nptc mmpi-2-rf presentation - 2017 intern...

9/13/2017

1

THE MMPI‐2‐RF

Psychometrics,

Psychopathological Convergence,

and

Setting‐Specific Utility

1

Agenda

Introduction and Overview of the MMPI-2-RF

Examination of psychometric properties

Mapping the MMPI-2-RF onto pathological models

Setting-specific utility

2

Overview of the MMPI-2-RF3

Overview of the MMPI-2-RF

338-item restructured version of MMPI-2 Published in 2008 Subset of MMPI-2 item pool

Approximately 6th grade reading level Majority of the MMPI-2-RF items fall between the 5th and 7th

grades Per reported data (Dahlstrom et al., 1994)

Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level = 4.5 PAI = ~ 4.3 Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level

Additional problems with likert-type responding (“Sometimes I …”)

MCMI-III = ~ 5.6 Flesch-Kincaid Reading Level 73% of items have a reading level of 7th grade or above (Akeson &

Mattson, in process)

Norms based on MMPI-2 sample MMPI-3?

4

9/13/2017

2

Overview of the MMPI-2-RF

35-50 minutes for booklet administration Less time needed for computer administration Audio Administration (Computer or CD)

No K correction offered Lack of empirical support

Only uses NON-GENDERED scores Why?

Linear T Scores Validity Scales and the 2 Interest Scales

Uniform T Scores All other substantive scales

8

9 10

Psychometric Rationale & Properties12

9/13/2017

3

Why Restructure the Clinical Scales?

Although it has long been recognized that the Clinical Scales (CSs) contain compelling and interpretively meaningful information, they are not psychometrically optimal when used as aggregate measures of psychopathology. (Ben-Porath, 2012)

Why? Higher than expected intercorrelations

Substantial item overlap between scales

Heterogeneous item content

13

Why Restructure the Clinical Scales?

Intercorrelations Clinical Scale (CS) 7, a measure of emotional dysfunction,

and CS 8 (disordered thinking) correlate, on average, around .90 While these two constructs DO co-occur – they do not, and should

not, do so at this rate

Item Overlap CS 7 and CS 8 share 17 items MMPI-2 Item 31 is keyed “True” on five of the eight original

CSs Heterogeneous Item Content

Ambiguous scale interpretation The problem of the subtle items … AND criterion keying

14

Development of the RC Scales(Ben-Porath, 2012)

Capture Demoralization Demoralization is characterized by an unhappy,

dysphoric mood, a sense of helplessness and inability to cope with one’s current circumstances, and general dissatisfaction with one’s condition (Sellbom et al., 2008)

Isolate the construct and measure once A demoralization-like construct had previously been thought

to be the elusive “MMPI 1st Factor”

Thought to be the cause of the intercorrelations between the CSs

15

Tellegen (1985) – Affective Circumplex16

Development of the RC Scales(Ben-Porath, 2012)

Factor Analyze MMPI-2 Clinical Scales Identify distinctive “core components” In general, the RC Scales directly relate to the

corresponding Clinical Scales; however, this is not always the case

Construct “Seed Scales” for each core component Based on factor analytic and correlational data

Deriving Final RC Scales Entire MMPI-2 item pool utilized, internal reliability

examined, aimed at providing non-overlapping items

17

Internal Consistency of the Clinical and Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF (Normative Sample) (Graham, 2012)

Internal Consistency Coefficients (Alpha)

Scale Men Women

MMPI-2(n = 82)

MMPI-2-RF(n = 1138)

MMPI-2(n = 111)

MMPI-2-RF(n = 1462)

--- / RCd (dem) -- .87 -- .89

Hs / RC1 (som) .77 .73 .81 .78

D / RC2 (lpe) .59 .68 .64 .62

Hy / RC3 (cyn) .58 .80 .56 .79

Pd / RC4 (asb) .60 .76 .62 .74

Mf / --- .58 -- .37 --

Pa / RC6 (per) .34 .63 .39 .65

Pt / RC7 (dne) .85 .81 .87 .83

Sc / RC8 (abx) .85 .70 .86 .71

Ma / RC9 (hpm) .58 .79 .61 .76

Si / --- .82 .84

18

9/13/2017

4

Reliability and Validity

Comparisons between several varying clinical samples provide data that the RC Scales show: Comparable or improved reliability Substantially reduced saturation with Demoralization Substantially reduced inter-correlations Comparable or improved convergent validity Substantially improved discriminant validity

