This article was downloaded by: [New York University] On: 11 April 2015, At: 20:51 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
MMPI Cannot Say Scores: Normative Data and Degree of Profile Distortion James R. Clopton & Charles Neuringer Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: James R. Clopton & Charles Neuringer (1977) MMPI Cannot Say Scores: Normative Data and Degree of Profile Distortion, Journal of Personality Assessment, 41:5, 511-513, DOI: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa4105_8 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4105_8
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
MMPI Cannot Say Scores: bkm~lativsData and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
Degree of Profile Distortion
rfie ogiiiors :hat k Roger Greenz, and Donald tl. i3auc~>rnl o r ;heir h d p f u l suggesrlcins.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
M~thod This stcdy sough: to determine if there was 3 point a:. which the number of randomly ornitted items clearly begins to produce a significant reduction in rhe eievatkon of the M h P i profile. Within the group of \;A inpatients. 18Q MMPl a x w e r sheets were r a ~ d o m l y selected Gom those with no omitted items. The mean elevation of the i @ ciinicd scales was compcted fcr each of these MMPl profiies, and thc profiles were divided Icio Iligh (mar; T score between 67.31 ar~d 81.92). Medium (60.08 67.1), and LOW145.54 - 59.373 groups accord12g to their position in the distribution of r n e a profiie elevations. Ther; withii each of tIzese three griups, answer sheers were randomly assigned ro one crf six Icvels oi' omitted irems. At Itre first level: five items were random!?; omi~ied froE the answer sheei 2nd the answer sheet was rcscored. The remxning ieveis of randomjy omitted items were 33, 55, 80: 105. and IS@. The difiCerence between the origirial MMPH prcfik and the MMPI profiie after items were randomly omitted was conceptnalized as ;Re distance betweer: twe points in rnuitldimecsiond space. The "distance" (d statistic) between IWG mu!tivariate profiies is co~.mo:dy cornp r e d as the square root of the sum of squared differences between corresponding siores In the two profiles. This d statistic method impiies tkat the prof& eiemerlts zre independeni and rrre expressed ir; comparabie uni~s. Because MMPI scale scores are correlated and zre nci k~ecpiv&nt units: a generalimtlorz of ihe distance f'mciion approach was med (Mahaiarac!bis, i 936:). -
car,.! differences in distance scores among rile Hi&, Medium, and Low elewdor; profiles: F (2: 152) = 7.88, p < .031. The Tukey B lest was used to make pairwise compariscm :rmcng the mean distance scores for the six levels of omitted items. M but iwiro of the 15 compariscns were significant, indicating that as more MMPI items were omitred there was a progressive anii cortti:mous reductior, ir: the MMPl proSe ehration. For the six ieveis of onGited items, the mean reductions in the 'Iscores of the MMPl clinical s d e s
W i e -45, 2.34, 5.61, 9.78, 9.09. m d 115 4 , respectively. of the high?1 compsrison wzs p i n t p$r jhi&es: two Qinical scales) of the ongma! MhPi profiie and the highpou:;? pair of she profile after i t e m were omitted. Of the 30 answer sheers with 5 :terns randnmiy omitted, only one highsoi:~t pair was changed after the items w7ere omitted. kiowever, when 30 i t e n s were onikted; 8 sf thc 30 high-paint pairs dlmged. The I:umbers cf high-point chmgeci for the other f o x levelspar:oi o~.itted :terns were 4, 8 , '10, and 15, respectively. '
G~~ii.~~siL?~~s arid lr~~pllcaiEtions
The st'mdard MMPI profiie indicztes that as mmy as 3O omitted items are to be considered "nornsl" in an MMPl answer sheet. However. the a e a n number of omitted items did not exceed five ir; a q of the three groups in Study 1, and no e:her srudy has reporred a mean nur&er of oiralrted ilems close l o 30 {BdI 6 Carroli, 1960; Tamhi & Scherer, 1953). If the T-score values fez ths Cannot Ssy scde provided by the staldard profile conformed to wailabk data. then perhaps psychologists would exercise greater caution in interpreting MMPI Reszdts amk Di~'cussior~ records with a m d e r a t e nu~llber of' The difference between the MMPI o m i m d items. The need for more caution profiie before and afrer items were ran- is emphzsized by finding ir, Study 2 that domly omitted was caicuiated for rhe 180 randomly omitticg 30 MbIR items from MMPJ answer sheet> following the pro- complere MhPE answer sheets p r o d x e d a cedure described abwe. Dlstarlce s c u m change in rhe h i g h - p h t pair for over % were sqg~ficantlydifferent among the srx of the profi)es and an average decrease ef levels of ornitred items, F (6. 162) = nearly 3 T-score points ir: the mean IO6.c15. p < 301, and there were srgn~ii- profile. If c h a ~ g c swere ICI be made in the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
J.R CLOPTOX and C. NEURENGER
References
James R. Ciopton. PhD Dept. of Psy chology Texas Tech thiversicy Box 4I0G I.,~bho:.k. Tezas "9409 Received: Februizy 36. 1977 Revised: April 33. 1997
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
MMPI Cannot Say Scores: Normative Data and Degree of Profile Distortion James R. Clopton & Charles Neuringer Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: James R. Clopton & Charles Neuringer (1977) MMPI Cannot Say Scores: Normative Data and Degree of Profile Distortion, Journal of Personality Assessment, 41:5, 511-513, DOI: 10.1207/ s15327752jpa4105_8 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4105_8
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
MMPI Cannot Say Scores: bkm~lativsData and
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
Degree of Profile Distortion
rfie ogiiiors :hat k Roger Greenz, and Donald tl. i3auc~>rnl o r ;heir h d p f u l suggesrlcins.
