an online version of a psychological test rather than
assume these qualities can be generalized from the
traditional test (Buchanan, 2002).
The use of computer-based test interpretations
(CBTIs)is also a controversial issue (e.g., Snyder,
2000). CBTIs are prompted once a respondent’s
test scores are entered into a software package.
Although CBTIs have the advantages of generating
interpretive findings quickly, of minimizing subjec-
tivity in selecting interpretations of scores, and of
accessing large databases and processing potentially
complex score patterns, there are a number of lim-
itations as well (Snyder, 2000). First, many CBTI
systems have not been adequately scrutinized from
a scientific standpoint, and thus, inaccurate inter-
pretations may result. Second, the impression of
“scientific”precision may lead clinicians to indiscri-
minantly use CBTI material when it is not relevant
or not appropriate. Therefore, like other forms of
assessment, CBTIs themselves must be shown to be
reliable (i.e., similar interpretations should be gen-
erated for similar scores), valid (i.e., interpretations
should be accurate), and clinically useful (i.e., inter-
pretations should aid in the clinical understanding
and treatment planning for the respondent).
Guidelines have been proposed for how best to
evaluate the reliability and validity of CBTIs (Snyder,
Widiger, & Hoover, 1990) as well as how best to use
CBTIs in clinical work (Butcher, 1995b). Butcher
(1990, 1995b), for example, has outlined seven steps
in providing MMPI-2 feedback to clients.
- Provide historical information about the
MMPI-2. - Briefly describe how the MMPI-2 scales were
developed as well as the vastness of the
empirical literature on the MMPI/MMPI-2.
3. Briefly describe the validity scales and what they
indicate about the client’sapproachtothetesting.
4. Describe the clinical hypotheses that have been
generated based on the MMPI-2 profile,
couching this in terms of how the client pre-
sented him- or herself and how he or she is
viewing the problems (if any) at this time.
5. Discuss any significant elevations on the con-
tent scales because what these items measure is
intuitively apparent.
6. Invite the client to ask questions about his or
her scores and clarify any confusing issues.
7. Discuss how the client feels the test results fit or
do not fit her or his experience. (adapted from
Butcher, 1995b, p. 82)
Interestingly, results from several studies suggest
that MMPI-2 test feedback may actually serve as a
type of clinical intervention (Butcher, 2010). In the
Finn and Tonsager (1992) study, one group of stu-
dent clients at a university counseling center received
MMPI-2 test feedback while they were on a waiting
list at the clinic; a second group did not take the
MMPI-2. The first group showed improvement on
measures of both psychopathology symptoms and
self-esteem, whereas the control group did not.
Although it is possible that the“therapeutic effect”
observed may be attributable just to taking the
MMPI-2 (i.e., not necessarily the feedback), future
research in this area seems warranted. This study is
laudable because it attempted to demonstrate the
clinical utility of the MMPI-2.
Ultimately, the success of any clinical assess-
ment instrument will depend on whether the infor-
mation provided by the test is useful for planning,
conducting, and evaluating treatment.
CHAPTER SUMMARY
Clinical psychologists frequently engage in person-
ality assessment. However, the utility of even the
most popular measures continues to be questioned.
The managed care environment has placed even
more pressure on personality testing advocates to
justify the use of popular measures.
In this chapter, we have discussed several test
construction strategies and concluded that thePERSONALITY ASSESSMENT 251