The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is the most common psychometric test devised to assess personality traits and psychopathology. This data can be used to draw conclusions about the test taker’s psychopathy or to interpret psychological characteristics compared to the norm. The most common treatment application of the test by providers functions in establishing or reevaluating care for an ambiguous clinical picture. For psychiatric management, this aids in creating generalizable data relevant to a plethora of possible conditions.
The MMPI was developed in the 1930s and published through the University of Minnesota in 1942 by Stuart Hathaway and Charley McKinley using visitors of patients at the University of Minnesota hospital as a base sample in both theorizing constructs of psychiatric illness and fielding the instrument. Testing is administered through 567 true or false items using a booklet with an accompanying answer sheet. The responses are then hand-scored and plotted on an X-Y graph, a separate version being used for male and female respondents.
The X-axis is comprised of 14 scales. The first four ‘content scales’ judge validity of the test attempt and include:
The 10 remaining scales known as ‘clinical scales’ are designed to measure for the presence of psychiatric syndromes, including:
The Y-axis statistically standardizes the grading received on each scale in a range of T-scores from 0 to 120. A mean score is 50, and 82% of respondents are considered to be the normal population falling between 30 and 70. A T-score greater than 70 indicates psychopathy in that category.
The existence of the MMPI has been concurrent with vast reforms in societal convention and increased understanding of behavioral health. Likewise, the instrument has been adapted to reflect such changes. Overarching criticisms to the original test center on its disparity in addressing psychopathy in social and ethnic minorities. This has been attributed to the original sample being a small group, mainly consisting of young rural Caucasian subjects from the Midwestern United States. Studies have established biases in which misunderstanding or failure to culturally identify with the content of questions have led to underreporting or overreporting of mental illness.
These shortcomings led to the release of the MMPI-2 by James N. Butcher, W. Grant Dahlstrom, John R. Graham, Auke Tellegen, and Beverly Kaemme in 1989. This assessment retains the original total of 567 items with the same corresponding 14 scales with the original number of questions from the test. Test items were revised based upon a larger and more diverse sample size of 2600 attuned to a 6th-grade reading level. Gendered differences were replaced with a nongendered standardized scoring. Despite further advancements, the MMPI-2 is still the most commonly administered version and has been translated into over 40 languages.
In 2003, 9 restructured clinical or ‘RC’ scales were introduced as a prospective replacement for the original clinical scales. These include:
The RC scales were devised to provide a streamlined interpretation and less overlap with an increased focus on the growth in understanding within psychiatry over the past 70 years. Combinations of high-scoring categories are more representative of distinct psychiatric constructs rather than the nebulous findings of the original clinical scales tying the patient to a specific diagnosis. Arguments also exist that this information is limited in that it categorizes the responder rather than providing data on an individual patient within a personalized spectrum of behavior.
The RC scales have been incorporated into the most current form of the MMPI, which is known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Revised Form, or the MMPI-2-RF, which was released in 2008 by Yossef Ben-Porath and Auke Telleger of the University of Minnesota. The MMPI-2-RF is composed of 338 items measured by 51 scales broken into 9 validity scales, 3 higher-order scales, the 9 RC scales, 23 specific problem scales, 2 interest scales, and 5 revised personality psychopathy scales.
The 9 validity scales assess incongruent answering or deceptive test-taking and include:
The 3 higher-order scales broadly categorize psychopathic presentation and include:
The problem scales highlight responses consistent with the presence of specific psychopathic and psychosomatic presentations and include:
The interest scales are designed to assess cognitive skills aptitude and learning preferences which include:
The revised personality/psychopathology five scales are based on 107 distinct items and include:
It has been suggested that while the MMPI-2-RF has many additional metrics, the reduction in question number limits the amount of information about psychiatric diseases to about 60% of the original test. There has also been considerable debate over whether the new metrics are inaccurate in detecting psychopathy. In separating genuine psychopathy from attempts to feign a diagnosis for personal incentive, some studies have noted the new validity scales to be overly sensitive to overreporting of symptoms to achieve a specific result. It has conversely been found that the L-r and K-r scales are particularly reliable at detecting underreporting of mental illness. Overall, literature has been supportive of the MMPI-2-RF in identifying the accuracy of reporting psychiatric information in those who complete it.
The MMPI maintains an enduring presence in the field of mental health, and its current adaption has been widely evaluated by the standard of modern behavioral health practices. It continues to receive a widespread application as a threshold of determining the presence of psychopathy, as a means of constructing a differential diagnosis for mental health problems, and as a versatile test to achieve transferrable psychological data. These data points are themselves the indication of a category, and this gives behavioral health professionals a starting point to explore plausible diagnoses and initiate appropriate treatment. Completion may also offer therapeutic benefits to patients in reflecting upon their issues and improving personal understanding of their psychology.
In addition to its predominant clinical application, an extensive body of research exists to assess the MMPI in all its versions for the use in criminology, population studies, and prediction of aptitude in a particular role. Several studies on the MMPI-2-RF have compared those with a criminal history to those who have undergone rehabilitation and found that high scores on externalizing scales were predictive of violent behavior. The MMPI-2-RF has also been used as prescreening of applicants for law enforcement for obtaining baseline mental health or flagging for aggressive tendencies. There has also been usage evaluating parenting suitability in custody battles over children, and in predicting the course of domestic disputes in couples. Interpretations of the test have also been used to establish criminal intent in defendants.