19

Reliability and Validity

Subsequent studies have provided additional evidence supporting the use of the RC Scales Replicated in: College counseling settings (Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2006)

Community-dwelling veterans (Simms et al., 2005)

Outpatient sample (Wallace, A., & Liljequist, L., 2005)

Private practice (Sellbom, Graham, & Schenck, 2006)

Substance abuse treatment patients (Forbey & Ben-Porath, 2007)

Bariatric surgery candidates (Wygant et al., 2007)

Inpatients (Handel & Archer, 2008)

College students (Osberg et al., 2008)

20

Hierarchical Structure of the RF

51 Scales 9 Validity Scales

3 Higher-Order Scales (H-O)

9 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales Foundational Basis

23 Specific Problems (SP) Scales 5 Somatic/Cognitive

9 Internalizing

4 Externalizing

5 Interpersonal

2 Interest Scales

5 PSY-5 Scales

22

MMPI-2-RF: Validity Scales

VRIN-r: Variable Response Inconsistency – Random responding TRIN-r: True Response Inconsistency – Fixed responding F-r: Infrequent Responses – Responses infrequent in the general

populationFp-r: Infrequent Psychopathology Responses – Responses infrequent in

psychiatric populations Fs: Infrequent Somatic Responses – Somatic complaints infrequent in

medical patient populationsFBS-r: Symptom Validity – Somatic and cognitive complaints associated at

high levels with over-reportingRBS: Response Bias Scale – Exaggerated memory complaintsL-r: Uncommon Virtues – Rarely claimed moral attributes or activitiesK-r: Adjustment Validity – Avowals of good psychological adjustment

associated at high levels with under-reporting

MMPI-2-RF: Higher-Order Scales

EID – Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction –Problems associated with mood and affect

THD – Thought Dysfunction – Problems associated with disordered thinking

BXD – Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction –Problems associated with under-controlled behavior

9/13/2017

5

Identical to MMPI-2 RC Scales

RCd: Demoralization – General unhappiness and dissatisfaction

RC1: Somatic Complaints – Diffuse physical health complaints

RC2: Low Positive Emotions – Lack of positive emotional responsiveness

RC3: Cynicism – Non-self-referential beliefs expressing distrust and a generally low opinion of others

RC4: Antisocial Behavior – Rule breaking and irresponsible behavior

MMPI-2-RF: RC Scales

RC6: Ideas of Persecution – Self-referential beliefs that others pose a threat

RC7: Dysfunctional Negative Emotions – Maladaptive anxiety, anger, irritability

RC8: Aberrant Experiences – Unusual perceptions or thoughts

RC9: Hypomanic Activation – Over-Activation, aggression, impulsivity, and grandiosity

MMPI-2-RF: RC Scales

Somatic/Cognitive

MLS: Malaise – Overall sense of physical debilitation, poor health

GIC: Gastrointestinal Complaints – Nausea, recurring upset stomach, and poor appetite

HPC: Head Pain Complaints – Head and neck pain

NUC: Neurological Complaints – Dizziness, weakness, paralysis, loss of balance, etc.

COG: Cognitive Complaints – Memory problems, difficulties concentrating

Specific Problems (SP) Scales

Internalizing (RCd Facets):

SUI: Suicidal/Death Ideation – Direct reports of suicidal ideation and recent attempts

HLP: Helplessness/Hopelessness – Belief that goals cannot be reached or problems solved

SFD: Self-Doubt -- Lack of self-confidence, feelings of uselessness

NFC: Inefficacy – Belief that one is indecisive and inefficacious



Internalizing (RC7 Facets):

STW: Stress/Worry -- Preoccupation with disappointments, difficulty with time pressure

AXY: Anxiety – Pervasive anxiety, frights, frequent nightmares

ANP: Anger Proneness -- Becoming easily angered, impatient with others

BRF: Behavior-Restricting Fears -- Fears that significantly inhibit normal behavior

MSF: Multiple Specific Fears -- Fears of blood, fire, thunder, etc.


