding system involves adding symbols to numerical scale codessymbols to numerical scale codes– e.g., L F K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0e.g., L F K 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0– T 57 75 43 69 88 75 94 52 81 75 79 59 65T 57 75 43 69 88 75 94 52 81 75 79 59 65– Welsh: 4268371095 FLKWelsh: 4268371095 FLK

Codes (listed to the right)Codes (listed to the right)

** 100-109, * 90-99, “80-89, ‘70-79, +65-69, ** 100-109, * 90-99, “80-89, ‘70-79, +65-69, -60-64, /50-59, .:40-49, #30-39-60-64, /50-59, .:40-49, #30-39

Some coding forms use ! to denote scores Some coding forms use ! to denote scores of 110-119 and !! for 120 or greaterof 110-119 and !! for 120 or greater

Underline identical T-scores (and list in Underline identical T-scores (and list in ascending order) as well as those within one ascending order) as well as those within one point of each otherpoint of each other

e.g., 4*26”8e.g., 4*26”83737’10+95/ F’L/K.:’10+95/ F’L/K.:

MMPI-2 practice case: M.S.MMPI-2 practice case: M.S.

Integrate the MMPI-2 data with the client Integrate the MMPI-2 data with the client information (vs. laundry list). Note: profile valid.information (vs. laundry list). Note: profile valid.– e.g., profile 3-2/2-3 should revolve around the e.g., profile 3-2/2-3 should revolve around the

discussion of depression and the manifestation of discussion of depression and the manifestation of symptoms (physical symptoms tend to be substituted)symptoms (physical symptoms tend to be substituted) How does this relate to M.S.?How does this relate to M.S.? Recent loss, seeing her physician, isolationRecent loss, seeing her physician, isolation

– What does the 8 (or 2-3-8) tell you? What does the 8 (or 2-3-8) tell you? How might psychotic symptoms relate to M.S.?How might psychotic symptoms relate to M.S.? Confusion from malnutrition, confusion as a result of Confusion from malnutrition, confusion as a result of

depression, her age re: dementia? All are possibledepression, her age re: dementia? All are possible

M.S. - continuedM.S. - continued

Include discussion of (or section on) prognosis, Include discussion of (or section on) prognosis, recommendations, and diagnosisrecommendations, and diagnosis– Axis I: 296.24, Major depression, single episode, with Axis I: 296.24, Major depression, single episode, with

psychotic featurespsychotic features– AXIS II: No diagnosis (or deferred)AXIS II: No diagnosis (or deferred)– AXIS III: Malnutrition, dehydration, poor hygiene & AXIS III: Malnutrition, dehydration, poor hygiene &

personal carepersonal care– AXIS IV: Death of spouse (Severity: extreme (acute AXIS IV: Death of spouse (Severity: extreme (acute

event)event)– AXIS V: GAF: Current, 24; highest past year, 52AXIS V: GAF: Current, 24; highest past year, 52

MMPI-2 with other pops.MMPI-2 with other pops.

MMPI was originally developed using Caucasian MMPI was originally developed using Caucasian groups of patients groups of patients

Although some research has shown mean score Although some research has shown mean score differences between majority and minority groups, differences between majority and minority groups, this is less relevant to the issue of whether there is this is less relevant to the issue of whether there is differential predictive validity (few studies on this)differential predictive validity (few studies on this)

Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 2000, have conducted a Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 2000, have conducted a meta-analysis of 30 years research on minority meta-analysis of 30 years research on minority groups and the MMPI (both versions)groups and the MMPI (both versions)

Hall et al., 2000 - summaryHall et al., 2000 - summary

AA – first note that cultural identification moderates all AA – first note that cultural identification moderates all findings (cf. acculturation)findings (cf. acculturation)

Inconsistent findings re: mean differences, with F, 8, & 9 Inconsistent findings re: mean differences, with F, 8, & 9 sometimes higher by approximately 5 T-score pointssometimes higher by approximately 5 T-score points

Many matched grouped studies of patients have found no Many matched grouped studies of patients have found no differences, though Ns were small (meaning what?)differences, though Ns were small (meaning what?)

