Encyclopedia of Psychology and Law

diagnostic accuracy of the MCMI–III. Noteworthy in

the discussion of the diagnostic accuracy is the lack of

any information regarding the accuracy of the Thought

Disorder scale, a scale particularly relevant to crimi-

nal forensic practice.

Applicability and

Admissibility of the MCMI–III

The research to date suggests that the MCMI–III has

significant limitations for forensic practice in terms of

its ability to detect malingering and denial. Use of the

recommended VI > 1 criterion is likely to result in

inappropriate inclusion of random protocols in past

research studies and clinical interpretation of proto-

cols of questionable validity. The diagnostic accuracy

controversy remains an issue owing to methodologi-

cal flaws in the validation studies. The diagnostic

accuracy of the MCMI–III in the identification of Axis

I disorders is particularly underresearched. These are

important issues that must be considered in selecting

an assessment instrument not only from the perspec-

tive of the best measure for the forensic task but also

for the effect it will have on court proceedings, includ-

ing Daubert challenges to admissibility. One would

be wise to heed Robert Craig’s advice that a thorough

knowledge of the research supporting the test’s

applicability and limitations will best serve the inter-

ests of the client. In this regard, the paucity of studies

involving forensic populations; poor detection of

malingering, denial, and random responding; and the

diagnostic accuracy controversy are important issues

to be aware of. Experts are in agreement that the use

of the computer-generated report for the MCMI–III is

inappropriate because the sensitivity for detecting

pathology was artificially increased, resulting in over-

pathologizing of the respondent. All these issues need

to be resolved before the MCMI–III can be considered

a useful measure in forensic practice.

L. Thomas Kucharski and Joseph Toomey

See alsoForensic Assessment; Malingering

Further Readings

Craig, R. J. (1999). Testimony based on the Millon Clinical

Multiaxial Inventory: Review, commentary, and

guidelines. Journal of Personality Assessment,

73,290–304.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.,509 U.S. 579

(1993).

Dyer, F. J., & McCann, J. T. (2000). The Millon Clinical

Inventories, research criteria of their forensic application,

and the Daubert criteria. Law and Human Behavior,

24,487–497.

Rogers, R., Salekin, R. T., & Sewell, K. W. (1999). Validation

of the Millon Clinical Muliaxial Inventory for Axis II

disorders: Does it meet the Daubert standard. Law and

Human Behavior, 23,425–443.

MINNESOTAMULTIPHASIC

PERSONALITYINVENTORY–2

(MMPI–2)

The original Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory (MMPI) and its successor have been recog-

nized as the most widely used and researched objec-

tive clinical personality inventories. Using 567

true-false items, the MMPI–2 assesses a diverse range

of personality characteristics; symptoms of psy-

chopathology; and patterns of behavior, attitudes, and

concerns. First published in 1942 and revised in 1989,

the instrument yields a wealth of clinical data and is

used across multiple clinical and medical settings, for

employment screening and selection, and in a variety

of forensic situations.

The test includes multiple validity indices, assess-

ing test-taking attitudes and approach; 10 basic,

numbered clinical scales (1 =Hypochondriasis, 2 =

Depression, 3 =Hysteria, 4 =Psychopathic Deviate,

5 = Masculinity-Femininity, 6 = Paranoia, 7 =

Psychasthenia, 8 =Schizophrenia, 9 =Hypomania, 0 =

Social Introversion,with all but scales 5 and 0 consid-

ered core clinical scales) and their subscales; as well as

more than five dozen content scales (e.g., Antisocial

Practices, Anxiety), content component scales (e.g.,

Negative Treatment Indicators: Low Motivation),

personality psychopathology trait scales (e.g., Aggres-

siveness, Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism), and

supplementary scales (e.g., Addiction Potential,

Overcontrolled-Hostility).

Raw scores on these scales are transformed to

norm-based T-scores (mean =50, standard deviation

= 10) to enhance the interpretability of results.

Scales with a T-score of 65 or greater are considered

clinically significant. In addition to interpretive

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2 (MMPI–2)——— 505

M-Cutler (Encyc)-45463.qxd 11/18/2007 12:43 PM Page 505