379
N1
THE DIAGNOSTIC SUITABILITY OF GOLDBERG'S
'RULE FOR THE MINI-MULT
THESIS
Presented to the Graduate Council of the
North Texas State University in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE
By
Dan Haynes Roberts, B. S.
Denton, Texas
December, 1975
ABSTRACT
Roberts, Dan H., The Diagnostic Suitability of Goldberg's
Rule for the Mini-Mult.
Master of Science
(Clinical
Psychology), December, 1975, 47 pp., 6 tables, references,
45 titles.
This study was undertaken to determine whether the
Mini-Mult is able to function as well as the MMPI for a
limited clinical purpose, the discrimination of psychosis
and neurosis by Goldberg's rule.
Mini-Mult
(71 items)
The smaller size of the
allows conservation of time .and energy
by subjects and professionals.
Thirty male residents of
the Austin State Hospital completed two standard MMPIs and
one oral Mini-Mult.
A fourth set of scores was obtained
by extracting Mini-Mult from the first MMPI.
Correlations
and tests of significance were computed for raw scores and
Goldberg's index scores.
Results indicate no significant
differences in the discrimination of psychosis and neurosis
between the MMPI and the Mini-Mult.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
.
LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chapter
I.
INTRODUCTION
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .
.
.
.1
Statement of the Problem
Purpose of the Study
Review of the Literature
Rationale
II.
METHODS....
....
.... .........
24
III.
RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
IV.
DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
45
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
61
REFERENCES.
iii
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Dates of Current Hospital Admissions,
Dates of Testing, Number of Prior
Admissions to a Psychiatric Hospital and Ages of Subjects.*. .
26
Means and Standard Deviations of the
Scale Scores for the Two Administrations of the Two Forms.
35
.
1.
Page
3.
4.
5.
. 36 . . .
Correlations Between Comparable
Scales for all Combinations
of the Two Administrations of
the Two Forms........ .0.....
Percentages of Agreement Between
Combinations of the Two Administrations of the Two Test Forms
.
.
8.
9.
.
.
37
38
39
Means and Standard Deviations of
Goldberg's Index Scores for the
Two Administrations of the Two Forms.
40
Scores on Goldberg's Index for the Two
Administrations of the Two Forms.
46
High Point Scales on the Four Tests.
48
.
7.
.
Correlations of Goldberg's PsychoticNeurotic Index Scores for Combinations of the Two Administrations of the Two Test Forms
.
6.
Students' t Vatues and Significance
of Differences Between Means
of Comparable Scales for Combinations of Two Administrations
of Two Test Forms.........*..
.
2.
10.
Two-Point Codes on the Four Tests.....
49
11.
Raw Scores on Scale L on the Four Tests.
50
iv
LIST OF TABLES--Continued
Table
Page
12.
Raw Scores on Scale F on the Four Tests.
51
13.
Raw Scores on Scale K on the Four Tests.
52
14.
Raw Scores on Scale 1 on the Four Tests*
53
15.
Raw Scores on Scale 2 on the Four Tests*
54
16.
Raw Scores on Scale 3 on the Four Tests*
55
17.
Raw Scores on Scale 4 on the Four Tests*
56
18.
Raw Scores on Scale 6 on the Four Tests*
57
19.
Raw Scores on Scale 7 on the Four Tests*
58
20.
Raw Scores on Scale 8 on the Four Tests*
59
21.
Raw Scores on Scale 9 on the Four Tests*
60
V
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
A.
Statement of the Problem
In light of the widespread acceptance of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory as a measure of various
personality variables for people in many diverse settings,
it is surprising that until several years ago there was
no abbreviated form of the MMPI from which the standard
scale scores could be reliably predicted.
There is a great
deal of clinical and research value in such an instrument.
Often in clinical settings, it is difficult to persuade
subjects to complete either the individual or group form
of the MMPI.
The length of the standard inventory makes
it tedious for subjects to fill out, and some are unwilling
or unable to devote the time and concentration that is
required.
In similar circumstances, many of the same
people would agree to answer a shorter set of questions
taken from statements on the longer standard MMPI.
At times,
there may be a need for rapid evaluation and communication
of results, such as for consultation purposes or speedy
classification of patients in a hospital or clinic.
In
addition to applied uses, a short version of the MMPI would
expedite and simplify personality research.
1
A short form
2
could make it much easier to recruit subjects who may be
unwilling to devote the time necessary to complete the long
form.