Generally no differences in predictive validity that achieve Generally no differences in predictive validity that achieve statistical or clinical significance and any differences can statistical or clinical significance and any differences can be attributed to SES and agebe attributed to SES and age

MMPI-2 has representative normsMMPI-2 has representative norms Minimal information on the supplemental scales and even Minimal information on the supplemental scales and even

less for the content scalesless for the content scales

Hall et al., 2000 – sum contHall et al., 2000 – sum cont

Hispanics likewise show few differences from CaucasiansHispanics likewise show few differences from Caucasians Possible differences for scales 3 and 0, with Hispanics Possible differences for scales 3 and 0, with Hispanics

scoring higher on 3 and lower on 0, but these effects were scoring higher on 3 and lower on 0, but these effects were small with minimal clinical or statistical sig.small with minimal clinical or statistical sig.

Much stronger effect for acculturation in this ethnic groupMuch stronger effect for acculturation in this ethnic group Few studies on Native Americans, but they show this pop. Few studies on Native Americans, but they show this pop.

to score slightly higher on most scalesto score slightly higher on most scales Few studies for Asian Americans, and they show slight Few studies for Asian Americans, and they show slight

elevations for scales F, 2, & 8.elevations for scales F, 2, & 8. Generally valid to use for these pops given appropriate Generally valid to use for these pops given appropriate

acculturation and understanding of the languageacculturation and understanding of the language

Other populationsOther populations

Given its original construction, there should be no problems Given its original construction, there should be no problems using the MMPI in medical settingsusing the MMPI in medical settings– Medical problems do not necessarily result in higher scores (i.e., more Medical problems do not necessarily result in higher scores (i.e., more

distress)distress) In substance abuse settings, no profile emerged to detect In substance abuse settings, no profile emerged to detect

substance abuse, but scale 4 was a good predictor (see also substance abuse, but scale 4 was a good predictor (see also the supplemental scales)the supplemental scales)

We will discuss forensic applications later in the semester (see We will discuss forensic applications later in the semester (see chapter 13)chapter 13)

MMPI-2 can be used in non-clinical settings to screen for MMPI-2 can be used in non-clinical settings to screen for psychopathology, but there are some concerns. psychopathology, but there are some concerns. – False positives are more commonFalse positives are more common– Has not been validated to predict success in other settings (e.g., jobs) Has not been validated to predict success in other settings (e.g., jobs)

which is true of most personality tests (predict interest)which is true of most personality tests (predict interest)

MMPI-A (1992)MMPI-A (1992)

Do we need a different inventory for adolescents? Why? Do we need a different inventory for adolescents? Why? Scales of concern?Scales of concern?– M/F for adolescents may be less definedM/F for adolescents may be less defined– Theoretically Pd is thought to be elevated, but actually it tends to Theoretically Pd is thought to be elevated, but actually it tends to

be lowerbe lower– Personality is less stable overall so we need different norms to Personality is less stable overall so we need different norms to

better interpret scores and relevant items for this age groupbetter interpret scores and relevant items for this age group Valid for those aged 14-18 (for 18 y.o., the decision is Valid for those aged 14-18 (for 18 y.o., the decision is

based on life circumstances; e.g. at home? working?)based on life circumstances; e.g. at home? working?)– Important to score on both adult and adolescent norms as there Important to score on both adult and adolescent norms as there

can be substantial differences (T-score shifts of 15 points)can be substantial differences (T-score shifts of 15 points) 478 items (some new some from the original inventory)478 items (some new some from the original inventory) written & auditory forms both in English and Spanishwritten & auditory forms both in English and Spanish

MMPI-AMMPI-A

Includes all of the clinical, & some new supplemental & content scales. Includes all of the clinical, & some new supplemental & content scales. So we use basically the same scales but different descriptors (i.e., a So we use basically the same scales but different descriptors (i.e., a high score on Hs will not mean exactly the same thing for the MMPI-A; high score on Hs will not mean exactly the same thing for the MMPI-A; e.g., Pd equates more with acting out)e.g., Pd equates more with acting out)

Biggest change was with the F scale since it is a norm defined scale Biggest change was with the F scale since it is a norm defined scale (we need new norms)(we need new norms)

Norms: 805 boys & 815 girls aged 14-18 solicited randomly from Norms: 805 boys & 815 girls aged 14-18 solicited randomly from schools in 7 states. Represents the U.S. for SES and ethnicity (again schools in 7 states. Represents the U.S. for SES and ethnicity (again minimal diffs for ethnicity)minimal diffs for ethnicity)

Change from MMPI which had separate norms for different adolescent Change from MMPI which had separate norms for different adolescent age groups (now only one)age groups (now only one)

F scale now has 2 parts: F1 = 1F scale now has 2 parts: F1 = 1st st part of test, F2 = 2part of test, F2 = 2ndnd part (F=total) part (F=total)