Externalizing:RC4 Facets

JCP: Juvenile Conduct Problems – Difficulties at school and at home, stealing

SUB: Substance Abuse – Current and past misuse of alcohol and drugs

RC9 Facets

AGG: Aggression – Physically aggressive, violent behavior

ACT: Activation – Heightened excitation and energy level

9/13/2017

6


Interpersonal: FML: Family Problems – Conflictual family

relationships

IPP: Interpersonal Passivity – Being unassertive and submissive

SAV: Social Avoidance – Avoiding or not enjoying social events

SHY: Shyness – Bashful, prone to feel inhibited and anxious around others

DSF: Disaffiliativeness – Disliking people and being around them

AES: Aesthetic-Literary Interests – Literature, music, the theater

MEC: Mechanical-Physical Interests – Fixing and building things, the outdoors, sports

MMPI-2-RF: Interest Scales

MMPI-2-RF: PSY-5 Scales

Revised versions of dimensional model of personality pathology developed by Allan Harkness and John McNulty:

AGGR-r: Aggressiveness-Revised – Instrumental, goal-directed aggression

PSYC-r: Psychoticism-Revised – Disconnection from reality

DISC-r: Disconstraint-Revised – Under-controlled behavior

NEGE-r: Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism-Revised –Anxiety, insecurity, worry, and fear

INTR-r: Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality-Revised – Social disengagement and anhedonia

Diagnostic Construct Validity 34

Protected, Unpublished Data

35

Mapping the MMPI-2-RF36

9/13/2017

7

Psychopathological Convergence37

Studies show the MMPI-2-RF scales: Map onto normal personality models MPQ (Sellbom & Ben-Porath, 2005)

NEO-PI-R (Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008)

As well as current models of psychopathology Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby (2008) Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Lilienfeld, Patrick, & Graham (2005) Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Stafford (2007) Quilty, Sellbom, Tackett, & Bagby (2009) Watson (2005) Wolf, Miller, Orazem, Weierich, Castillo, Milford, Kaloupek, Keane (2008)

Good predictors of future problematic behavior in law enforcement candidates (Sellbom, Fischler, & Ben-Porath, 2007)

And failure to complete substance abuse tx (Mattson, Powers, Halfaker, Akeson, & Ben-Porath, 2012)

Equally valid for African Americans and Caucasians (Castro et al., 2008)

Empirical Model (Watson, 2005)

38

Internalizing Convergence39

InternalizingInternalizing

DistressDistressMajor DepressiveMajor Depressive

Dysthymic DisorderDysthymic Disorder

Generalized AnxietyGeneralized Anxiety

Post-Traumatic StressPost-Traumatic Stress

FearFear

Social PhobiaSocial Phobia

Specific PhobiaSpecific Phobia

AgoraphobiaAgoraphobia

Panic DisorderPanic Disorder

Obsessive CompulsiveObsessive Compulsive

InternalizingDisorders

Diagram adapted from Krueger (1999) and Watson (2005)


Distress(RCd)

Distress(RCd) Major DepressiveMajor Depressive




Fear(RC7)Fear(RC7)






Associations withDemoralization

(Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Bagby, 2008)


Distress(RCd)

Distress(RCd) Major DepressiveMajor Depressive




Fear(RC7)Fear(RC7)






Associations withNegative Activation

(Clark, 2005; Sellbom et al., 2008; Watson, 2005)

9/13/2017

8


DistressDistressMajor DepressiveMajor Depressive




FearFear






Associations withPositive Activation

(Clark, 2005; Sellbom et al., 2008; Watson, 2005)

Externalizing Convergence44

45

Externalizing

Substance Abuse

Alcohol Dependence

Drug

Dependence

Aggression,

Callousness,

Excitement-Seeking

Antisocial

Behavior

Conduct

Disorder

Constraint

(reversed)

ExternalizingDisorders

(Krueger et al., 2002; Krueger et al., 2007)

Externalizing Convergence46

Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Stafford (2009 SPA Presentation)

Using samples of: 21,836 men in correctional settings 1,065 men and women in forensic contexts 402 male and female college students

Found: Variance on the externalizing domain corresponds with the

hierarchical framework of the MMPI-2-RF BXD associated with a broad range of externalizing facets

Best marker of general impulsivity/disinhibition RC scales show a more distinct pattern