An abbreviated test could also reduce expenses and
increase efficiency in both clinical and research settings
by decreasing the amount of time spent in scoring and
interpretation on the part of professional personnel.
Kincannon
(1968) developed the first short form of
the MMPI which accurately predicted the standard scale
scores.
This version does not include clinical scales
5 and 0.
Mini-Mult.
All other basic scales are included on Kincannon's
Evidence from studies which will be discussed
in the following pages has shown that the clinical utility
of the short version is limited in scope.
Research indi-
cates that the Mini-Mult enjoys variable success, depending
on the population it is used with, and the amount of
clinical information one attempts to extract from the scores.
Therefore, by using the Mini-Mult on an optimal
population for a limited purpose of general diagnostic
classification, it may be possible to delineate a specific,
valid, clinical use for the Mini-Mult.
Several advantages of the short form have already
been mentioned.
If the Mini-Mult is able to provide
reasonably accurate discrimination between psychotics and
neurotics, mental health officials could begin appropriate
intervention without waiting for more complicated and time
consuming assessment procedures to be completed.
The oral
3
form of the Mini-Mult will allow testing of illiterate
subjects.
It may also reduce the necessity for lengthy
observation periods before treatment is initiated.
B.
Purpose of the Study
Methods of psychological and psychiatric intervention
may be influenced by psychological assessment of the
problems to be dealt with.
Assessment may take the form
of interviews, behavioral observations,
evaluation of
psychological tests, examination of historical data provided by significant others, or professionals or agencies
consulted by the individual in the past.
a combination of two or more of these.
It may involve
Intervention can
also be influenced by the results of histological,
logical,
or neurological tests.
sero-
Inferences drawn from
various assessment techniques may be interpreted on
three levels, depending on the individual clinician's
theoretical bias, and on the questions he wishes to
answer with assessment procedures.
On the lowest level,
the information about the client
is directly related to the decisions to be made.
An
example would be the inference made by a college official
after looking at a potential student's entrance test
score.
A decision to accept or reject the candidate is based
on the score.
The inference drawn must be either that
the candidate is qualified, or that he is not.
On the
4
second level,
inferences may be descriptive generalizations
and/or hypothetical constructs concerning the client.
The
third level inferences are similar to those at level two,
varying only in complexity.
In other words, assessment
procedures are more involved in an attempt to learn as
much about the client as possible.
The goal is to develop
a clear, complete representation of the client, and his
behavior patterns.
Intervention techniques may include chemotherapy,
milieu therapy, electro-convulsive therapy,
and psycho-
therapies based on various theoretical viewpoints of
abnormal behavior.
also widely used.
personal,
Behavior modification techniques are
Various levels of intervention include
family, small group, organization, and community.
The specific type of therapy may depend on the nature of
the problem and on the therapist's decision to treat the
symptoms observed, or the underlying causes.
This decision
is affected by the therapist's bias and is limited by
his specific areas of competency.
Therapeutic goals may
be restricted by available facilities and/or priorities
held by different agencies.
A client's treatment can
also depend on his financial and emotional resources,
well as his intellectual abilities,
as
educational background,
and cultural milieu.
In a state hospital setting, intervention procedures
usually depend mainly on the initial diagnosis.
If a
5
patient has a record of previous hospitalization,
affect the decisions made about him.
that may
Initial decisions in
such settings include consideration of:
hospitalzation vs.
non-hospitalization, use of anti-psychotic drugs vs. other
or no drugs, use of ECT vs. no ECT, and whether patient is
suicidal or non-suicidal,
etc.
The purpose of this study is to evaluate a method of
assessment which may be used to classify people for
psychological or psychiatric purposes.
The assessment
procedure under investigation is a mathematical interpretation of MMPI scores which allows the tester to make
a lower level inference about the test subject.
By applying
a simple additive formula, one is able to discriminate a
psychotic person from a neurotic person, on the basis of
scale scores combined in a linear fashion.
This linear
combination of scores is known as Goldberg's index.
A
subject whose index falls above a certain cutoff score
is classified as psychotic.
If the index is below the
cutoff score, the subject is classified as neurotic.
C.
Review of the Literature
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,
of MMPI, has long been used to make decisions in problems
of differential diagnosis in various settings.
Meehl
(1946) proposed a set of rules for making such decisions,
which were based on configural properties of MMPI profiles.
6
His effort was one of the first attempts to set explicit
rules for making specific diagnostic decisions.
In this
study he evaluated the MMPI for use in differential
diagnosis of psychosis, psychoneurosis, and "conduct
disorder."
