MMPI 2 First 75 Questions out of 567 Psych Exam

[T.M. Cullen]

I would emplore anyone to be honest and natural when taking the MPPI-2. Please think about this from the clinician's (psychologist's) perspective. A slight elevation on many of the clinical scales are not necessarily a contraindication for the job. The MMPI measures many constructs.  I really don't care if you happen to be a bit hypochondriacal, or have dysphoric tendencies. Even mild anxiety disorders. If the problem is well controlled, or mild, and/or unlikely to affect job performance, it not a big deal. However, when they see elevated validity scales that demonstrate attempts to underreport or "fake-good," at the very least, it suggests deceitful behavior and a standard of ethics that is contraindicated in a law enforcement officer. Further, it opens up the window of suspicion on what factors might underly the motivation to deceive. Paranoia? Significant Psych issues/history? What else might the candidate be lying about or covering up?

Gee whiz professor, can it tell if I'm having "naughty" thoughts, or have been playing with my "privates"?  

TC

P.S.  I don't care what you say, repeated F3 reactions to a question does not necessarily indicate "deception", it just indicates persistent "reactions".  Or as the NAS report stated, these reactions are not uniquely related to "deception".  Or as Phil Zimbardo has said, "there is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...".  Cloak your theory in all the fancy scientific mumbo-jumbo you want, you will never get around that fact.

[Sergeant1107]

psych1,

because this site, it's promoters and supporters have no belief in any testing or process that is not scientifically supported by the entire related community, to be absolutely factual and accurate, based on deeply researched and peer reviewed studies which allow for no mistakes, no distortions or any possible contamination and most of all no potential for false results in any way shape or form at any level of finding.

I think that leaves mathematics!  All else, they feel cheating is the only way to succeed.

Sackett

Do you really feel it is appropriate to speak to what is on the mind of this site's promoters and supporters?

Do you really feel the need to denigrate anyone possessing an opinion with which you disagree?

[nopolycop]

psych1,

because this site, it's promoters and supporters have no belief in any testing or process that is not scientifically supported by the entire related community, to be absolutely factual and accurate, based on deeply researched and peer reviewed studies which allow for no mistakes, no distortions or any possible contamination and most of all no potential for false results in any way shape or form at any level of finding.

I think that leaves mathematics!  All else, they feel cheating is the only way to succeed.

Sackett

Do you really feel it is appropriate to speak to what is on the mind of this site's promoters and supporters?

Do you really feel the need to denigrate anyone possessing an opinion with which you disagree?

He does, because he knows he is loosing his battle.

[sackett]

psych1,

because this site, it's promoters and supporters have no belief in any testing or process that is not scientifically supported by the entire related community, to be absolutely factual and accurate, based on deeply researched and peer reviewed studies which allow for no mistakes, no distortions or any possible contamination and most of all no potential for false results in any way shape or form at any level of finding.

I think that leaves mathematics!  All else, they feel cheating is the only way to succeed.

Sackett

Do you really feel it is appropriate to speak to what is on the mind of this site's promoters and supporters?

Do you really feel the need to denigrate anyone possessing an opinion with which you disagree?

Sarge,

the evidence of my statements come from the postings on this board, not a simpleminded opinion, based on minimal actual knowledge, as does some of those who post on this board.  

As for the term denigration.  I believe that act would would require a specific target and proof that anyone was actually harmed as a result of my statement.  Your accusations fail to rise to that standard of proof.

Sackett

n.p.c.  whose really losing the battle? Polygraph is stable and growing in use around the world, standardizing its procedures and processes as we speak and as strong as it ever was and more so.  If you wish to deceive yourself and those on this board, feel free to continue.

[psych1]

I would emplore anyone to be honest and natural when taking the MPPI-2. Please think about this from the clinician's (psychologist's) perspective. A slight elevation on many of the clinical scales are not necessarily a contraindication for the job. The MMPI measures many constructs.  I really don't care if you happen to be a bit hypochondriacal, or have dysphoric tendencies. Even mild anxiety disorders. If the problem is well controlled, or mild, and/or unlikely to affect job performance, it not a big deal. However, when they see elevated validity scales that demonstrate attempts to underreport or "fake-good," at the very least, it suggests deceitful behavior and a standard of ethics that is contraindicated in a law enforcement officer. Further, it opens up the window of suspicion on what factors might underly the motivation to deceive. Paranoia? Significant Psych issues/history? What else might the candidate be lying about or covering up?