Specific facet information and specific markers (e.g., RC9 & Narcissism) SP scales show unique differential pattern of associations

JCP – juvenile delinquency; SUB – alcohol and drug dependence; AGG – trait aggression; ACT – trait activation

Interpretive Strategy47

MMPI-2-RF Interpretation

Substantive Scale InterpretationBegin with Higher-Order Scales If only one is elevated, use it as starting point then

interpret all RC, Specific Problems, PSY-5 scales in that area When interpreting RC Scales:

proceed in order of elevation incorporate relevant SP Scales and PSY-5

If more than one H-O Scale is elevated, use highest as starting point, then proceed to next highest

If no H-O Scale is elevated, proceed to RC Scales and interpret by domain, in order of elevation, incorporating relevant SP and PSY-5 scales

9/13/2017

9

MMPI-2-RF Interpretation

Substantive Scale InterpretationOnce all H-O and RC Scales are covered: Interpret any remaining elevated SP Scales

Interpret Interpersonal and Interest scales

If relevant, add diagnostic and treatment considerations along the way

9/13/2017

10

Medical Settings

Setting-Specific Utility55

Medical Settings56

The technical manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008) contains: Empirical correlates

Medical comparison groups

In addition, you can select appropriate comparison groups when using the MMPI-2-RF in medical settings Bariatric Surgery Candidates

Spine Surgery/Spinal Cord Stimulator Candidates

Bariatric Surgery Candidates57

Factors associated with poor outcome, including ability to maintain focus on self-care when faced with adversity: Maladaptive (acting out) behavior (BXD, RC4, AGG)

Affective instability (RCd, RC7, SUI, AXY)

Depression (RC2, SFD)

Low Stress tolerance (MLS, STW, AXY, SUB) Increased risk for suicidal ideation/intent and lifetime

substance abuse problems (Tarescavage et al., 2013)

Spine Surgery / Spinal Cord Stimulator58

Risk factors: Pain Sensitivity (RC1, MLS, HPC, NUC)

Depression (RCd, RC2, SUI)

Anxiety (RCd, RC7, STW, AXY)

Anger (RC7, ANP, AGG)

Catastrophizing ([low]K-r, RCd, MLS)

Disability-seeking (Fs, FBS-r, MLS)

Low self-esteem (SFD)

Excessive guardedness (L-r, K-r)

Chronic Pain59

Similar risk factors as the Spinal Surgery group; however: Profiles tend to be more elevated and “chronic”

More likely to be involved in disability claims

Chronic pain samples generally exhibit higher levels of co-elevated internalizing psychopathology scales Chronic pain patients tend to report higher levels of

depression, amotivation, and helplessness

60

V R IN -r T R IN -r F-r Fp -r Fs FBS -r R BS L-r K-r

Mean 55 57 71 53 60 77 67 69 64

Ms. G - Chronic Pain

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

F

9/13/2017

11

61

EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 R C6 R C7 R C8 RC9

EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

Mean 74 40 50 71 84 70 65 51 60 68 39 45


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (HO) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

62


N F C S T W AXY ANP BR F

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD N F C S T W AXY AN P BR F M S F

Mean 80 74 55 60 69 65 74 66 68 61 67 54 56 49


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF

MMPI-2-RF Somatic / Cognitive and Internalizing Scales

63

D S F AE S M E C

JCP S U B AGG ACT FM L IP P S AV S H Y DSF AES MEC

Mean 54 62 52 55 67 50 59 56 56 60 50


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

64

AGGR -r P S Y C-r D IS C-r N E GE -r IN T R -rAGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

Mean 47 50 56 71 77


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

MMPI-2-RF Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5)

Ms. P – Pre-surgical Spine Evaluation65

66

9/13/2017

12

67 68

69 70

71

Ms. F - Somatization72

9/13/2017

13

73 74

75 76

77 78

9/13/2017

14

Ms. KPsychogenic Non-Epileptic Seizures

79

80

81 82

83 84

9/13/2017

15

85

Ms. W - Conversion86

87 88

89 90

9/13/2017

16

91 92

Forensic Settings


Forensic Settings94

Challenges New tests typically provide some material for attorneys

to attack

Admissibility of a test – especially a “new” test

Weight of the evidence/opinion based on the results See Ben-Porath (2012) for responses to specific challenges

based on the MMPI-2-RF

Daubert Criteria95

Has the MMPI-2-RF been tested?

