This article was downloaded by: [Nanyang Technological University] On: 26 April 2015, At: 12:58 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
The Effect of MMPI-2 on the Scoring of Special Scales Derived From MMPI-1 Eugene E. Levitt , Jon M. Browning & Leah J. Freeland Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Eugene E. Levitt , Jon M. Browning & Leah J. Freeland (1992) The Effect of MMPI-2 on the Scoring of Special Scales Derived From MMPI-1, Journal of Personality Assessment, 59:1, 22-31, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5901_3 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5901_3
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 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
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1992, 59(1), 22-31 Copyright o 1992, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Effect of MMPI-2 on the Scoring of Special Scales Derived From MMPI-1
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Eugene E. Levitt Institute of Psychiatric Research Indiana University School of Medicine
Jon M. Browning and Leah J. Freeland Madison State Hospital Madison, IN
Twenty-nine special scales derived from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-1; Hathaway & McKinley, 1983) were scored from MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 (Hathaway et al., 1989)items for a normal and a psychiatric sample. Resulting pairs of mean scores were compared. Absolute differences were found to be small but statistically significant. We concluded that, despite the statistical significance, the small absolute differences suggest that most of the MMPI-1 special scales probably can be scored and interpreted from MMPI-2 items. Further research along this line is necessary.
A guideline of the MMPI Restandardization Committee, according to one of its members, was that "every effort would be made t o maintain continuity between the original MMPI and its revision" (Graham, 1990, p. 9). Nevertheless, the developers of MMPI-2 believed that they had done considerable damage t o special scales formulated from MMPI-1 items, such as the Wiggins Content Scales (Wiggins, 1966). The MMPI-2 manual comments that "the Wiggins scales were substantially altered. Many items appearing o n these scales were deleted . . ."(Hathaway et al,, 1989, p. 42). This view is echoed by Graham (1990) who noted that some of Wiggins scales "could n o longer be scored from the MMPI-2 items because of item deletions" (p. 128). A structural comparison of Wiggins scales composed of MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 items indicates that the pessimism of the developers of the MMPI-2 appears to be unjustified (Levitt, 1990). Three of the Wiggins scales are completely unscathed by the revision, three others have lost only a single item, and
SCORING OF MMPI SPECIAL SCALES
23
two have lost two items.' Thus, it is possible that at least eight of the Wiggins scales can be reasonably scored from an MMPI-2 record. The same c~onclusion is applicable to a number of other special scales which have been found to be clinically useful (Levitt, 1990). A structural analysis was the first step in assessing the usefulness of special scales developed from the MMPI-1 when they are scored from an MMF't-2 record. The next step is to carry out the scoring from individual MMPI-1 records. This step is the basis of our report.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
SUBJECTS The subjects were 32 females and 32 males from the normal sample used by Levitt (1989) to provide standardization data for MMPI-1 special scales and 50 male and 50 female inpatients tested at a state mental hospital during the period from January 1977 to December 1989. The mean age for the normal sample was 34.2 years; for the psychiatric sample, the mean age was 34.5 years. Forty-two percent of the psychiatric sample had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, 19% as affective disorders, 11% as personality disorders, 3% as conduct disorders, and 10% as substance abusers. No diagnosis was recorded for 15%.
PROCEDURE MMPI-I records were available for all subjects. Twenty-nine MMPI-1 spec:ial scales, which were rated as clinically useful by Levitt (1989) and had fewer items when scored from MMPI-2 records (Levitt, 1990), were scored from the MMPI-1 items and again from the MMPI-2 items (i.e., those items in the MMPI-1 that appear in the MMPI-2). Included were the Harris and Lingoes subscales of MMPI-I Scale 4 (Harris & Lingoes, 1955/1968), the Wiggins Content scales (Wiggins, 1966), the Tryon, Stein, and Chu cluster scales (Stein, 1968), the Indiana Rational scales (Levitt, 1989), and 10 other scales noted by Levitt (1989) as being clinically useful? Twelve scales having identical items in the MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 were excluded, yielding the total of 29 scales for male subjects and 28 female subject^.^ Mean raw score differences between MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 scorings, broken down by sample and gender, were statistically analyzed using Sandler's A, a short-cut method of computing t for correlated means (Sandler, 1955). A and t yield identical probability levels. 'Levitt (1990) reported that Wiggins's Psychoticism scale had lost two items in the revision, but it actually lost three items. 'wiggins's Religious Fundamentalism scale was excluded from analysis because it has lost 11of its original 12 items in the MMPI-2 and is thus obviously unusable with an MMPI-2 record. T h e Pedophilia scale (Toobert, Bartelme, &Jones, 1959) is not scored for female respondents.