He found that a set of rules could be used
to arrive at a diagnosis with greater success than a
simple examination of high point scales would allow.
More
recently, Meehl and Dahlstrom (1960) developed a more
effective set of rules for discriminating psychotic from
neurotic profiles.
Profiles which could not be classified
as psychotic or neurotic were designated as "indeterminate."
Henrichs
(1964) attempted to derive a rule to extend the
applicability of the Meehl and Dahlstrom results.
He was
unable to come up with rules which allowed a hit rate
exceeding 50% for the new classification of "character
disorder."
The new classification could not be made with
the same degree of accuracy possible with the rules for
diagnosis for the other general categories.
Although the
hit rate is high, it has little clinical promise.
Schmidt
(1945) found that by analyzing MMPI profiles,
differential diagnoses for major clinical classifications
could be made with statistical significance.
The major
diagnostic groups in this study were inadequate personality,
sexual psychopathy, mild psychoneurosis,
neurosis, and psychosis.
severe psycho-
Hovey (1949) compared three
psychoneurotic groups on the basis of profiles.
He
7
discovered that the dissociative-conversion group produced
a relatively consistent pattern, while patterns produced
by anxiety and somatization groups were less consistent.
Guthrie
(1950) discovered that a high degree of diagnostic
accuracy could be achieved by examination of code types.
He used six profile patterns reported by Gough (1946)
and Schmidt (1945).
The diagnostic groups were anxiety
state, inadequate personality, psychopathic personality,
paranoia, depression, and mania.
Leverenz
(1943) found significant agreement between
diagnoses made from MMPI profile patterns and psychiatric
diagnoses made without the benefit of MMPI results.
He
obtained the highest agreement on the following groups:
psychoneurosis, hypochondriacal type, depression, and
psychosis.
The investigation was made to evaluate the
usefulness of the MMPI in a hospital setting.
Modlin
(1947)
conducted a study along similar lines to examine the
utility of the MMPI in clinical practice.
He concluded
that the test is a valuable psychometric tool in clinical
psychiatric practice, but that test interpretation should
be made in terms of the total clinical picture to prevent
avoidable errors.
The studies above are representative of the research
dealing with the diagnostic capabilities of the MMPI.
In general, previous research has shown the MMPI to be
a worthy aid in making differential diagnoses.
not a substitute for the clinician, however.
It is
8
Beside diagnostics, the MMPI has been put to a great
number of uses.
Peterson (1954) investigated its ability
to predict hospitalization of psychiatric outpatients.
He concluded that the MMPI could make correct predictions
approximately two-thirds of the time.
Farberow (1950)
used the MMPI to study personality patterns among hospitalized suicidal patients.
The inventory has also been
used to study personality characteristics of other groups
including college students
nurses
(Goodstein, 1945b; Bier, 1948),
(Weisgerber, 1954; Hovey,
medical patients
1953), non-psychiatric
(Weiner, 1948; Anderson and Hanvik,
1950; Ganter, 1951; Hanvik, 1951; and many others).
The
MMPI, it seems, can be viewed as a double-edged sword in
the hands of ,a psychometrist,
serving both clinical and
research needs.
There are several possible arguments against the
development of an abbreviated MMPI.
One is that a short
form is generally considered to be less reliable than the
longer form of a test which is also likely to have greater
validity.
formula.
This view is demonstrated in the Spearman-Brown
However, this formula is effective for tests
in which all items are assumed to be more or less equivalent.
In his discussion of this topic, Kincannon
(1968) cites
at least twelve references which report on the variances
of different MMPI scales.
He concludes that the various
scales of the MMPI are very heterogeneous.
Since items
9
are assumed to be equivalent, any deletions from a long
test would be considered to be random.
This does not have
to be the case.
Kincannon (1968) followed this line of reasoning
in the development of the Mini-Mult,
a 71 item abbreviation
He derived the inventory by clustering items
of the MMPI.
in each scale.
The clusters were based on data obtained
Clusters were groups of
by Comrey (Kincannon, 1968).
items, each having a phi coefficient of .30 or above with
the other items in the group.
taken from each cluster.
Next, several items were
Usually, these items were the
ones scored on the greatest number of scales.
In this way,
the item pool was reduced first to 288 and finally to 71
items.
Scales duplicated on the Mini-Mult include all
the validity and clinical scales except Mf and Si.
Kincannon ran two comparisons of the MMPI and the
Mini-Mult, which was extracted from the MMPI results,
on two groups of subjects.
One was a group of psychiatric
inpatients at a general hospital.