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
M~thod This stcdy sough: to determine if there was 3 point a:. which the number of randomly ornitted items clearly begins to produce a significant reduction in rhe eievatkon of the M h P i profile. Within the group of \;A inpatients. 18Q MMPl a x w e r sheets were r a ~ d o m l y selected Gom those with no omitted items. The mean elevation of the i @ ciinicd scales was compcted fcr each of these MMPl profiies, and thc profiles were divided Icio Iligh (mar; T score between 67.31 ar~d 81.92). Medium (60.08 67.1), and LOW145.54 - 59.373 groups accord12g to their position in the distribution of r n e a profiie elevations. Ther; withii each of tIzese three griups, answer sheers were randomly assigned ro one crf six Icvels oi' omitted irems. At Itre first level: five items were random!?; omi~ied froE the answer sheei 2nd the answer sheet was rcscored. The remxning ieveis of randomjy omitted items were 33, 55, 80: 105. and IS@. The difiCerence between the origirial MMPH prcfik and the MMPI profiie after items were randomly omitted was conceptnalized as ;Re distance betweer: twe points in rnuitldimecsiond space. The "distance" (d statistic) between IWG mu!tivariate profiies is co~.mo:dy cornp r e d as the square root of the sum of squared differences between corresponding siores In the two profiles. This d statistic method impiies tkat the prof& eiemerlts zre independeni and rrre expressed ir; comparabie uni~s. Because MMPI scale scores are correlated and zre nci k~ecpiv&nt units: a generalimtlorz of ihe distance f'mciion approach was med (Mahaiarac!bis, i 936:). -
car,.! differences in distance scores among rile Hi&, Medium, and Low elewdor; profiles: F (2: 152) = 7.88, p < .031. The Tukey B lest was used to make pairwise compariscm :rmcng the mean distance scores for the six levels of omitted items. M but iwiro of the 15 compariscns were significant, indicating that as more MMPI items were omitred there was a progressive anii cortti:mous reductior, ir: the MMPl proSe ehration. For the six ieveis of onGited items, the mean reductions in the 'Iscores of the MMPl clinical s d e s
W i e -45, 2.34, 5.61, 9.78, 9.09. m d 115 4 , respectively. of the high?1 compsrison wzs p i n t p$r jhi&es: two Qinical scales) of the ongma! MhPi profiie and the highpou:;? pair of she profile after i t e m were omitted. Of the 30 answer sheers with 5 :terns randnmiy omitted, only one highsoi:~t pair was changed after the items w7ere omitted. kiowever, when 30 i t e n s were onikted; 8 sf thc 30 high-paint pairs dlmged. The I:umbers cf high-point chmgeci for the other f o x levelspar:oi o~.itted :terns were 4, 8 , '10, and 15, respectively. '
G~~ii.~~siL?~~s arid lr~~pllcaiEtions
The st'mdard MMPI profiie indicztes that as mmy as 3O omitted items are to be considered "nornsl" in an MMPl answer sheet. However. the a e a n number of omitted items did not exceed five ir; a q of the three groups in Study 1, and no e:her srudy has reporred a mean nur&er of oiralrted ilems close l o 30 {BdI 6 Carroli, 1960; Tamhi & Scherer, 1953). If the T-score values fez ths Cannot Ssy scde provided by the staldard profile conformed to wailabk data. then perhaps psychologists would exercise greater caution in interpreting MMPI Reszdts amk Di~'cussior~ records with a m d e r a t e nu~llber of' The difference between the MMPI o m i m d items. The need for more caution profiie before and afrer items were ran- is emphzsized by finding ir, Study 2 that domly omitted was caicuiated for rhe 180 randomly omitticg 30 MbIR items from MMPJ answer sheet> following the pro- complere MhPE answer sheets p r o d x e d a cedure described abwe. Dlstarlce s c u m change in rhe h i g h - p h t pair for over % were sqg~ficantlydifferent among the srx of the profi)es and an average decrease ef levels of ornitred items, F (6. 162) = nearly 3 T-score points ir: the mean IO6.c15. p < 301, and there were srgn~ii- profile. If c h a ~ g c swere ICI be made in the
Downloaded by [New York University] at 20:51 11 April 2015
J.R CLOPTOX and C. NEURENGER
References
James R. Ciopton. PhD Dept. of Psy chology Texas Tech thiversicy Box 4I0G I.,~bho:.k. Tezas "9409 Received: Februizy 36. 1977 Revised: April 33. 1997