24
LEVITT, BROWNING, FREELAND
TABLE 1 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the Harris and Lingoes Subscales of MMPI Scale 4 From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Items Psychiatric Sample Males
Females
Males
Females
Scale
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
Pdl Pd2 Pd3
5.30 5.70 6.76 8.58 6.48
4.54** 3.94** 3.10** 6.12** 5.36**
4.60 4.92 6.10 9.60 7.90
3.90* 3.30** 2.76** 6.92** 6.36**
2.69 5.16 7.19 6.75 5.50
2.69 4.75** 7.16 6.72 5.47
2.80 5.00 7.10 6.90 4.60
2.80 4.40** 7.00 6.90 4.60
Pd4A
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Normal Sample
Pd4B
*Mean difference significant at the .05 level. **Mean difference significant at the .O1 level.
TABLE 2 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the Wiggins Content Scales from MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa Psychiatric Sample Males Scaleb MMPI-I SOC FEM MOR PSY ORG PHO HYP HEA HOS
11.18 11.44 11.04 14.90 10.54 9.62 13.38 8.56 10.32
Normal Sample
Females
Males
Females
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
10.58 9.04 10.52 14.42 9.60 9.20 12.22 5.98 9.90
12.46 18.82 12.66 18.16 13.02 12.26 15.12 9.73 10.48
11.78 14.84 12.20 17.60 11.76 11.98 13.54 6.79 10.36
10.88 9.93 6.78 11.03 5.91 7.84 14.03 8.56 10.28
10.72 7.19 6.53 10.47 5.25 7.50 13.31 5.98 9.94
11.00 18.80 7.80 10.60 7.40 10.20 14.20 6.10 9.90
10.50 15.20 7.70 9.90 6.50 9.90 12.80 4.40 9.70
Note. All mean differences are significant at the .O1 level or beyond. "The following scales are not included because they have the same number of items on both MMPI forms: Depression, Authority Conflict, and Family Problems. Religious Fundamentalism is also omitted (see text). b~~~ = Social Maladjustment; FEM = Feminine Interests; MOR = Poor Morale; PSY = Psychoticism; ORG = Organic Symptoms; PHO = Phobias; HYP = Hypomania; HEA = Poor Health; and HOS = Manifest Hostility.
RESULTS Tables 1 through 5 contain means for the two samples derived from the Harris and Lingoes subscales, the Wiggins Content scales, the Tryon, Stein, and Chu cluster scales, the Indiana Rational scales, and the 10 additional special scales, respectively. Of the 114 As computed for the pairs of means in the tables, 101 (88.6%)attained significance at the .05 level or beyond. All differences in Tables
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
TABLE 3 A Comvarison of Mean Scores on the Trvon. Stein. and Chu Scales From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa Psychiatric Sample Males Scale Introversion Body Symptoms Tension Autism
Normal Sample Females
Males
Females
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
11.34 9.68 14.62 9.06
11.10** 9.60* 13.98** 7.66**
13.18 11.64 18.84 11.18
12.94** 11.46** 18.08** 9.74**
10.38 5.63 10.91 7.03
10.34 5.59 10.34** 6.09**
10.80 6.70 12.10 6.90
10.80 6.60 10.90** 6.10**
"The fallowing scales are not inchded because they have rhe same number of items on both MMPi forms: Depression, Resentment, and Suspicion. *Mean difference significant at the -05 level. **Mean difference significant at the .O1 level.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
TABLE 4 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the Indiana Rational Scales From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa Psych~atricSample Males Scale Dominance Dissoc~ation Severe Distortion of Reality Sex Problems
Normal Sample Females
Males
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
9.50 2.32 4.40 4.08
8.56 2.14 4.16 2.94
9.18 2.98 4.86 3.02
8.34 2.60 4.62 2.30
Females
