A Comparison Study between the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2 RF Profiles of Convicted Stalkers McCullaugh, J.M 1.; Pizitz, T.D. 2 ; Stolberg, R. 1 ; Kropp, J. 1 1 Alliant International University - San Diego, CA; 2 Private Practice – Vista, CA ABSTRACT The MMPI-2 (Butcher, et al., 1989) has long been established as a valid, reliable, and clinically useful tool in the assessment of psychological conditions and diagnoses. Indeed, researchers have noted the MMPI-2 is the single, most frequently used psychological measure employed in forensic evaluations (Pope, Butcher, & Seelen, 2000). With the advent of the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI- 2-RF; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008), assessing the validity and reliability of score across the multiple versions of the measure remains important. This is particularly true given the psychometrics for the multiple scales of the MMPI-2- RF normative and clinical comparison data were developed from the same sample groups and originally used in those developed for the MMPI-2 in In addition, establishing acceptance and validity of measures used in the psychological community, as suggested by Daubert (Daubert v. Merrell Dow, 1993), and creating comparative samples with specific, forensic populations is increasingly relevant. The authors of this study seek to examine the consistency of obtained scores between scales of the MMPI-2 and the new MMPI-2-RF with a specialized forensic population, convicted stalkers. Scores originally obtained through administration of the MMPI-2 were rescored using MMPI-2-RF Q-Local software to produce MMPI-2-RF data, and then compared to two large forensic comparison groups. DESIGN 30 MMPI-2 records of subjects convicted of stalking related crimes completing the measure as a part of their participation in a court-mandated treatment program were recruited from a private, forensic practitioner. This group’s scores were then compared to two matched samples consisting of 1) imprisoned male inmates and 2) a pre-trial, forensic sample of male subjects on the 50 validity, clinical, and supplemental scales of the MMPI-2RF. T-tests were analyzed for the 50 scales of the MMPI-2RF between the stalking sample and imprisoned male inmates and between the stalker sample and pre-trial, forensic litigants. Statistical corrections were made for the substantial differences in sample sizes among the groups compared. Stalker Sample (N=30) Mean Age = 34.3 Years (Range 21-55) EducationEthnicity Some High School13.3%Caucasian53.3% Completed High School33.3%Hispanic / Latino23.3% Some College / Secondary School36.7%African-American6.7% Completed College6.7%Asian-American10.0% Unknown10%Native American6.7% RESULTS / DISCUSSION Consistently, MMPI-2RF profiles from the stalking sample more closely resembled those from the male inmate sample than those from the pre-trail, forensic litigants across several scales. TRIN-r and K-r scales were significantly elevated for stalkers when compared to both comparative samples. Interpersonal Passivity Scale was significantly elevated for stalker sample compared to inmate sample, with no difference with pre-trial sample. All remaining significant differences revealed lower T-scores for stalker sample. Overall similarity to inmate sample possibly related to post-adjudication status, less dependent on mitigated conviction or sentencing due to mental illness status and severity. Concepts of accountability and responsibility for behaviors potentially contributed to observed differences across groups – blame placing, external locus of control, and reactivity anecdotally seen frequently with stalking and inmate populations – particularly post-conviction / sentencing. Several externalizing / behavioral scales elevated for both comparative groups in comparison to stalking sample (BXD,RC4, RC9, SUB, AGG) in addition to scales revealing cynicism and low self-efficacy (RC3, NFC) – suggesting impaired control of impulses and aggression with little belief in pro-social and effective resolution of these needs or containing drives with prison and pre-trial samples. Small stalker sample size, non-random selection, diversity of contributors to the crime of “stalking”, and potential restriction of range were limitations in the data used.