MMPI-A: New scalesMMPI-A: New scales

New Supplemental scales: New Supplemental scales: Alcohol/drug problem proneness (PRO) – empirically derived Alcohol/drug problem proneness (PRO) – empirically derived

to assess the likelihood of alcohol or other drug problems. to assess the likelihood of alcohol or other drug problems. Items differentiate adolescents in tx from those having other Items differentiate adolescents in tx from those having other psychological problemspsychological problems

Alcohol/drug problem acknowledgement (ACK) – face valid Alcohol/drug problem acknowledgement (ACK) – face valid items that reflect the admission of problemsitems that reflect the admission of problems

Immaturity (IMM) – reporting behaviors, attitudes, and Immaturity (IMM) – reporting behaviors, attitudes, and perceptions that reflect immaturity (e.g., poor impulse perceptions that reflect immaturity (e.g., poor impulse control, judgment, and self-awareness). Items predict control, judgment, and self-awareness). Items predict academic problems and cognitive limitations.academic problems and cognitive limitations.

Check for diagnoses such as oppositional-defiant, conduct Check for diagnoses such as oppositional-defiant, conduct disorder, and in adulthood ASPDdisorder, and in adulthood ASPD

MMPI-A PsychometricsMMPI-A Psychometrics

For the most part, the psychometric properties of the MMPI-A are For the most part, the psychometric properties of the MMPI-A are sound. The reliability values are lower than the MMPI-2 values, but still sound. The reliability values are lower than the MMPI-2 values, but still

within acceptable limits.within acceptable limits. – Why might there be less temporal stability in the MMPI-A?Why might there be less temporal stability in the MMPI-A?

General interpretative data from the MMPI-2 can be generalized to the General interpretative data from the MMPI-2 can be generalized to the MMPI-A, but this data should be considered in light of the client’s MMPI-A, but this data should be considered in light of the client’s position in life (i.e., consider how the scores relate to school life, position in life (i.e., consider how the scores relate to school life, problems with parents, need for independence, etc.)problems with parents, need for independence, etc.)

Note: no K-correction for clinical scales even though a defensiveness Note: no K-correction for clinical scales even though a defensiveness score is calculated. So what are the clinical scale implications for a score is calculated. So what are the clinical scale implications for a high K?high K?

MCMI-III (Millon, 1990)MCMI-III (Millon, 1990)

175 item scale assessing problematic personality styles and classic 175 item scale assessing problematic personality styles and classic psychiatric disorders (drawn from the DSM)psychiatric disorders (drawn from the DSM)

In contrast to the MMPI, this scale was derived theoretically to match In contrast to the MMPI, this scale was derived theoretically to match the nosology (taxonomy) of the DSM to facilitate diagnosis and the nosology (taxonomy) of the DSM to facilitate diagnosis and intervention planning. Assumes that any assessment is theory driven intervention planning. Assumes that any assessment is theory driven (vs. MMPI which tried to be a theoretical)(vs. MMPI which tried to be a theoretical)

The theory is grounded in evolutionary principles assessing 4 spheres: The theory is grounded in evolutionary principles assessing 4 spheres: existence (from serendipity to an organized structure), adaptation existence (from serendipity to an organized structure), adaptation (survival), replication (reproductive styles that maximize diversity), and (survival), replication (reproductive styles that maximize diversity), and abstraction (the emergence of competencies to foster planning).abstraction (the emergence of competencies to foster planning).

Scored according to a polarity model. e.g., self vs. other orientation Scored according to a polarity model. e.g., self vs. other orientation (reproduction), pleasure vs. pain (existential, or aim of, existence)(reproduction), pleasure vs. pain (existential, or aim of, existence)

Illustration: Schizoid is marked by deficits in both pleasure and pain as Illustration: Schizoid is marked by deficits in both pleasure and pain as indicated by the lack of emotion and apathyindicated by the lack of emotion and apathy

MCMI-III propertiesMCMI-III properties

A brief inventory (175 items) that takes only 30 minutes to completeA brief inventory (175 items) that takes only 30 minutes to complete 3 modifier scales3 modifier scales that correspond to the validity scales that correspond to the validity scales

– Disclosure = defensivenessDisclosure = defensiveness– Desirability = favorable response setDesirability = favorable response set– Debasement = lyingDebasement = lying

11 clinical personality patterns11 clinical personality patterns: schizoid, avoidant, depressive, : schizoid, avoidant, depressive, dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, aggressive (sadistic), dependent, histrionic, narcissistic, antisocial, aggressive (sadistic), compulsive, passive-aggressive, self-defeatingcompulsive, passive-aggressive, self-defeating

