Judi

You haven't seen anything yet. Look forward to all of us having to take MMPI 10 or 11 to detect our stress level caused by the Federal Reserve Globalist taking control of our lives and our unwillingness to work toward removing our idiot congress that allowed it to happen. They will use hundred dollar words, that is meaningless to the average citizen, to explain their five cent reasons for making us take it.

Twoblock wrote on Nov 25^th, 2008 at 3:03pm:



LOL, so true.

I have a handful of the questions from when I took the test a month or so ago for the ARMY.  email electroniccourier@gmail.com  for info

Hi all!

Mad Mikey made a mistake!

EBAY  search  'MMPI Book'

The list of material is good, just bought another book on MMPI
for less then $10 shipping incl.!!


see ya!!!!

JC

Dangerous???  Please explain how so. By saying such a thing, you are indicating that you know.

Quote:


I think it is safer to say that is the most emprically researched instrument, and has wide range of clinical utility, both diagnsotic and for treatment planning purposes. However, I generally prefer other briefer measures unless there is a specific reason I need to use it.  But yes, it is irresponsible (and illegal) to post the instrument online.  Scale elevations mean very differnt things depending on other scale elevations. What does Scale 3 represent when K is more than standard deviation above the mean? Does it really mean anything?  Should it be interpreted?  If all the Harris Lingoe scales of particular parent scale are elevated, but the parent scale itself isnt, what does this mean?  Can you interpret it, and if you do, what is your clinical rational for doing this?  Can you justify, both statisically and clinically, why this intepreation was done? How were the content scales constructed and keyed? How is this different from the way the clinical scales were keyed and constructed?  What does this mean when you interpret them?  If a content scale and clincial scale are discrepant from one another, what could be responsbile for this and what do these discrepancies represent clinically?  What if content scale DEP is elevated, but clinical Scale 2 isnt?  What does this represent? If the content scale ANX is elevated, but Scale 2 and 7 arent, what does this mean? Does the content subscale titled "Antisocial Practices", really measure this behavioral construct?  Scale names can be misleading ya know. How and at what T elevation do you intepret scale 8 if BIZ1 and BIZ2 are low?  How does that change the construct of what is realy being measured? And, do you know when you have to plot a non-K corrected profile? This is what clinical trianing provides, and you wont find all this stuff I mentioned in text books. This would be my argument for why interpretation by someone not trained is flawed and misinformed, and represnts an undue danger to the public through the risk of misdiagnosing, inappopriately diagnosing, or overlooking serious psychaitric disturbance. A persons emotional welfare/care is on the line here. Thats serious business if you ask me! This is also the rationale courts have used in decieding that this practice meets criteria for "malpractice" in tort litigation cases. Hence why we have licensing laws/requirements for practicing psychologists in all 50 states, right?

If people come across a bootlegeed copy on the internet and decide to "practice" it, so be it.  However, the literature on analogue malingering and coached malingering demonstates that this often a futile effort and can backfire unless you spend insane amounts of time reading about the clinical scales, content scales, validity scales, and so forth.  But that is me. I suppose I would just rather spend my time doing something else with my spare time.    

"Admissability" of the MMPI itself in courts is not really an issue, because the MMPI itself is not entered as a piece of evidence. Courts can not, and do not, dictate what instrumens psychologists use in a court ordered psychological examination. However, the "Frye Standard" of admissability says that scientific evidence presented to the court as testimony must be interpreted by the court as "generally accepted" by a meaningful segment of the associated scientific community. This applies to procedures, principles or techniques that may be presented in the proceedings of a court case. In practical application of this standard, those who are proponents of a particular scientific issue must provide a number of experts to speak to the validity of the science behind the issue in question. The MMPI does indeed meets this standard, as there are literally hundreds of validity studies of the MMPI. Therefore, psychologists can depose or testify opinions based on the MMPI (and clinical interview among other things) to the court. It is up to the jury to deciede how much weight or credibility, if any, to give to this testimony.

PS: I sent a note to Pearson and the UM Press about the test being posted online.  Maybe they will shut it down, maybe not. Im not sure how they do it.  I have done my ethical duties either way.  Plus, someone would probably just host it on another site as soon as the other is taken offline. Se La Vee.....

JC

Are you going to defend your stupid ass statement or are you going to "hit and run"?  OTOH I guess it could be dangerous if used in the outhouse instead of softer paper. In untrained hands one could get a paper cut on one's hiney.

I took the test today and actually only had to answer 299 questions. I have to go back tomorrow and finish the last 24. I got side tracked with the receptionist and thought I was done. I do remember answering a lot of questions no but I think I will double check the questions I marked yes. Thanks for the heads up. What was the first question suppose to intend to do. What does it matter if you read a mechanics magazine? And the the question about whether I thought women should have equal sexual freedom. Was that suppose to make you unbios or somehow equal. I actually thought of my 3 young girls and wanted to answer no. But in the society we live in today everything has to be equal according to the statis quo.