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
11.28 1.09 2.25 2.75
10.19 1.OO 2.06 2.09
10.80 1.20 2.10 2.40
MMPI-2 9.70 1.10 1.80 1.90
Note. All mean differences are significant at the .05 level or beyond. "The following scales are not included because they contain the same number of items o n both MMPI forms: Dependency, Obsessive-Compuls~ve,and Self-concept.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
TABLE 5 A Comparison of Mean Scores o n Selected Special Scales From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa
Psychiatric Sample Males
Normal Sample Females
Males
Females
Scale Cynicismb Work Attitudec Pedophiliad Overcontrolled Hostilitye Alcoholismf Controlg Carelessnessh Note. All mean differences are significant at the .Ol level or beyond except for Alcoholism for the female normal sample which is significant at the .05 level and Carelessness for the male normal sample which is nonsignificant. 'The following scales are not included because they have the same number of items on both MMPI forms: Conventionality (Pepper &Strong, 1958),Extreme Suspiciousness (Endicott, Jortner, & Abramoff, 1969), and Hostility (Cook &Medley, 1954).b ~ i c h m a (1961, n 1962).'Tydlaska and Mengel (1953). d ~ o o b e r t , Bartelme, and Jones (1959). eMegargee, Cook, and Mendelsohn (1967). fMacAndrew (1965). Tuadra (1956). hGreene (1978).
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
28
LEVITT, BROWNING, FREELAND
2 and 4 and all but one difference in Table 5 are significant. Surprisingly, most of the nonsignificant comparisons are in Table 1, the Harris and Lingoes subscales, which lost almost four items per scale in the MMPI-2 (Levitt, 1990). Note that all of the nonsignificant comparisons are from normal sample means. This is also true of Table 3, which is the other main source of nonsignificant comparisons. This finding is reflected throughout the mean score comparisons; mean differences for the normal sample tend to be smaller than for the psychiatric sample. Tables 6 and 7 present another view of the mean differences. Table 6 shows that 73.7% of the mean differences for the normal sample and 56.1% of the mean differences for the psychiatric sample were less than one item. Only 5.3% of the mean differences in each sample were three items or larger. If the 12 scales excluded due to having identical item content are included, the respective percentages become 78.3, 66.3, and 3.6. Table 7 presents the median mean difference for each group of scales in Tables 1 through 5. The medians for the Wiggins Content scales, the Tryon, Stein, and Chu cluster scales, and the Indiana Rational scales are below .65. No median in Table 7 reaches as high as 1.7. If the 12 excluded scales are included in the computation of medians, the medians would only range from .04 to 1.03.
DISCUSSION The marked tendency for mean differences to be greater for the psychiatric sample is expected. Such individuals are more likely than normal persons to TABLE 6 Magnitude of Absolute Differences Between Special Scale Means Scored From MMPI-I and MMPI-2 Items Psychianic Sample Difference 2 3.0 2.0-2.99 1.0-1.99 .50-.99
< .5 Total Total
< 1.0
Nonnal Sample
Total Sample
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
3 6 16 16 16 32 57
5.3 10.5 28.1 28.1 28.1 56.1 100.1
3 2 10 17 25 42 57
5.3 3.5 17.5 29.3 43.9 73.7 100.0
6 8 26 33 41 74 114
5.3 7.0 22.8 28.9 36.0 64.9 100.0
Note. Data derived from comparisons of 29 scales for male samples and 28 scales for female samples (Pedophilia scale is not scored for females).