3 scales denoting severe personality patterns3 scales denoting severe personality patterns : schizotypal, : schizotypal, borderline, paranoidborderline, paranoid

7 clinical syndromes7 clinical syndromes: anxiety, somatoform, bipolar, dysthymia, alcohol : anxiety, somatoform, bipolar, dysthymia, alcohol dependence, drug dependence, PTSDdependence, drug dependence, PTSD

3 severe syndromes3 severe syndromes: thought disorder, major depression, delusional : thought disorder, major depression, delusional disorderdisorder

MCMI-III- continuedMCMI-III- continued

Scales interpreted based on base rates for each dx and it Scales interpreted based on base rates for each dx and it assumes that disorders are interconnected (consistent with assumes that disorders are interconnected (consistent with comorbidity data)comorbidity data)

Initial studies had classification rates of 90%, but follow-up Initial studies had classification rates of 90%, but follow-up studies have been much lower (50% or less)studies have been much lower (50% or less)

Validity data has been equivocal and the reliability data is Validity data has been equivocal and the reliability data is likewise lower than the MMPI-2 (these are related, and likewise lower than the MMPI-2 (these are related, and both linked to number of items)both linked to number of items)

CPI (Harrison & Gough)CPI (Harrison & Gough)

Developed at the same time as the MMPI and served as the Developed at the same time as the MMPI and served as the personality test for the normal population (MMPI for the clinical pop.). personality test for the normal population (MMPI for the clinical pop.). Drew from a similar item pool.Drew from a similar item pool.

480 T/F questions (some overlap with MMPI and others are new)480 T/F questions (some overlap with MMPI and others are new) Emphasizes more positive/normal aspects of personalityEmphasizes more positive/normal aspects of personality 3 validity scales: well being (normals asked to fake bad), good 3 validity scales: well being (normals asked to fake bad), good

impression (normals asked to fake good), communality impression (normals asked to fake good), communality (popular/obvious responding that may reflect defensiveness and (popular/obvious responding that may reflect defensiveness and conformity)conformity)

15 general scales assessing a wide range of traits such as intellectual 15 general scales assessing a wide range of traits such as intellectual efficiency, capacity for status, achievement via conformityefficiency, capacity for status, achievement via conformity

Grouped into 4 quadrants (factors): Norm favoring vs. norm doubting Grouped into 4 quadrants (factors): Norm favoring vs. norm doubting and externalizing vs. internalizingand externalizing vs. internalizing

CPI - continuedCPI - continued

CPI was revised in 1986 with norms based on 13,000 CPI was revised in 1986 with norms based on 13,000 males & femalesmales & females

Most commonly used personality inventory overallMost commonly used personality inventory overall It has been replaced by the NEO-PI as most common in It has been replaced by the NEO-PI as most common in

the last 15 years.the last 15 years. Psychometrically sound (reliability and validity coefficients Psychometrically sound (reliability and validity coefficients

are high and stable for different pops), but a very long are high and stable for different pops), but a very long instrument.instrument.

Also some question as to the need for validity scales in the Also some question as to the need for validity scales in the normal pop.normal pop.– Burisch suggests this is unnecessary provided; 1) no reason to lie, Burisch suggests this is unnecessary provided; 1) no reason to lie,

2) knowledge of the construct(s), and 3) self awareness.2) knowledge of the construct(s), and 3) self awareness.

NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992)NEO-PI (Costa & McCrae, 1985, 1992)

Based on the empirically derived 5 factor modelBased on the empirically derived 5 factor model– Assumption that 5 factors can represent all of normal personality Assumption that 5 factors can represent all of normal personality

– Evaluated this model in a variety of contexts, with samples from all over the Evaluated this model in a variety of contexts, with samples from all over the world and in different languagesworld and in different languages

– Assumes that language is the best place to start examining how to Assumes that language is the best place to start examining how to describe behavior (132 Eskimo words for “snow” indicates it is a describe behavior (132 Eskimo words for “snow” indicates it is a meaningful construct)meaningful construct)

Neuroticism (emotional stability), extraversion, openness to new Neuroticism (emotional stability), extraversion, openness to new experience, agreeableness (quality of interactions) and experience, agreeableness (quality of interactions) and conscientiousness (dutiful, organized).conscientiousness (dutiful, organized).

5 factors have been recovered from other inventories like the Myers-5 factors have been recovered from other inventories like the Myers-Briggs, 16PF, etc. Briggs, 16PF, etc.