Has it been subjected to peer review?

What is the MMPI-2-RF’s known or potential error rate?

Are there standards for controlling the MMPI-2-RF?

Is the MMPI-2-RF generally accepted?

Has the MMPI-2-RF been tested?96

Empirical data available in the Technical Manual Intercorrelations between the scales Correlations between the RF and the existing MMPI-2 Empirical correlates are available for both criminal and

civil forensic settings Comparison groups to aid in interpretation and report

writing include: Pre-Trial Forensic Disability Claimants Child Custody Parental Fitness Prison Inmates

9/13/2017

17

Has the MMPI-2-RF been peer reviewed?97

There are over 260 peer-reviewed publications on the MMPI-2-RF Topics Include:General Assessment and Diagnostic Utility

Validity

Correctional Settings

Forensic Settings

Mental Health Settings

Medical Settings

Other Non-Clinical Settings

The MMPI-2-RF’s error rate?98

Data on reliability and standard error of measurement (SEM) of MMPI-2-RF scale scores address this question directly Available in Technical Manual Chapter 3 Available for both Normative and Clinical samples

Classification accuracy statistics Sensitivity, Specificity, Positive and Negative Predictive

Powers Available in peer reviewed classification studies (e.g.,

malingering detection research)

Are there standards for controlling the MMPI-2-RF?

99

YES! Standardized administration and scoring guidelines

Standardized interpretive approach Reliability of interpretation between raters is higher

Is the MMPI-2-RF generally accepted?100

Increasingly so … Basis in the Frye StandardMMPI-2-RF is increasingly being used in:

Forensic Contexts

Medical Evaluations

Public Safety (Law Enforcement) Screenings

The MMPI-2-RF has also been included in several recent book publications by experts in personality assessment

Use of the MMPI-2-RF:Forensic and Correctional Contexts

101

Assessment of Psychopathy (Wygant, Applegate, &Wall, 2014)

MMPI-2-RF substantive scales associate with specific indices from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) BXD Hierarchy

As well as …

STW, BRF, MSF, IPP, SAV, SHY, DSF

Risk Assessments (Wygant, Applegate, &Wall, 2014)

State vs. trait violence proclivities (or both)

Fearlessness, interpersonal dominance, criminal history, severe mental health symptoms, substance abuse

Mr. P

49 year old, single male

Long-standing Dx of Schizophrenia, Paranoid type

Diagnosed late teens; lived with parents throughout adult life

Father passed away when Mr. P was in his 20s; Mother now in her 70s

Received case management services in community

Periodic employment as unskilled laborer

9/13/2017

18

Mr. P

Several weeks prior to hospitalization Mr. P became embroiled in conflict with co-worker

Employment suspended as a consequence of physical altercation

Discontinued medication and decompensated into acute psychotic episode marked by belief that job loss is the result of gov’t conspiracy to take away his disability benefits as well

Mother informed case worker that Mr. P was threatening retaliation against co-worker

Although no history of violent behavior, psychiatrist determined significant risk – referred for evaluation.

9/13/2017

19

Mr. E

28 year old, never married, male

Arrested after assaulting stranger in a bar

Arresting officer noted mumbling incoherently, religiously preoccupied

Taken to crisis united; observed to be intoxicated, but possibly also psychotic

Admitted to psychiatric inpatient unit

Tested after three days

9/13/2017

20

Public Safety Screenings


Public Safety Candidates116

Major Issues: Screening applicants versus Selecting applicants

Profile score evaluation Undesirable characteristics

Screening vs Selection of Candidates117

Screening Typically done after a conditional offer of employment

is given

Selection Cannot involve “medical procedures” that can identify

disabilities (e.g., MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF), unless in an exempted setting Impact of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

Evaluation of Profile Scores118

Excessive Guardedness L-r K-r Lack of guardedness is also a red flag How much guardedness is too much?