SCORING OF MMPI SPECIAL SCALES
29
TABLE 7 Median Scores of the Distributions of Differences Between Special Scale Means Scored From MMPI-1 and MMFI-2 Items -
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Mean Differences in Table
Psychiatric Sample Median
Normal Sample Median
respond in the pathological direction for the items on any given scale and therefore to be more affected by the items missing in the MMPI-2 scoring. Despite the heavy volume of significant As in Tables 1 through 5, it is evident from all of the tables that the absolute magnitude of the mean differences is very small, even for the psychiatric sample. The statistical significance of these small differences is attributable to two factors. First, because the mean differences can vary only in one direction, all of the As are one-tailed, a classic instance of the correct application of a one-tailed test. Second, the pairs of distributions are highly correlated; rs are all greater than .90. The denominator o f t (i.e., the A equivalent) for a noninde~endentmean difference is reduced by a factor of 2r(SEm,)(SE,,) compared to t for independent means. The standard error of the mean difference thus can become quite small, and even a trivial mean difference will sometimes be statistically significant. Sheer statistical significance of a difference seems to have much less impact on the interpretation of a scale than absolute differences. Most of the mean differences we found appear to be too small to affect the interpretation of the scales, although even a difference of 1 point could equate to a difference of 5 or 6 T-score points when the number of items in the scale is small. In summary, most of the scales we examined are probably subject to the same interpretation when scored from MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 items. The Harris and Lingoes subscales of Scale 4; the Wiggins Feminine Interests, Organic Symlptoms, Poor Health, and Religious Fundamentalism scales; the Control scale, and possibly the MacAndrew Alcoholism scale are exceptions to this hypothesis. These special scales and others formulated from MMPI-1 items have heretofore been thought to be defunct with the publication of the MMPI-2. Their potential utility would be materially enhanced by the publication of appropriate norms derived from the MMPI-2 standardization sample. Even in the absence of such norms, it is conceivable that special scales based on MMM-2 item content could be reasonably interpreted by MMPI-1 norms. Adequate clinical research is required to assess the potential of these scales in the clinician's diagnostic battery.
30
LEVITT, BROWNING, FREELAND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledge our indebtedness to Lindapuplantis and Sean Jessup for technical assistance in the preparation of this article. This article was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, March 8, 1991, New Orleans.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
REFERENCES Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed Hostility and Pharisaic-Virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414-418. Cuadra, C. A. (1956). A scale for control in psychological adjustment. In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 235-254). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Eichman, W. J. (1961). Replicated factors on the MMPI with female NP patients. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 55-60. Eichman, W. J. (1962). Factored scales for the MMPI: A clinical and statistical manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 363-395. Endicott, N. A., Jortner, A. S., & Abramoff, E. (1969). Objective measures of suspiciousness. Journal of Abnonnal Psychology, 74, 26-32. Graham, J. R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press. Greene, R. L. (1978). An empirically derived MMPI carelessness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34,407-410. Harris, R. E., & Lingoes, J. C . (1968). Subscales for the MMPI: An aid to profile interpretation (Mimeograph). San Francisco: University of California, Department of Psychiatry. (Original work published 1955) Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1983). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hathaway, S. R., McKinley, J. C., Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Levitt, E. E. (1989). The clinical application of MMPI special scales. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Levitt, E. E. (1990). A structural analysis ofthe impact of MMPI-2 on MMPI-1. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 562-577. MacAndrew, C. (1965). The &fferentiation of male alcoholic outpatients from nonalcoholic psychiatric outpatients by means of the MMPI. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 26, 238-246. Megargee, E. I., Cook, P. E., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1967). The development and validation of an MMPI scale of assaultiveness in overcontrolled individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 519-528. Pepper, L. J., &Strong, P. N. (1958). Judgmental subscales for the Mf scale of the MMPI. Unpublished manuscript. Sandler, J. (1955). A test of significance for the difference between the means of correlated measures, based on a simplification of Student's t. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 225-226. Stein, K. B. (1968). The TSC scales: The outcome of a cluster analysis of the 550 MMPI items. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 80-104). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
SCORING OF MMPI SPECIAL SCALES
31
Toobert, S., Bartelme, K. F., &Jones, E. S. (1959). Some factors related to pedophilia. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 4, 272-279. Tydlaska, M., & Mengel, R. (1953). A scale for measuring work attitudes for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 474-477. Wiggins, J. S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs, 80(22, Whole No. 630).
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Eugene E. Levitt Department of Psychiatry Indiana University Medical Center 791 Union Drive Indianapolis, IN 46202-4887 Received September 30, 1991
Journal of Personality Assessment Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20
The Effect of MMPI-2 on the Scoring of Special Scales Derived From MMPI-1 Eugene E. Levitt , Jon M. Browning & Leah J. Freeland Published online: 10 Jun 2010.