The other was a group of
patients at a community mental health center.
In each
case, the average correlation between raw scale scores
was .87.
Next, he investigated the functioning of the
Mini-Mult as he intended it to be used in a clinical
situation.
First a standard MMPI was administered to each
of 30 male and 30 female patients in a psychiatric hospital.
On the following day, half the subjects completed a retest
10
of the standard MMPI, while the other half completed the
Mini-Mult.
Then on the third day,
this procedure was
reversed, and finally, each patient had finished two standard
MMPI's and a Mini-Mult.
Kincannon obtained scores on each
of these tests and extracted Mini-Mult scores from the
first standard MMPI results.
Analysis of the results suggests that the Mini-Mult
underestimates extreme elevations of scales F and Ma.
Kincannon correlated scale scores from each test with
those from each of the other tests.
He also compared
MMPI scale scores with reliability estimates made with
the Spearman-Brown to discover if the Mini-Mult compared
favorably with the formula estimates of its predictive
ability.
For every scale, he found that the reliability
of the Mini-Mult was superior to that predicted by the
Spearman-Brown formula.
He found a mean error of 14%
in prediction of MMPI scale scores from the Mini-Mult,
which was half the average error predicted by the formula.
In response to arguments that such correlations
between short and long forms actually underestimate
errors in classification made by short forms of various
tests
(Kramer and Francis,
1965; Mumpower, 1964; Silverstein,
1965), Kincannon made comparisons of the decisions based
on scores from the two forms.
Such decisions are commonly
made by examining code types or profiles of the results.
Kincannon made two investigations to determine the degree
11
of correspondence of code types between the two forms.
Again, the results indicated that the Mini-Mult was a good
predictor with only a 14% loss in correspondence to results
found with test-retest administrations of the standard
MMPI.
Kincannon concluded that the Mini-Mult was a useful
substitute for the MMPI in psychiatric hospital settings.
In an attempt to cross validate his findings, Lacks
(1970)
administered the MMPI to a group of psychiatric inpatients.
She extracted Mini-Mult scores from the MMPI data and
correlated the scaled scores, finding results similar to
those reported by Kincannon.
She also compared the two
forms on the basis of decisions made by examining clinical
code types reported by Haertzen and Hill
(1959), and found
no significant differences.
Armentrout and Rouzer
(1970) found a high correspondence
between scales for both forms in a study of delinquent
adolescents.
Comparisons of high point codes between the
two forms indicated that the Mini-Mult is not a good
diagnostic tool for this type of population.
Their
findings were comparable to those of Henrichs
(1964),
who attempted to develop rules for spotting character
disorders.
Subjects with character disorders and delinquents
have similar profiles.
If the results of Armentrout and
Rouzer are examined with this in mind, it can be assumed
that their results do not directly challenge the
12
comparability of the MMPI and the Mini-Mult since Henrichs
showed the weakness of the MMPI itself as a diagnostic
aid with this type of population.
Armentrout
(1970) compared scores obtained by
college students in a correlational study of the two forms,
with results similar to those discovered by Armentrout and
Rouzer (1970).
Correlations of scales were significant,
but no equivalent to those found by Kincannon (1968).
Harford, et al.
(1972) discovered significant
correlations between scales on the two forms for a group
of psychiatric outpatients.
They extracted the Mini-Mult
from the standard MMPI, as did Lacks
of code types
(Haertzen and Hill,
resulted in a 50% match.
(1970).
1959)
Comparison
on the two forms,
Application of rules for
discrimination of psychotic from neurotic profiles
(Meehl and Dahlstrom, 1960),resulted in a 35% match on
the long and short forms.
These findings suggest that the
Mini-Mult is a less accurate predictor of the MMPI for
an outpatient group than it appeared to be for Kincannon' s
inpatient sample.
These conclusions are consistent with
those drawn by Armentrout and Rouzer
et al.
(1970).
Harford,
suggest that difference among the findings of
various Mini-Mult researchers may be a function of the
degree or severity of the disorders found in the populations
sampled.
To investigate this possibility, they divided
their sample into more and less severe groups, using F
13
A comparison
scale scores as a measure of severity.
of the two forms in terms of clinical code types, resulted
in a significantly higher number of matches in the more
severe group.
Gaylon and Wilson
(1971) compared MMPI and extracted
Mini-Mult scores of a sample of children in a child
They found high correlations between
guidance clinic.
scales, but profile comparisons resulted in classification
errors one-third of the time.
They suggest that the
Mini-Mult may be of some value as a screening instrument
in some settings.