Gee whiz professor, can it tell if I'm having "naughty" thoughts, or have been playing with my "privates"?  

TC

P.S.  I don't care what you say, repeated F3 reactions to a question does not necessarily indicate "deception", it just indicates persistent "reactions".  Or as the NAS report stated, these reactions are not uniquely related to "deception".  Or as Phil Zimbardo has said, "there is no direct and unequivocal connection between lying and these physiological states of arousal...".  Cloak your theory in all the fancy scientific mumbo-jumbo you want, you will never get around that fact.

You have commented on the wrong instrument and the wrong topic. Dr. Zimardo is referring to a polygraph machine and the methodology used within it.  I am not knowledgeable in that matter and was not the topic of this thread. (Although I do know the F3 reaction is a Galvanic Skin response paradigm implored in psychophysiological research and in the polygraph screening). I was referring to the MMPI-2 which is the topic of this thread. The two have nothing in common, and are totally different measures, looking at very different constructs, using different methods for arriving at conclusions. The MMPI-2 is paper and pencil questionnaire that measures personality constructs and levels of psychopathology. There are no machines and no measures of physiological arousal on the MMPI-2. The validity scales are not polygraphs or "lie detectors," but do use statistics to look for signs of overreporting or underreporting of symptomotology. When the scales are raised high enough, they suggest that the chances of elevation to that point by chance alone is so low that conscious intent to distort is the only viable explanation.  With regard to the validity of Polygraph, I am not jumping into that debate, although I will say I would warn you not to put all your eggs in one basket (i.e., Zimbardo). Statistically, you are likely to find many outliers. Only searching and/or evaluating evidence that confirms preexisting beliefs is not a very scientific way to address a debate, and of course leads to confirmation bias, illusory correlations, and a whole host of other logical fallacies that we are prone to.  I am only here to comment on the validity of the MMPI-2 in assessing psychological functioning and it added benefit of being able to discriminate feigned vs true psychological impairment (or normality), not the validity of polygraph or "lie detector" instruments.

Lastly, I would argue that intellectual debate between parties is both a healthy and a rather fun activity. I guess there aren't many lawyers in here..lol What a boring world it would be if everyone agreed with us all the time, right?

[Sergeant1107]

Sarge,

the evidence of my statements come from the postings on this board, not a simpleminded opinion, based on minimal actual knowledge, as does some of those who post on this board.  

As for the term denigration.  I believe that act would would require a specific target and proof that anyone was actually harmed as a result of my statement.  Your accusations fail to rise to that standard of proof.

Sackett

Perhaps you have a different definition of "denigrate" than the rest of us.  The word means "to criticize in a deragotory manner."  

I don't see the following run-on sentence fragment, authored by you, could reasonably be characterized as anything else: "because this site, it's promoters and supporters have no belief in any testing or process that is not scientifically supported by the entire related community, to be absolutely factual and accurate, based on deeply researched and peer reviewed studies which allow for no mistakes, no distortions or any possible contamination and most of all no potential for false results in any way shape or form at any level of finding."

It is hardly an "accusation" to recognize something for what it is and identify it as such.

[pailryder]

psych1

If you are in search of a healthy fun intellectual debate, oh boy, did you ever come to the wrong board.

[T.M. Cullen]

The MMPI-2 is paper and pencil questionnaire that measures personality constructs and levels of psychopathology. There are no machines and no measures of physiological arousal on the MMPI-2.

Okay, I stand corrected.

I had to take a test similar to that at the NSA during the psych screening.  The lady just kept shaking her head after scoring my test and showed me the way back to the lobby with a really disgusted look on her face.  Bitch!

TC

[sackett]

Sarge,

the evidence of my statements come from the postings on this board, not a simpleminded opinion, based on minimal actual knowledge, as does some of those who post on this board.  

As for the term denigration.  I believe that act would would require a specific target and proof that anyone was actually harmed as a result of my statement.  Your accusations fail to rise to that standard of proof.