To cite this article: Eugene E. Levitt , Jon M. Browning & Leah J. Freeland (1992) The Effect of MMPI-2 on the Scoring of Special Scales Derived From MMPI-1, Journal of Personality Assessment, 59:1, 22-31, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa5901_3 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5901_3
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 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
JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 1992, 59(1), 22-31 Copyright o 1992, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
The Effect of MMPI-2 on the Scoring of Special Scales Derived From MMPI-1
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Eugene E. Levitt Institute of Psychiatric Research Indiana University School of Medicine
Jon M. Browning and Leah J. Freeland Madison State Hospital Madison, IN
Twenty-nine special scales derived from the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-1; Hathaway & McKinley, 1983) were scored from MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 (Hathaway et al., 1989)items for a normal and a psychiatric sample. Resulting pairs of mean scores were compared. Absolute differences were found to be small but statistically significant. We concluded that, despite the statistical significance, the small absolute differences suggest that most of the MMPI-1 special scales probably can be scored and interpreted from MMPI-2 items. Further research along this line is necessary.
A guideline of the MMPI Restandardization Committee, according to one of its members, was that "every effort would be made t o maintain continuity between the original MMPI and its revision" (Graham, 1990, p. 9). Nevertheless, the developers of MMPI-2 believed that they had done considerable damage t o special scales formulated from MMPI-1 items, such as the Wiggins Content Scales (Wiggins, 1966). The MMPI-2 manual comments that "the Wiggins scales were substantially altered. Many items appearing o n these scales were deleted . . ."(Hathaway et al,, 1989, p. 42). This view is echoed by Graham (1990) who noted that some of Wiggins scales "could n o longer be scored from the MMPI-2 items because of item deletions" (p. 128). A structural comparison of Wiggins scales composed of MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 items indicates that the pessimism of the developers of the MMPI-2 appears to be unjustified (Levitt, 1990). Three of the Wiggins scales are completely unscathed by the revision, three others have lost only a single item, and
SCORING OF MMPI SPECIAL SCALES
23
two have lost two items.' Thus, it is possible that at least eight of the Wiggins scales can be reasonably scored from an MMPI-2 record. The same c~onclusion is applicable to a number of other special scales which have been found to be clinically useful (Levitt, 1990). A structural analysis was the first step in assessing the usefulness of special scales developed from the MMPI-1 when they are scored from an MMF't-2 record. The next step is to carry out the scoring from individual MMPI-1 records. This step is the basis of our report.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
SUBJECTS The subjects were 32 females and 32 males from the normal sample used by Levitt (1989) to provide standardization data for MMPI-1 special scales and 50 male and 50 female inpatients tested at a state mental hospital during the period from January 1977 to December 1989. The mean age for the normal sample was 34.2 years; for the psychiatric sample, the mean age was 34.5 years. Forty-two percent of the psychiatric sample had been diagnosed as schizophrenic, 19% as affective disorders, 11% as personality disorders, 3% as conduct disorders, and 10% as substance abusers. No diagnosis was recorded for 15%.
PROCEDURE MMPI-I records were available for all subjects. Twenty-nine MMPI-1 spec:ial scales, which were rated as clinically useful by Levitt (1989) and had fewer items when scored from MMPI-2 records (Levitt, 1990), were scored from the MMPI-1 items and again from the MMPI-2 items (i.e., those items in the MMPI-1 that appear in the MMPI-2). Included were the Harris and Lingoes subscales of MMPI-I Scale 4 (Harris & Lingoes, 1955/1968), the Wiggins Content scales (Wiggins, 1966), the Tryon, Stein, and Chu cluster scales (Stein, 1968), the Indiana Rational scales (Levitt, 1989), and 10 other scales noted by Levitt (1989) as being clinically useful? Twelve scales having identical items in the MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 were excluded, yielding the total of 29 scales for male subjects and 28 female subject^.^ Mean raw score differences between MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 scorings, broken down by sample and gender, were statistically analyzed using Sandler's A, a short-cut method of computing t for correlated means (Sandler, 1955). A and t yield identical probability levels. 'Levitt (1990) reported that Wiggins's Psychoticism scale had lost two items in the revision, but it actually lost three items. 'wiggins's Religious Fundamentalism scale was excluded from analysis because it has lost 11of its original 12 items in the MMPI-2 and is thus obviously unusable with an MMPI-2 record. T h e Pedophilia scale (Toobert, Bartelme, &Jones, 1959) is not scored for female respondents.
