HOME ABOUT PAST ISSUES SAMPLE ISSUE CONTACT US CEUS SUBSCRIBE

CE Articles Clinical Practice Ethics & Legal Insurance Marketing Your Practice News Briefs PolicySearch:
RxP Technology FEED GO

FRIDAY, AUG 30, 2019

Order a 2020 Appointment Calendar Today or

shop our catalog.

Home » CE Articles, Clinical Practice, General » MMPI-3: Revision of

MMPI-2 or Marketing Hype?

MMPI-3: Revision of MMPI-2 or Marketing Hype?

By Alan F. Friedman, Ph.D. and David S. Nichols,
Ph.D.
November 7, 2017

For the last decade, the publisher of the MMPI

instruments, the University of Minnesota Press, and its
distributor, Pearson Assessments, told psychologists
that “the standard has evolved” with publication of the
MMPI-2-RF in 2008 and the MMPI-A-RF in 2016. In
fact, the MMPI-2-RF was less an evolution than a new
creation, with the original empirical, contrasted groups,
scale construction strategy abandoned in favor of a advertisement
factor-analytic construction strategy, one directed in
part by a model of mood (Watson and Tellegen, 1985),
the credentials of which remain much in question
(Ranson et al., 2009).
In the end, the construct-driven MMPI-2 and MMPI-A Latest Headlines
morphed into content-driven, face valid instruments.
Employee vs independent contractor – why it
Indeed, the correlations between the Restructured matters
Clinical (RC) scales and one or another of the MMPI-2 Telepsychology takes special training

Content Scales or similar content-based scales all but Using CQ (couple intelligence) in couples
counseling
invariably exceed those between the RC scales and TPE audits target high volume providers
their MMPI-2 Clinical Scale counterparts, as evident in Research promising for suicide prevention

the developers own data (Tellegen and Ben-Porath, ACA survives cut in penalties but courts will have
final say
2008). Despite these significant psychometric Integrated healthcare in the ICU
problems, the publisher has been very active in Self-care is essential to risk management

peppering the continuing education landscape with Exposure therapy is fast and effective
Psychologists face denials, delays in testing
workshops and webinars extolling the MMPI-2-RF’s payments
merits relative to those of the MMPI-2.
And now we have learned the publisher is funding one
of the MMPI-2-RF authors to develop an MMPI-3 that
appears based on the MMPI-2-RF, despite the fact
that Ben-Porath (2017, p. 277) stated recently that the
“…MMPI-2-RF was introduced as an alternative to,
rather than a replacement for the MMPI-2.” A manager
at the University of Minnesota Press confirmed to us
that an MMPI-3 is in development. Yet, a June 2017
review by the University of Minnesota’s Internal Audit
Department indicated:
“The development of an MMPI-3 instrument has not
been mentioned in any of the annual requests for
proposals even though Yossef Ben-Porath received
$154,000 in 2017 for “Further Development of the
MMPI-2-RF/ MMPI-3.” The 2017 award for Ben- advertisement

Porath’s proposal was awarded without the Press

publically advertising the intent of the Press to fund Did you know...?
development of the MMPI-3 assessment. This gives That psychologists can earn 1 continuing education
the impression of favoritism regarding access to credit per issue for simply reading The National
Psychologist? A great reason to subscribe today!
funding for development and research proposals by
the Press.”
The appearance of favoritism by limiting the University
Press MMPI research funding to one individual should
have no place in development of an MMPI instrument
to be marketed for high stakes decision-making.
An MMPI-3 based on the MMPI-2-RF is not an
authentic successor to the MMPI and MMPI-2 and
their 70-year history of research and successful clinical
use. Whereas the MMPI-2 relies upon a code type
approach to interpretation in which its scales are
examined in configural patterns based upon
empirically validated code types, the MMPI-2-RF relies
upon a scale-by-scale interpretive approach, and just
as the empirical correlates for the MMPI-2 code types
are not applicable to the MMPI-2-RF, neither will they
be to the MMPI-3.
Several studies have demonstrated a lack of sensitivity
for the RC scales, the core scales of the MMPI-2-RF, in
detecting psychopathology.
One need only reflect on the police misconduct
headlines over the last 10 years to appreciate the
importance of avoiding false negatives in the selection
of safety sensitive personnel. In fact, based on
research, the FAA disallows its psychologists from
using the MMPI-2-RF as a substitute for the MMPI-2 in
screening air traffic controllers and others. A detailed
review of the psychometric deficiencies of the MMPI-
2-RF exceeds the scope of this article, but Nichols,
(2006), Greene, et al. (2009), Ranson et al. (2009),
Friedman et al. (2015), and Butcher et al. (2015), cover
many of the concerns expressed in the literature.
Recently, in Professional Psychology:
Take the
Research and Practice, Lally and CE Quiz
Williams (2017, p. 282) reported that Now