Sackett

Perhaps you have a different definition of "denigrate" than the rest of us.  The word means "to criticize in a deragotory manner."  

I don't see the following run-on sentence fragment, authored by you, could reasonably be characterized as anything else: "because this site, it's promoters and supporters have no belief in any testing or process that is not scientifically supported by the entire related community, to be absolutely factual and accurate, based on deeply researched and peer reviewed studies which allow for no mistakes, no distortions or any possible contamination and most of all no potential for false results in any way shape or form at any level of finding."

It is hardly an "accusation" to recognize something for what it is and identify it as such.

Thanks Sarge,

I'll take you last statement as an endorsement of my run-on sentence.

Sackett

[sackett]

The MMPI-2 is paper and pencil questionnaire that measures personality constructs and levels of psychopathology. There are no machines and no measures of physiological arousal on the MMPI-2.

Okay, I stand corrected.

I had to take a test similar to that at the NSA during the psych screening.  The lady just kept shaking her head after scoring my test and showed me the way back to the lobby with a really disgusted look on her face.  Bitch!

TC

Maybe it was your "fake-good" tendancies...

[Joyce Hauk]

I was wondering if you would be able to send me all the questions for the MMPI-2 test. I have to take it and would like an opportunity to study it first.

Thank you  

[psych1]

What exactly would you study?

[RadFace]

If you need to cheat on the MMPI-2 in order for you to become a police officer. Then please sit down think, and do everyone else a favor and find another profession. MMPI-2 is an accurate assesment, no pass or fail, you have a 1on1 interview afterwards. I dont want to be working with officers that has psychotic tendencies, so I believe in this test. I just took one with no problem, yea my hand hurts, and it took about 3 1/2 hours. Be who you are, dont pretend to be someone else. Remember INTEGRITY is very important quality for a law enforcement officer.

[nopolycop]

If you need to cheat on the MMPI-2 in order for you to become a police officer. Then please sit down think, and do everyone else a favor and find another profession. MMPI-2 is an accurate assesment, no pass or fail, you have a 1on1 interview afterwards. I dont want to be working with officers that has psychotic tendencies, so I believe in this test. I just took one with no problem, yea my hand hurts, and it took about 3 1/2 hours. Be who you are, dont pretend to be someone else. Remember INTEGRITY is very important quality for a law enforcement officer.

The MMPI can be manipulated very easily.  In fact, my undergraduate degree is in psychology, and in my abnormal psychology class, we studied the MMPI, seeing how the questions fit together, and how easliy it is manipulated.  

I say don't throw it out completely, but certainly, do not use it at the exclusion of other factors.

[psych1]

If you need to cheat on the MMPI-2 in order for you to become a police officer. Then please sit down think, and do everyone else a favor and find another profession. MMPI-2 is an accurate assesment, no pass or fail, you have a 1on1 interview afterwards. I dont want to be working with officers that has psychotic tendencies, so I believe in this test. I just took one with no problem, yea my hand hurts, and it took about 3 1/2 hours. Be who you are, dont pretend to be someone else. Remember INTEGRITY is very important quality for a law enforcement officer.

The MMPI can be manipulated very easily.  In fact, my undergraduate degree is in psychology, and in my abnormal psychology class, we studied the MMPI, seeing how the questions fit together, and how easliy it is manipulated.  

I say don't throw it out completely, but certainly, do not use it at the exclusion of other factors.

The published literature on analogue/coached malingering would disagree with you there. Although it can be done, it is very hard (not easy) to do without raising alarm bells on the validity scales, particularly the supplemental validity scales that have been developed in the past decade that are more focused on individuals who try to fake or underreported specific phenomenology, and especially sensitive to those who have been "coached." Both the sensitivity and specificity are high for these scales, albeit not generally as high as the standard validity scales. (i.e., K, F, L). They do meet the Daubert criteria for admissibility in court however. Although the Fb scale has been controversial in several high profile cases in Florida, so I'm not sure if it still would or not. I would also add that an undergrad class in abnormal psych does not provide the time nor the depth necessary to fully understand the psychometric properties, statistics, and the empirical keying (rather than theoretical) method underlying the test.