24
LEVITT, BROWNING, FREELAND
TABLE 1 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the Harris and Lingoes Subscales of MMPI Scale 4 From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Items Psychiatric Sample Males
Females
Males
Females
Scale
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
Pdl Pd2 Pd3
5.30 5.70 6.76 8.58 6.48
4.54** 3.94** 3.10** 6.12** 5.36**
4.60 4.92 6.10 9.60 7.90
3.90* 3.30** 2.76** 6.92** 6.36**
2.69 5.16 7.19 6.75 5.50
2.69 4.75** 7.16 6.72 5.47
2.80 5.00 7.10 6.90 4.60
2.80 4.40** 7.00 6.90 4.60
Pd4A
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Normal Sample
Pd4B
*Mean difference significant at the .05 level. **Mean difference significant at the .O1 level.
TABLE 2 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the Wiggins Content Scales from MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa Psychiatric Sample Males Scaleb MMPI-I SOC FEM MOR PSY ORG PHO HYP HEA HOS
11.18 11.44 11.04 14.90 10.54 9.62 13.38 8.56 10.32
Normal Sample
Females
Males
Females
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
10.58 9.04 10.52 14.42 9.60 9.20 12.22 5.98 9.90
12.46 18.82 12.66 18.16 13.02 12.26 15.12 9.73 10.48
11.78 14.84 12.20 17.60 11.76 11.98 13.54 6.79 10.36
10.88 9.93 6.78 11.03 5.91 7.84 14.03 8.56 10.28
10.72 7.19 6.53 10.47 5.25 7.50 13.31 5.98 9.94
11.00 18.80 7.80 10.60 7.40 10.20 14.20 6.10 9.90
10.50 15.20 7.70 9.90 6.50 9.90 12.80 4.40 9.70
Note. All mean differences are significant at the .O1 level or beyond. "The following scales are not included because they have the same number of items on both MMPI forms: Depression, Authority Conflict, and Family Problems. Religious Fundamentalism is also omitted (see text). b~~~ = Social Maladjustment; FEM = Feminine Interests; MOR = Poor Morale; PSY = Psychoticism; ORG = Organic Symptoms; PHO = Phobias; HYP = Hypomania; HEA = Poor Health; and HOS = Manifest Hostility.
RESULTS Tables 1 through 5 contain means for the two samples derived from the Harris and Lingoes subscales, the Wiggins Content scales, the Tryon, Stein, and Chu cluster scales, the Indiana Rational scales, and the 10 additional special scales, respectively. Of the 114 As computed for the pairs of means in the tables, 101 (88.6%)attained significance at the .05 level or beyond. All differences in Tables
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
TABLE 3 A Comvarison of Mean Scores on the Trvon. Stein. and Chu Scales From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa Psychiatric Sample Males Scale Introversion Body Symptoms Tension Autism
Normal Sample Females
Males
Females
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
11.34 9.68 14.62 9.06
11.10** 9.60* 13.98** 7.66**
13.18 11.64 18.84 11.18
12.94** 11.46** 18.08** 9.74**
10.38 5.63 10.91 7.03
10.34 5.59 10.34** 6.09**
10.80 6.70 12.10 6.90
10.80 6.60 10.90** 6.10**
"The fallowing scales are not inchded because they have rhe same number of items on both MMPi forms: Depression, Resentment, and Suspicion. *Mean difference significant at the -05 level. **Mean difference significant at the .O1 level.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
TABLE 4 A Comparison of Mean Scores on the Indiana Rational Scales From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa Psych~atricSample Males Scale Dominance Dissoc~ation Severe Distortion of Reality Sex Problems
Normal Sample Females
Males
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
MMPI-1
MMPI-2
9.50 2.32 4.40 4.08
8.56 2.14 4.16 2.94
9.18 2.98 4.86 3.02
8.34 2.60 4.62 2.30
Females
MMPI-I
MMPI-2
MMPI-I
11.28 1.09 2.25 2.75
10.19 1.OO 2.06 2.09
10.80 1.20 2.10 2.40
MMPI-2 9.70 1.10 1.80 1.90
Note. All mean differences are significant at the .05 level or beyond. "The following scales are not included because they contain the same number of items o n both MMPI forms: Dependency, Obsessive-Compuls~ve,and Self-concept.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
TABLE 5 A Comparison of Mean Scores o n Selected Special Scales From MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 Itemsa
Psychiatric Sample Males
Normal Sample Females
Males
Females
Scale Cynicismb Work Attitudec Pedophiliad Overcontrolled Hostilitye Alcoholismf Controlg Carelessnessh Note. All mean differences are significant at the .Ol level or beyond except for Alcoholism for the female normal sample which is significant at the .05 level and Carelessness for the male normal sample which is nonsignificant. 'The following scales are not included because they have the same number of items on both MMPI forms: Conventionality (Pepper &Strong, 1958),Extreme Suspiciousness (Endicott, Jortner, & Abramoff, 1969), and Hostility (Cook &Medley, 1954).b ~ i c h m a (1961, n 1962).'Tydlaska and Mengel (1953). d ~ o o b e r t , Bartelme, and Jones (1959). eMegargee, Cook, and Mendelsohn (1967). fMacAndrew (1965). Tuadra (1956). hGreene (1978).