NEO-PINEO-PI

Full version is 220 items and has 6 facets for each of the 5 factorsFull version is 220 items and has 6 facets for each of the 5 factors Short form (NEO-FFI) has 60 items and provides factor scores onlyShort form (NEO-FFI) has 60 items and provides factor scores only Norms are available for adults, college students and adolescents Norms are available for adults, college students and adolescents

(though minimal differences between the latter two groups)(though minimal differences between the latter two groups) Strong psychometric properties including very stable retest Strong psychometric properties including very stable retest

coefficients, internal reliability, and validated with other personality coefficients, internal reliability, and validated with other personality scales.scales.

Can be used to predict job interests (though vocational inventories Can be used to predict job interests (though vocational inventories such as the Strong Interest Inventory are better suited for this), but such as the Strong Interest Inventory are better suited for this), but they do not predict job success (same is true for interest inventories)they do not predict job success (same is true for interest inventories)

Often used for intuitive purposes and not empirically validated Often used for intuitive purposes and not empirically validated purposes (e.g., assume that a manager should be low on N and high purposes (e.g., assume that a manager should be low on N and high on C vs. empirically testing this assumption with current managers)on C vs. empirically testing this assumption with current managers)

Measures of AffectMeasures of Affect

Note: The EPI (Eysenck) likewise measures personality (extraversion Note: The EPI (Eysenck) likewise measures personality (extraversion and neuroticism) in the normal population, and these two factors are and neuroticism) in the normal population, and these two factors are usually the first two to emerge in factor analysis.usually the first two to emerge in factor analysis.

These factors correspond to the Big Two affect constructs (PA and NA)These factors correspond to the Big Two affect constructs (PA and NA) Note: most of these measures do not address validity of respondingNote: most of these measures do not address validity of responding Nevertheless, research suggests that these scales tend to be fairly Nevertheless, research suggests that these scales tend to be fairly

accurate and reflect actuarial rates for affective disorders (5-9% of accurate and reflect actuarial rates for affective disorders (5-9% of adult women and 2-3% of adult men)adult women and 2-3% of adult men)

BDI – published in 1961 and revised in ’74, ’78, and ’96.BDI – published in 1961 and revised in ’74, ’78, and ’96.– Among the most commonly used inventories with a comprehensive Among the most commonly used inventories with a comprehensive

manuals published in 1987, 1993, and 1996 (BDI-II)manuals published in 1987, 1993, and 1996 (BDI-II)– Normed for adolescents and adults aged 13 and older. 21 items with items Normed for adolescents and adults aged 13 and older. 21 items with items

arranged in a Guttman approach (increasing order of severity)arranged in a Guttman approach (increasing order of severity)– Suicide potential in items 2 and 9. For dx of Depression see Suicide potential in items 2 and 9. For dx of Depression see

neurovegetative itemsneurovegetative items

BDI - continuedBDI - continued

Internally consistent and reliabilities range from .48 to .86 for periods Internally consistent and reliabilities range from .48 to .86 for periods ranging from several hours to four weeksranging from several hours to four weeks– Why are retest coefficients smaller?Why are retest coefficients smaller?

No way to correct for faked scoresNo way to correct for faked scores Validated extensively for use in clinical settingsValidated extensively for use in clinical settings BDI-II validated on 500 outpatients drawn from across the country and BDI-II validated on 500 outpatients drawn from across the country and

a student sample of 120a student sample of 120 1 week retest was .93 and coefficient alphas were .92 or higher1 week retest was .93 and coefficient alphas were .92 or higher Average BDI-II scores are 3 points higher than the original BDIAverage BDI-II scores are 3 points higher than the original BDI BDI-II time frame for each item focuses on last two weeks to match the BDI-II time frame for each item focuses on last two weeks to match the

DSM criteriaDSM criteria

BAI (Beck & Steer, 1993)BAI (Beck & Steer, 1993)

21 item symptomatic inventory21 item symptomatic inventory Items rated on a 0-3 scaleItems rated on a 0-3 scale Validated for use for inpatient (N = 1,086), Validated for use for inpatient (N = 1,086),

outpatient (N = 160) and college student samples outpatient (N = 160) and college student samples (N=65).(N=65).