in 2016 the MMPI-2 “…continues to

be more widely used than the MMPI-2-RF (61 percent
to 39 percent), despite years of marketing the MMPI-2-
RF as the ‘new standard,’ the introduction of new
MMPI-2-RF products, and the discontinuation of
MMPI-2 products.” In fact, Ben-Porath (2017)
reported, and Lally and Williams (2017) confirmed,
similar figures for 2015: 63 percent of administrations
used the MMPI-2 and only 37 percent used the MMPI-
2-RF. It follows per Mihura et al. (2017) that the MMPI-
2 is the most popularly taught adult self-report
inventory in clinical psychology training programs (92
percent), with the MMPI-2-RF at 67 percent.
If the University Press follows through with its plans to
release an MMPI-3 based on the controversial
methodology underlying the MMPI-2-RF, the reader
should be aware that “MMPI-3” is a misnomer and an
attempt to capitalize on the MMPI brand by hijacking
the name. In essence, any revision of the MMPI-2-RF
is just that and should be labeled appropriately as a
version of the latter instrument. Eliminating “RF” in its
name by calling it an MMPI-3 is a masquerade, for the
ostensible purpose of having users discontinue using
the MMPI-2 in favor of an MMPI-3 imposter. A more
honest title would be the “MMPI-2-RF-Revised (RF-
R),” because the methodology underlying the MMPI-2-
RF is not remotely similar in construction, scales or
interpretation to the MMPI-2. To put the matter simply
with a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “How
many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg?
Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
Those who do not follow the journal literature replete
with valid criticisms of the RC scales and the MMPI-2-
RF, may be seduced by this marketing ploy. Adams
(2000, p. 282) states that “…the decision to revise a
test itself may be made in an environment wherein the
economic return of a test becomes the salient factor in
decision making about the test.” Knauss (2017)
explains that this may be attributable to the need to
support new projects or even the need to support the
company as a whole. Financial and marketplace
decisions no doubt influence test revisions just as test
validity must play a major role.
Readers are cautioned to inform themselves about the
important issues that a publisher may not
acknowledge in its advertising. If this new “MMPI”
instrument is ultimately released, it is our hope that the
University of Minnesota Press will have decided to
avoid any pretense that its forthcoming MMPI-3 is a
revision of the MMPI-2. Instead, we hope for a more
accurate and balanced approach to marketing its
MMPI-related products, an approach that serves its
potential and existing customers by leveling with them.
References available from authors

Tweet Like 4 Share Share

Alan F. Friedman, Ph.D., is senior author of the

third edition textbook Psychological
Assessment with the MMPI-2/ MMPI-2- RF.
He specializes in fitness for duty evaluations,
threat assessments and selection of public
safety personnel for police and fire agencies.
He is an associate clinical professor of
psychiatry and behavioral sciences in the
Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern
University. His email address is:
[email protected]. David S. Nichols, Ph.D.,
spent his career as a staff clinical psychologist
at the Oregon State Hospital and as an
adjunct professor at Pacific University. The
MMPI has been the focus of his research and
writing for more than 40 years. Among his
publications is Essentials of MMPI-2
Assessment, Second Edition. He may be
reached at [email protected].

To learn more about this topic or to get these articles

delivered to your
office every other month, subscribe today!.

Filed Under CE Articles, Clinical Practice, General

advertisement

Home | About Us | Media Kit

Copyright © 1995-2019 The National Psychologist. All rights reserved. Log in