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
28
LEVITT, BROWNING, FREELAND
2 and 4 and all but one difference in Table 5 are significant. Surprisingly, most of the nonsignificant comparisons are in Table 1, the Harris and Lingoes subscales, which lost almost four items per scale in the MMPI-2 (Levitt, 1990). Note that all of the nonsignificant comparisons are from normal sample means. This is also true of Table 3, which is the other main source of nonsignificant comparisons. This finding is reflected throughout the mean score comparisons; mean differences for the normal sample tend to be smaller than for the psychiatric sample. Tables 6 and 7 present another view of the mean differences. Table 6 shows that 73.7% of the mean differences for the normal sample and 56.1% of the mean differences for the psychiatric sample were less than one item. Only 5.3% of the mean differences in each sample were three items or larger. If the 12 scales excluded due to having identical item content are included, the respective percentages become 78.3, 66.3, and 3.6. Table 7 presents the median mean difference for each group of scales in Tables 1 through 5. The medians for the Wiggins Content scales, the Tryon, Stein, and Chu cluster scales, and the Indiana Rational scales are below .65. No median in Table 7 reaches as high as 1.7. If the 12 excluded scales are included in the computation of medians, the medians would only range from .04 to 1.03.
DISCUSSION The marked tendency for mean differences to be greater for the psychiatric sample is expected. Such individuals are more likely than normal persons to TABLE 6 Magnitude of Absolute Differences Between Special Scale Means Scored From MMPI-I and MMPI-2 Items Psychianic Sample Difference 2 3.0 2.0-2.99 1.0-1.99 .50-.99
< .5 Total Total
< 1.0
Nonnal Sample
Total Sample
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
Frequency
%
3 6 16 16 16 32 57
5.3 10.5 28.1 28.1 28.1 56.1 100.1
3 2 10 17 25 42 57
5.3 3.5 17.5 29.3 43.9 73.7 100.0
6 8 26 33 41 74 114
5.3 7.0 22.8 28.9 36.0 64.9 100.0
Note. Data derived from comparisons of 29 scales for male samples and 28 scales for female samples (Pedophilia scale is not scored for females).