Psychopathology Problematic or concerning arrangements of substantive scales No adjustments for detecting psychopathology

(T > 65)

Undesirable Characteristics Moderate elevations on certain scales Low scores on other scales

Law Enforcement Outcomes & Correlates

RC3, RC6, & RC8 – best predictors of negative outcomes. RC4 and RC9 are also good predictors

SUBSTANTIALLY increased risk for problematic outcomes at T scores of 60 and 55.

Review of LEO profiles requires consideration of range restriction.

119


EID Problems on probation

Academic/Learning problems on probation

Multi-tasking problems under normal circumstances

Initiative Drive Problems

RCd Navigation problems on probation

Failure to accept feedback on probation

RC1 Academic/Learning problems on probation

Problems learning under normal conditions

120

9/13/2017

21


RC2 Failure to engage subjects on probation

Multi-tasking problems under normal conditions

Problems with initiative and drive

Problems with commitment

Problems with conscientiousness

Lower overall evaluation score

Less likely to get along with fellow employees

RC6 Learning and academic problems

121


RC9 Failure to control conflict on probation

Problems with assertiveness under normal conditions

Multi-tasking under normal conditions

COG Problems with decision-making

Difficulties with assertiveness

Problems with multi-tasking

122


HLP Lack of cooperation with peers on probation

Uncooperative towards supervisors on probation

Difficulties with decision-making and assertiveness

Problems multi-tasking

AGG Failure to accept feedback on probation

Uncooperative with peers

Uncooperative with supervisors

Commitment and Teamwork problems

123


ACT Lower tactical skills under normal conditions

IPP Integrity Violation/Unlawful activity on probation

SAV Failure to engage subjects on Probation

Commitment and Integrity problems

Conscientiousness problems

124


SHY Failure to engage subjects on probation

Commitment and Conscientious problems

DSF Failure to control conflict on probation

Problems engaging subjects on probation

Assertiveness/Control problems under normal conditions

Poor tactical skills

Interpersonal problems

125


PSYC-r Failure to engage subjects on probation

Assertiveness and control problems

Tactical skill problems under stress

INTR-r Academic/Learning problems on probation

Failure to control conflict

Failure to engage subjects on probation

Driving problems

126

9/13/2017

22


Negative outcomes associated with Emotional dysfunction RC2, HLP

Interpersonal dysfunction DSF, INTR-r

Low scores on RC9/ACT

High scores on AGG

Elevations on COG, RC6/PSYC-r

127

128

VRIN-r T RIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

Mr. C 43 50 47 42 50 45 42 52 52

La w Enf. Norm Me a n 41 52 44 44 45 46 45 59 63

MMPI-2-RF Norm Me a n 50 50 50 51 50 48 50 50 50

Mr. C - Law Enforcement Example

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

Mr. C Law Enf. Norm

F

129



Mr. C 43 48 43 46 42 42 57 59 56 46 47 62Law Enf. Norm Mean 36 44 46 40 42 41 44 45 48 46 47 51MMPI-2-RF Norm Mean 49 50 53 49 49 50 51 52 51 48 50 51


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (HO) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

Mr. C Law Enf. Norm

130

Law Enforcement Example

NFC ST W AXY ANP BRF

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC ST W AXY AN P BRF MSF

Mr. C 38 46 42 41 40 45 40 42 38 40 39 40 43 42Law Enf. Norm Mean 43 47 44 45 43 45 42 43 41 42 45 41 44 44MMPI-2-RF Norm Mean 50 49 48 50 50 49 50 49 49 49 49 50 48 46


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF

MMPI-2-RF Somatic/Cognitive and Internalizing Scales

Mr. C Law Enf. Norm

131

DSF AES MEC

JCP SU B AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC

Mr. C 50 41 37 69 53 34 43 37 68 39 38Law Enf. Norm Mean 49 45 42 44 43 46 46 42 45 41 57MMPI-2-RF Norm Mean 52 52 51 49 49 49 51 49 51 47 56


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

Mr. C Law Enf. Norm

132

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INT R-rAGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

Mr. C 67 52 58 51 40Law Enf. Norm Mean 50 43 51 39 47

MMPI-2-RF Norm Mean 52 50 54 49 51


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

MMPI-2-RF Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5)

Mr. C Law Enf. Norm

9/13/2017

23

Curtis Mattson, PsyD

[email protected]

Questions?133

nptc mmpi-2-rf presentation - 2017 intern...

Documents