psych1 wrote on Dec 30
th, 2009 at 8:47pm:
1. Endorsement of an item in the deviant direction is worth about 1.5 T score points. Therefore, "one or two slips of the pen" (whatever than means) would not lead to any clinically meaningful change in intepretation.
There are several key questions in the MMPI-2 which are loaded and re-worded in many instances, all of which have the potential to deliver a false diagnostic no matter how you interpret the final result. Your interpretations - with respect - are predicated on the interviewee answering truthfully or not as the case may be and this is my main point of contention.
The MMPI-2, in its current form, does not have sufficient safeguards built-in to mitigate against a reasonably
educated attempt to deliver a positive or normative result.
Quote:2. The mmpi is interpreted in layers and there are many more scales than just the 10 clinical scales. These are are all taken into acount. Its not a simple process and no one scale elevation is going to lead to any intepretation. All the data must come together to support any interpretation from the mmpi including interview, history, etc.
I am all too familiar with the number of scales but as I said earlier the interpretation is only as good as the information you receive and that includes history taking. People will ideally want a favourable result. That's a given. How they achieve that is open to debate and even corroboration is not to be relied upon should we doubt them and especially in family law studies.
Quote:I can not understand why people continue to perserverate on the notion that the test in interpreted blindly without taking into acount history and situational factors. I have stated this over and over, yet people continue to perceive this.
This is a generalised statement which presumably has been cushioned so as not to be direct. However I think it has already been answered above.
Quote:3. Yes, MMPI scores can change from time period to time period and when one is depresed or not depresed. This is the whole reason the test was developed! Im not sure I understand why you think this is bad.
Well of course it's bad! Any analysis with so many variables cannot be trusted or relied upon. And especially in criminal and family law cases where there is so much at stake!
Quote:If anything, it demonstrates that the test is senstive to changes in levels of psychopathology over time.
It certainly does no such thing! Let's face it, we're talking about a multiple series of questions that require a certain degree of literacy and self-awareness on the part of the subject taking the test. Add in some of the variables discussed earlier and this quickly becomes an exercise in futility. And please don't suggest history taking as an adjunct! I have observed perfectly capable interviewees who are able to conduct themselves verbally but put a pen in their hand and they become bumbling basket cases. Exam pressure, performance pressure, the desire to please, all of these internal factors can dramatically influence results.
Quote:We are ever evolving creatures.
Correct! And we are also adaptive or mal-adaptive as the case may be when faced with an interrogative test that purports to make a judgement that not even the Lord himself would attempt.
Quote:Although pd could concievably change with levels of depression, I can not fathom a reason why the t score on ASP would? I mean the person is now torturing aninmals because they are depresseed? I dont think so.
Counsellor, you've taken 1 question off a series in isolation and formed an opinion on that basis; what about these? [26,35,66,81,84,104,105,110,123,227,240,248,250,254,269,283,284,374,412,418,419].
Numbers aside, the harsh reality is, most applicants do not have the luxury of repeating this test. This is a one-hit wonder for many of them and it is prohibitively expensive for most.
Quote:I agree that the field of assessment of psychopathology and persoanlity has evolved at an embarrisingly slow pace. The MMPI could be better, but right now its the best we have and research shows that its does a good job at indentifying certain psychopathology.
And this is why it should be banned without hestitation.
The best we have is simply not good enough and especially when people's lives can be turned upside down by a series of heavily weighted questions.
Quote:There is no (and i mean none) debate about this in the scientific community.
Well of course there isn't. Open transparency and the inherent limitations of these tests is hardly a topic for scientific debate and admission of guilt. The litigation that would ensue and the resultant cost of premiums would make it impossible for clinicians to operate. What we have instead is a protectionist attitude towards psychometric testing that is akin to the official states secret act. Let's face it, if there were serious question marks over the methodology used and the construct validity of the MMPI the judicial system would be swamped with appeals. So there is a lot at stake here including commercial interests.
Quote:However, you are correct that the current form has alot of variables and alot of "noise" when looking over the scales. Parsing out pathology from benign factors is indeed tough.
That, with respect, is an understatement! But tough on who!?!
Quote:Interptetation is difficult and takes a skilled clinicain who has ample training in all aspects of clinical psychology.
They are few and far between. In the absence of a skilled clinician your fate can just as easily rest in the hands of a spotty faced Phd with about as much clinical experience as a box of fairies.