SCORING OF MMPI SPECIAL SCALES
29
TABLE 7 Median Scores of the Distributions of Differences Between Special Scale Means Scored From MMPI-1 and MMFI-2 Items -
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Mean Differences in Table
Psychiatric Sample Median
Normal Sample Median
respond in the pathological direction for the items on any given scale and therefore to be more affected by the items missing in the MMPI-2 scoring. Despite the heavy volume of significant As in Tables 1 through 5, it is evident from all of the tables that the absolute magnitude of the mean differences is very small, even for the psychiatric sample. The statistical significance of these small differences is attributable to two factors. First, because the mean differences can vary only in one direction, all of the As are one-tailed, a classic instance of the correct application of a one-tailed test. Second, the pairs of distributions are highly correlated; rs are all greater than .90. The denominator o f t (i.e., the A equivalent) for a noninde~endentmean difference is reduced by a factor of 2r(SEm,)(SE,,) compared to t for independent means. The standard error of the mean difference thus can become quite small, and even a trivial mean difference will sometimes be statistically significant. Sheer statistical significance of a difference seems to have much less impact on the interpretation of a scale than absolute differences. Most of the mean differences we found appear to be too small to affect the interpretation of the scales, although even a difference of 1 point could equate to a difference of 5 or 6 T-score points when the number of items in the scale is small. In summary, most of the scales we examined are probably subject to the same interpretation when scored from MMPI-1 and MMPI-2 items. The Harris and Lingoes subscales of Scale 4; the Wiggins Feminine Interests, Organic Symlptoms, Poor Health, and Religious Fundamentalism scales; the Control scale, and possibly the MacAndrew Alcoholism scale are exceptions to this hypothesis. These special scales and others formulated from MMPI-1 items have heretofore been thought to be defunct with the publication of the MMPI-2. Their potential utility would be materially enhanced by the publication of appropriate norms derived from the MMPI-2 standardization sample. Even in the absence of such norms, it is conceivable that special scales based on MMM-2 item content could be reasonably interpreted by MMPI-1 norms. Adequate clinical research is required to assess the potential of these scales in the clinician's diagnostic battery.
30
LEVITT, BROWNING, FREELAND
ACKNOWLEDGMENT We acknowledge our indebtedness to Lindapuplantis and Sean Jessup for technical assistance in the preparation of this article. This article was presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, March 8, 1991, New Orleans.
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
REFERENCES Cook, W. W., & Medley, D. M. (1954). Proposed Hostility and Pharisaic-Virtue scales for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 38, 414-418. Cuadra, C. A. (1956). A scale for control in psychological adjustment. In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 235-254). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Eichman, W. J. (1961). Replicated factors on the MMPI with female NP patients. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25, 55-60. Eichman, W. J. (1962). Factored scales for the MMPI: A clinical and statistical manual. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 18, 363-395. Endicott, N. A., Jortner, A. S., & Abramoff, E. (1969). Objective measures of suspiciousness. Journal of Abnonnal Psychology, 74, 26-32. Graham, J. R. (1990). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology. New York: Oxford University Press. Greene, R. L. (1978). An empirically derived MMPI carelessness scale. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34,407-410. Harris, R. E., & Lingoes, J. C . (1968). Subscales for the MMPI: An aid to profile interpretation (Mimeograph). San Francisco: University of California, Department of Psychiatry. (Original work published 1955) Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1983). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hathaway, S. R., McKinley, J. C., Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Levitt, E. E. (1989). The clinical application of MMPI special scales. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Levitt, E. E. (1990). A structural analysis ofthe impact of MMPI-2 on MMPI-1. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55, 562-577. MacAndrew, C. (1965). The &fferentiation of male alcoholic outpatients from nonalcoholic psychiatric outpatients by means of the MMPI. Quarterly Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 26, 238-246. Megargee, E. I., Cook, P. E., & Mendelsohn, G. A. (1967). The development and validation of an MMPI scale of assaultiveness in overcontrolled individuals. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 72, 519-528. Pepper, L. J., &Strong, P. N. (1958). Judgmental subscales for the Mf scale of the MMPI. Unpublished manuscript. Sandler, J. (1955). A test of significance for the difference between the means of correlated measures, based on a simplification of Student's t. British Journal of Psychology, 46, 225-226. Stein, K. B. (1968). The TSC scales: The outcome of a cluster analysis of the 550 MMPI items. In P. McReynolds (Ed.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol. 1, pp. 80-104). Palo Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
SCORING OF MMPI SPECIAL SCALES
31
Toobert, S., Bartelme, K. F., &Jones, E. S. (1959). Some factors related to pedophilia. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 4, 272-279. Tydlaska, M., & Mengel, R. (1953). A scale for measuring work attitudes for the MMPI. Journal of Applied Psychology, 37, 474-477. Wiggins, J. S. (1966). Substantive dimensions of self-report in the MMPI item pool. Psychological Monographs, 80(22, Whole No. 630).
Downloaded by [Nanyang Technological University] at 12:58 26 April 2015
Eugene E. Levitt Department of Psychiatry Indiana University Medical Center 791 Union Drive Indianapolis, IN 46202-4887 Received September 30, 1991
