1. Cody G. Dodd, Nathan C. Weed, & Mark A. Deskovitz
An Evaluation of the Descriptive Information Available From the MMPI-2-RF Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales
Seth C. Courrégé, Kaley S. Boress, Cheryl Chakranarayan, Heidi A. Putney, Abigail H. Feder,
Cody G. Dodd, Nathan C. Weed, & Mark A. Deskovitz
Introduction
Figure 1
Q-Sort Procedure
Table 1
Inter-Interpreter Reliability and Descriptive Validity of Complete MMPI-2-RF and PSY-5-Only Q-Sorts
PSY-5 Scales
MMPI-2-RF
Profile Type1
Reliability
Validity 1
EID
.86
.36*
.89
.27* 2
.81
-.22
.82
-.08 3
THD
.79
.25
.72
.20 4
.74
.33*
.88
.39* 5
BXD
.45*
.83
.73* 6
.54
-.27*
.87
.00 7
EID-THD
.85
.41* 8
.30*
.23 9
EID-BXD
.61*
.76
.46* 10
.50*
.48* 11
THD-BXD
.28*
.17 12
.21 13
EID-THD-BXD
.91
-.24
-.09 14
.84
.63*
.55*
Median
.32
.28
Notes. PSY-5 = Psychopathology Five. Reliability estimates presented as coefficient alpha.
1 Profiles were chosen by pattern of Higher Order scale elevations (T>60) in order to represent a range of pathology.
* p < .01
Previous research on MMPI interpretation suggests that both the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF can be used to produce similar, consistent, and valid interpretations when used by skilled interpreters (Dodd et al., 2015). Likewise, interpretations drawn from isolated sets of MMPI-2-RF scales such as the Restructured Clinical (RC) and Higher Order (H-O) scales appear to have a high degree of overlap and equivalent interpretive validity (Courrégé et al., 2014). The current investigation extended this research by examining interpretations made only on the basis of PSY-5 scales.
Method
Fourteen valid MMPI-2-RF protocols were selected from an archival private practice sample. Using the 100-item Midwestern Q-Sort, four raters separately interpreted complete MMPI-2-RF profiles and profiles consisting of only the PSY-5 scale scores. Specifically, graduate student clinicians sorted 100 MMPI-relevant interpretive statements into seven categories ranging from -3 to +3 based on the degree to which a statement applied to the target profile. See Figure 1 for a graphical representation of the q-sort procedure. During PSY-5 Scale-only profile interpretations, all other MMPI-2-RF information was removed. Additionally, the examinee’s therapists—without access to the MMPI results—also completed a criterion q-sort description of the examinee.
Discussion
In sum, the PSY-5 scales alone can be used by trained clinicians to produce reliable interpretations. Furthermore, the PSY-5 scales in isolation generally capture a similar amount of interpretive content provided by the complete set of MMPI-2-RF scales, as demonstrated by similar overall descriptive validity.
Previous research with identical methods found that the interpretive validity of the SP scales in isolation was modest, which supports their use as supplements to H-O and RC scales. Because the validity coefficients associated with the PSY-5 scales in isolation rival those of the full MMPI-2-RF, the PSY-5 scales might be more appropriately considered an alternate reorganization of the H-O and RC scales rather than supplements to them.
Future directions include replication of the current study with more profiles and raters, and with a wider variety of criteria q-sorts (e.g., self sort, partner sort, aggregating sorts of more than one therapists).
References
Courrégé, S. C., Deskovitz, M. A., McCabe, B. J., Weed, N. C., Solomon, D. T., Bieritz, L. M., … & Ng, S. (2014, April). A comparison of the interpretive information available from the MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (H-O) Scales and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales. Paper presented at the 49th annual Symposium for Recent MMPI Research, Scottsdale, AZ. doi: /RG
Dodd, C. G., Courrégé, S. C., Weed, N. C., Chakranarayan, C., Boress, K. S., Han, K., & Deskovitz, M. A. (2016, May). An evaluation of the interpretive information available from the MMPI-2-RF Specific Problem (SP) Scales. Poster presented at the 51st annual Symposium on Recent MMPI Research, Hollywood, FL. doi: /RG
Dodd, C. G., Courrégé, S. C., Weed, N. C., Deskovitz, M. A., Martin, S. M., Michael, K. A., … & Egan, R. (2015, June). A comparison of the interpretive information from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF. Paper presented at the 50th annual Symposium on Recent MMPI Research, Minneapolis, MN. doi: /RG
Results
Analyses of the interpretations produced similar estimates of inter-interpreter reliability between interpretations of complete MMPI-2-RF profiles (Mdn ⍺ = .83) and the PSY-5 scales alone (Mdn ⍺ = .84). Intercorrelations among composites of PSY-5 profiles descriptions and complete MMPI-2-RF profile descriptions were high (Mdn r = .70). Descriptive validity was operationalized as the correlation between raters q-sorts of a profile and therapists’ q-sorts of the same examinee. The descriptive validity of the aggregate descriptions based on PSY-5 scales (Mdn r = .32) was similar to the descriptive validity of aggregate descriptions based on complete MMPI-2-RF profiles (Mdn r = .28). See Table 1 for complete reliability and validity results.
For more information about the results presented in this poster, please contact Seth Courrégé at Central Michigan University, Department of Psychology at