material linked with individual scale and subscale
scores, considerable research has identified and sup-
ported descriptions associated with particular pat-
terns of elevations, known as code types, reflecting
the 1 to 3 most elevated clinical scales and their
combinations. As Roger Greene emphasizes, these
descriptions are probabilistic statements based on
modal patterns and, as such, do not necessarily
describe individuals obtaining a specific code.
Nevertheless, they provide potentially useful infor-
mation about problem areas, personality types and
correlates, and treatment implications.History and Development
The MMPI is an empirically derived test. Through
a multistep process, Starke Hathaway and J. C.
McKinley developed the original MMPI by selecting
items for inclusion that discriminated a criterion
group (i.e., those with a given clinical diagnosis) and
comparison groups (i.e., nonpatient normative groups
and those with other diagnoses). After decades of use,
the need for restandardization became clear. As James
Butcher and colleagues, Greene, and others have
described, several factors underscored the need to
revise the MMPI, including the need for current
norms, a larger and more nationally representative
normative sample that appropriately included ethnic
and racial minorities, and updated item content. Those
involved in the restandardization took steps to main-
tain continuity between the MMPI and its revision so
that the extant research would not be made obsolete.
As Gary Groth-Marnat notes, although some differ-
ences have been detected, research has largely sup-
ported comparability in findings for the two versions;
the MMPI–2 seems to describe the same types of
characteristics and behaviors as the MMPI.Psychometric Properties
In light of the complex issues involving the MMPI–2’s
reliability (many relating to the initial version’s con-
struction), the reader is referred to the readings below
for discussions of the test’s development and psycho-
metrics. A substantial body of research has supported
the conclusion that, with some exceptions, its scales
evidence moderate levels of internal consistency and
stability over time. Thousands of studies have attested
to the test’s validity and the meanings of scale and
code type descriptions, as well as the incrementalvalidity obtained when using the MMPI–2 in an
assessment.Recent Refinements
In an attempt to address issues related to item overlap
across the clinical scales and conceptual heterogeneity
(i.e., multidimensionality) within them, Auke Tellegen
and colleagues published the Restructured Clinical
(RC)Scalesin 2003. First, they developed a Demoral-
ization scale, thought to represent much of the com-
mon “affective” variance shared across the core
clinical scales. Subsequent steps were designed to
yield scales assessing distinct constructs and resulted
in the following: Somatic Complaints, Low Positive
Emotions, Cynicism, Antisocial Behavior, Ideas of
Persecution, Dysfunctional Negative Emotions, Aberrant
Experiences, and Hypomanic Activation. Tellegen and
colleagues reported that the RC scales have compara-
ble or greater internal consistencies than the clinical
scales, improved discriminant validity, and equivalent
or improved convergent validity. They concluded that
the RC scales predicted variables linked conceptually
to the scales’ core constructs at least as well as and, in
some cases, better than the original clinical scales.
Leonard Simms and colleagues further documented
the increased measurement efficiency of the RC scales,
reporting that they were less intercorrelated, related
more clearly to measures of personality and psy-
chopathology, and had greater incremental utility than
the clinical scales.Assets and Limitations
Groth-Marnat cogently summarizes the MMPI–2’s
limitations as well as its assets. As he details, issues
related to scale construction (i.e., item overlap; high
intercorrelations among scales; clinical scale content
reflecting multidimensional variables that, in some
cases, lack clear definition) are frequently highlighted
shortcomings that impact psychometrics and raise
interpretive challenges. Numerous authors have also
pointed out that the clinical scale names are mislead-
ing or confusing because they reflect traditional diag-
nostic categories (e.g., Schizophrenia) or outdated
terms (e.g., Hysteria), and their content does not trans-
late directly to current disorder classification systems.
In that vein, he points out that although the test was ini-
tially intended as a means of differential diagnoses,
it does not provide diagnoses, and research has not506 ———Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2)M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 506