Shows convergent validity with other measures of Shows convergent validity with other measures of anxiety and some disciminant validity with anxiety and some disciminant validity with depression measures (though they are correlated depression measures (though they are correlated – sharing 10-25% variance)– sharing 10-25% variance)

Rapid self-report toolRapid self-report tool

CES-D (Radloff, 1977)CES-D (Radloff, 1977)

Developed by NIMH for use as a screening tool in the general Developed by NIMH for use as a screening tool in the general population (also in college and geriatric pops)population (also in college and geriatric pops)

Optimal test for this purpose in this populationOptimal test for this purpose in this population 20 likert type items focusing on the last week20 likert type items focusing on the last week Better than the BDI-II at differentiating among those Better than the BDI-II at differentiating among those

experiencing lower levels of depressionexperiencing lower levels of depression Internal consistency is high (.85 in general pop. and .90 in Internal consistency is high (.85 in general pop. and .90 in

patient samples).patient samples). Retest figures tend to be low (.48) but this is less relevant for Retest figures tend to be low (.48) but this is less relevant for

this constructthis construct A score of 16 is clinical cutoff and it assesses depressed affect, A score of 16 is clinical cutoff and it assesses depressed affect,

positive affect, somatic activity, and interpersonal functioningpositive affect, somatic activity, and interpersonal functioning

MAACL-R (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985)MAACL-R (Zuckerman & Lubin, 1985)

Originally published in 1965 and revised in ’85. (132 Originally published in 1965 and revised in ’85. (132 checklist type items)checklist type items)

Normed on over 1500 adults, 400 adolescents (approx. Normed on over 1500 adults, 400 adolescents (approx. 90% Caucasian, 10% Black)90% Caucasian, 10% Black)

Scores for Anxiety, Depression, hostility, PA, and SS (the Scores for Anxiety, Depression, hostility, PA, and SS (the latter has very poor internal reliability)latter has very poor internal reliability)

A rapid assessment but not as good psychometrically A rapid assessment but not as good psychometrically Can be used to evaluate states or traits and reliability Can be used to evaluate states or traits and reliability

figures are better (though not very high) for the latterfigures are better (though not very high) for the latter Scales don’t corr with social desirability and do converge Scales don’t corr with social desirability and do converge

with MMPI ratingswith MMPI ratings

Behavioral AssessmentsBehavioral Assessments

Assumption: behaviors can reflect cognitions and emotions Assumption: behaviors can reflect cognitions and emotions (e.g., FACS; Ekman & Friesen, 1978)(e.g., FACS; Ekman & Friesen, 1978)

Proliferation of behavioral assessments with limited validity Proliferation of behavioral assessments with limited validity due to the assumption that behavior can be easily defined due to the assumption that behavior can be easily defined and that it represents a meaningful (typically underlying) and that it represents a meaningful (typically underlying) construct e.g., sweating, pacingconstruct e.g., sweating, pacing

How to improve behavioral assessments?How to improve behavioral assessments?– Identify the actual behavior being assessed (lip turned Identify the actual behavior being assessed (lip turned

downward vs. sadness)downward vs. sadness)– Habitual behaviors may indicate underlying conditionHabitual behaviors may indicate underlying condition– Acknowledge role of both traits and situationsAcknowledge role of both traits and situations

Beh assessments – cont.Beh assessments – cont.

Also influenced by factors such as social desirability (varies Also influenced by factors such as social desirability (varies depending if one is aware of the assessment)depending if one is aware of the assessment)

Difficult to organize and systematize behaviors (e.g., how Difficult to organize and systematize behaviors (e.g., how does one smile equate with the absence of a frown re: does one smile equate with the absence of a frown re: depression?)depression?)– Very inconsistent findings regarding the organization of individual Very inconsistent findings regarding the organization of individual

behaviors (even physical symptoms) via F.A.behaviors (even physical symptoms) via F.A. Why might self-report and behavioral assessments not Why might self-report and behavioral assessments not

overlap? What does this mean?overlap? What does this mean? Recall behavioral reactivity phenomenon – change in Recall behavioral reactivity phenomenon – change in

behavior as a function of its assessmentbehavior as a function of its assessment

Physiological measuresPhysiological measures

““Some people want to fill the world with silly Some people want to fill the world with silly physiological measures. And what's wrong with physiological measures. And what's wrong with that?” (McCartney et al., 1976)that?” (McCartney et al., 1976)

Biofeedback – long history but very mixed Biofeedback – long history but very mixed findingsfindings

Plethysmography – changes in blood volume Plethysmography – changes in blood volume that may relate to emotional changesthat may relate to emotional changes

Pupillary responses – attraction and fear?Pupillary responses – attraction and fear? Polygraph – arousal related to lying?Polygraph – arousal related to lying?