Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Scores Generated From the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF Test Booklets

Anthony M. Tarescavage · Michael Louis Alosco · Yossef S. Ben‐Porath · Arcangela Wood · Lynn Luna-Jones

36 citations0/0 files storedAssessment

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Psychological Testing and Assessment Psychometric Methodologies and Testing Personality Traits and Psychology

Abstract

We investigated the internal structure comparability of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scores derived from the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets in a sample of 320 criminal defendants (229 males and 54 females). After exclusion of invalid protocols, the final sample consisted of 96 defendants who were administered the MMPI-2-RF booklet and 83 who completed the MMPI-2. No statistically significant differences in MMPI-2-RF invalidity rates were observed between the two forms. Individuals in the final sample who completed the MMPI-2-RF did not statistically differ on demographics or referral question from those who were administered the MMPI-2 booklet. Independent t tests showed no statistically significant differences between MMPI-2-RF scores generated with the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets on the test's substantive scales. Statistically significant small differences were observed on the revised Variable Response Inconsistency (VRIN-r) and True Response Inconsistency (TRIN-r) scales. Cronbach's alpha and standard errors of measurement were approximately equal between the booklets for all MMPI-2-RF scales. Finally, MMPI-2-RF intercorrelations produced from the two forms yielded mostly small and a few medium differences, indicating that discriminant validity and test structure are maintained. Overall, our findings reflect the internal structure comparability of MMPI-2-RF scale scores generated from MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF booklets. Implications of these results and limitations of these findings are discussed.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 36 citations exist upstream.

References

2007G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences 1992A power primer.1996Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha.2010The Essential Guide to Effect Sizes 2019Handbook of Psychological Assessment 1990MMPI-2: assessing personality and psychopathology 2006A Survey of Psychological Test Use Patterns Among Forensic Psychologists 2003What tests are acceptable for use in forensic evaluations? A survey of experts.

Cited by

2015A Prorating Method for Estimating MMPI-2-RF Scores From MMPI Responses 2015The Generalizability of Overreporting Across Self-Report Measures: An Investigation With the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form and the Personality Assessment Inventory in a Civil Disability Sample 2016Evaluating item endorsement rates for the MMPI-2-RF F-r and Fp-r scales across ethnic, gender, and diagnostic groups with a forensic inpatient sample.2017Examination of the feasibility and utility of flexible and conditional administration of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form.

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.