Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

supported its utility as a direct diagnostic tool; rather,

it contributes information to assist diagnostic formula-

tions and allows for enhanced understanding of symp-

toms. Other limitations include the test’s length and

the fact that although multiple demographic variables

(e.g., age, ethnicity, education) may impact interpreta-

tion, the onus is on the test user to take such factors

into account. Finally, research suggests that moderate

scale elevations must be interpreted with caution.

Despite these limitations, numerous advantages

lend credence to the MMPI–2’s wide use. Indeed,

Groth-Marnat deems its popularity and familiarity

assets. In fact, the test has been translated into more

than 50 languages and has multiple studies support-

ing its use in other cultures. The MMPI–2’s extensive

research base, detailing the validity of profile

descriptors and scale correlates, contributes to this

popularity and has been labeled by Groth-Marnat and

others as the test’s strongest asset. Furthermore, the

test’s multiple validity indices aid the detection of

response sets or attempts to over- or underreport psy-

chological difficulties. Consequently, in addition to

its standard clinical use, the MMPI–2 can play a role

in “gatekeeping” assessments, such as required psy-

chiatric evaluations, employment screenings, or court

proceedings.

The MMPI–2 offers substantive value for profes-

sionals. Administration is straightforward and may be

done via pencil and paper or computer software, and

computer scoring and interpretation options are also

available. If stamina or time is a concern, the MMPI–2

offers the option of a shorter version that still allows

for interpretation of clinical scales and code types.

With its revision and restandardization, the introduc-

tion of new scales and indices, and the development of

the RC scales, the test also continues to evolve to meet

practical needs.

Ryan P. Kilmer and George J. Demakis

See alsoMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2

(MMPI–2) Validity Scales

Further Readings

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A.,

Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI–2

(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2): Manual

for administration, scoring, and interpretation(Rev. ed.).

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Greene, R. L. (2000). The MMPI–2: An interpretive manual

(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI,

MMPI–2 & MMPI–A in court: A practical guide for

expert witnesses and attorneys(3rd ed.). Washington, DC:

American Psychological Association.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Mcnulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A.,

Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI–2

Restructured Clinical (RC) scales: Development,

validation, and interpretation.Minneapolis: University of

Minnesota Press.

MINNESOTAMULTIPHASIC

PERSONALITYINVENTORY–2

(MMPI–2) VALIDITYSCALES

A strength of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) is its multiple indicators regard-

ing an examinee’s approach to the test. Ideally, exami-

nees answer all questions, respond consistently, and do

not distort test findings by overreporting or underre-

porting experienced psychopathology. However, some

individuals may approach the test in a manner that devi-

ates from this optimal scenario, and MMPI–2 profiles

can be interpreted with confidence only when these

issues have been addressed. Overall, the MMPI–2’s

measures of test-taking approach and validity may

qualify clinical findings or lend credence to interpreta-

tions yielded by the test in multiple situations, particu-

larly in forensic situations such as criminal proceedings

as well as in gatekeeping evaluations (e.g., child cus-

tody assessments), in which examinees may have moti-

vation to modify their clinical presentation. The most

commonly used validity measures include the L (Lie),

K (Correction), and F (Infrequency) scales.

A first step in assessing response validity involves

evaluating the Cannot Say scale, which indicates the

number of unanswered items or items answered both

true and false. A high number of such items renders a

profile invalid and may suggest that the examinee per-

ceived the items as irrelevant, was uncooperative, was

defensive or indecisive, or could not understand the

items. Second, to assess response consistency, the

Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN) and True

Response Inconsistency (TRIN) scales are evaluated.

VRIN measures the degree to which the examinee

responded consistently to items similar in content,

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2) Validity Scales——— 507

M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 507