A major consensus of the MMPI in its current form is that increased accessibility for being tested improves retention without compromising outcomes. Prevailing criticisms of the original format were the extensive span of questioning and difficulty of paper administration for both completion and grading, with efforts to provide a more efficient medium well-documented since the 1980s. When evaluating the use of tablet devices as compared to conventional forms of electronic administration using a home computer or laptop for taking the MMPI-RF-2, the difference in reliability of results between the two mediums was insignificant. There have also been motions to use the MMPI-2-RF to assess psychopathy utilizing an algorithm using a high score on a higher-order scale and then tailoring the remaining assessment to similar questions to the indicated higher order. To aid in administration to pediatric patients, an adolescent form exists known as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent-Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF).
The completion of the MMPI holds value in determining care throughout a variety of treatment considerations. The test should be administered by a licensed psychotherapist, usually a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist, with informed consent obtained through discussion of the risks and benefits of completion. Analysis of the results by the psychotherapist interpreting scoring should be attached with a working diagnosis to assess for treatment response. The presence of conditions associated with high-scoring categories will ultimately guide the necessity for pharmacological or non-pharmacological treatment options. This will, in turn, outline the need for referral to appropriate mental healthcare, from continuing outpatient follow-up to institutionalization with fully-staffed nursing and rehabilitative care. Transfer of care should involve appropriate discussion of MMPI data correlated with a summary of interventions. High-scoring in concerning scales such as suicidality highlights an existing need for acute observation or placement. The validity of symptoms should also be corroborated to demonstrate whether a patient is malingering or suffering from organic disorders requiring medical management by a treatment team. The bio-ethical implications of the MMPI should also be identified if the patient is completing the test in concurrence or stipulation with legal charges, and they should be counseled on what findings might hold concerning criminality. The basis for the use of test data in determining adherence has also been documented in a sample consisting of 471 psychiatric patients, with externalizing scales predictive of whether a patient will be more likely to terminate treatment. [Level 3] This illustrates the need for multi-level involvement in facilitating outreach and patient compliance.
|||Sellbom M, The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Assessment of Personality and Psychopathology in the Twenty-First Century. Annual review of clinical psychology. 2019 May 7; [PubMed PMID: 30601687]|
|||Butcher JN, Personality assessment from the nineteenth to the early twenty-first century: past achievements and contemporary challenges. Annual review of clinical psychology. 2010; [PubMed PMID: 20192801]|
|||Schilling R,Casper ST, Of psychometric means: Starke R. Hathaway and the popularization of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Science in context. 2015 Mar; [PubMed PMID: 25832571]|
|||Carter JH, Racism's impact on mental health. Journal of the National Medical Association. 1994 Jul; [PubMed PMID: 8064907]|
|||Dennis PH, A comparative study of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) scores of four apparently different black populations. Journal of the National Medical Association. 1974 May; [PubMed PMID: 4151276]|
|||Drayton M, The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2). Occupational medicine (Oxford, England). 2009 Mar; [PubMed PMID: 19233834]|
|||Ingram PB,Ternes MS, The detection of content-based invalid responding: a meta-analysis of the MMPI-2-Restructured Form's (MMPI-2-RF) over-reporting validity scales. The Clinical neuropsychologist. 2016 May; [PubMed PMID: 27214667]|
|||Tarescavage AM,Scheman J,Ben-Porath YS, Reliability and validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in evaluations of chronic low back pain patients. Psychological assessment. 2015 Jun; [PubMed PMID: 25436662]|
|||Whitman MR,Tarescavage AM,Glassmire DM,Burchett D,Sellbom M, Examination of differential validity of MMPI-2-RF scores by gender and ethnicity in predicting future suicidal and violent behaviors in a forensic sample. Psychological assessment. 2019 Mar; [PubMed PMID: 30520653]|
|||Marshall RE,Milligan-Saville JS,Steel Z,Bryant RA,Mitchell PB,Harvey SB, A prospective study of pre-employment psychological testing amongst police recruits. Occupational medicine (Oxford, England). 2020 Feb 10; [PubMed PMID: 32040153]|
|||Lee TTC,Taylor AM,Holbert AM,Graham JR, MMPI-2-RF predictors of interpersonal relationship characteristics in committed couples. Psychological assessment. 2019 Sep; [PubMed PMID: 31192629]|
|||Fariña F,Redondo L,Seijo D,Novo M,Arce R, A meta-analytic review of the MMPI validity scales and indexes to detect defensiveness in custody evaluations. International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHP. 2017 May-Aug; [PubMed PMID: 30487888]|
|||Deskovitz MA,Weed NC,McLaughlan JK,Williams JE, Interpretive Reliability of Six Computer-Based Test Interpretation Programs for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Assessment. 2016 Apr; [PubMed PMID: 25944798]|
|||Menton WH,Crighton AH,Tarescavage AM,Marek RJ,Hicks AD,Ben-Porath YS, Equivalence of Laptop and Tablet Administrations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form. Assessment. 2019 Jun; [PubMed PMID: 28618858]|
|||Tarescavage AM,Ben-Porath YS, Examination of the feasibility and utility of flexible and conditional administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form. Psychological assessment. 2017 Nov; [PubMed PMID: 28165271]|
|||Handel RW, An Introduction to the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent-Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF). Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings. 2016 Dec; [PubMed PMID: 27752979]|