Adequate caution in interpreting results
would have to be exercised; however,
since misclassifi-
cation would be an ever-present pitfall.
Newton
(1971) checked the Mini-Mult in a study of
hospitalized male alcoholic patients.
He found smaller
correlations between scales than Kincannon
(1968) did.
His results also confirmed a conclusion drawn by Kincannon
in his study.
They both found that when the same forms
or both forms are administered within a short period of
time, the results on the second protocol portray subjects
in a more socially desirable light.
Hartman and Robertson
(1972) studied a sample of
patients in a community mental health agency.
They
administered the MMPI and the Mini-Mult on an alternating
basis, and a Mini-Mult was also extracted from the
standard MMPI.
They found significant correlations
14
among all scales on all three tests.
However, they learned
that the Mini-Mults understimated scales F, Ma, and Pa
significantly,
When the MMPI was compared with the
Mini-Mult in terms of profile code types,
it was dis-
covered that for general diagnostic categories
psychotic, neurotic, personality disorder,
normal)
(e.g.,
essentially
the two forms agreed in 77% of the male cases
and in 50% of the female cases, for a combined agreement
of 63%.
Hartman and Robertson speculate that this
degree of correspondence is not high because decisions
about matches are based on the highest scale of each code
type.
If "correspondence" is defined as elevations of
the same scales on both profiles, there may be more
agreement than these data reveal, since similar profiles
do not always have the same high point.
Essentially,
the Mini-Mult seems to be almost as effective as a
MMPI substitute in a community mental health agency as
in a psychiatric hospital.
Palmer
(1973) studied a sample of 30 male and 30
female psychiatric inpatients at the Toledo State Hospital.
They were selected without regard to any independent
evaluation of their psychiatric diagnoses.
Each subject
was administered the MMPI and then the Mini-Mult on
consecutive days.
Order of administration was random,
with half the subjects taking the MMPI first.
was reversed for the other group.
The order
Palmer used the written
15
statement form of the Mini-Mult.
He learned that neither
order of administration nor sex of the subject had
significant effects on the findings.
Scale correlations
were all significant at the .01 level except the F
scale.
Palmer evaluated diagnostic reliabiilty by
comparing 3-point codes
on the two tests.
extremely low.
(Lichtenstein and Bryan,
1966)
Agreement between the code types was
He also determined that the median
percent of agreement between the Ss' responses to
homologous items on the two tests was 83%, with a range
from 59% to 98%.
Palmer concludes that the data do not
support the use of the Mini-Mult for state hospital
patients.
Although scale correlations were significant
between the tests, their magnitudes were rather low.
The Mini-Mult failed to provide the same diagnoses that
the MMPI did when processed with 3-point code types.
Palmer suggests that the subjects'
inconsistent response
patterns may reflect unreliability of the population
being studied instead of an unreliable instrument.
There is a plethora of techniques which have been
developed for arriving at a diagnosis from the MMPI
profile.
Goldberg
(1965) compared nearly all these
techniques or diagnostic signs in an effort to determine
how accurately they predicted a diagnosis of psychotic
versus neurotic from the MMPI.
After examining his results,
Goldberg selected the five scales which had the highest
16
beta weights in a linear regression equation.
Then he
combined them in a simple non-weighted linear composite
of scores.
The new index (CL + Pa + Sc - Hy - Pt)
had
a validity coefficient greater than any of the previous
diagnostic signs used to discriminate psychosis from
neurosis.
Goldberg drew his data from the 1959 MMPI
study of Paul Meehl where there was an unspecified amount
of criterion contamination in the sample group.
Subjects
were 861 male psychiatric patients.
Goldberg (1969) cites several other ways of attempting
to solve this diagnostic problem.
perceptron algorithm
procedures
These include the
(Rosenblatt, 1958),
density estimation
(Hoffman, 1968), and Bayesian algorithms, none
of which result in validity coefficient exceeding the
validity obtained with the simple linear combination.
He also reviews the work done with moderator variables
for the linear combination.
Ghiselli
(1956, 1960,
1963)
and Saunders
(1956)
identified moderator variables which appeared to enhance
prediction when applied to certain diagnostic signs.
The best single scale moderator was the K scale score.
Prediction was improved for low K scale scores.
The best
multiscale moderator was found to be a linear combination
of six scales
(D + Pd + Sc - F - Hs - Pa).
Low scores
on this variable improved prediction when applied to
certain diagnostic signs.
Overall, however, prediction
was improved insignificantly.
17
In another investigation similar to Goldberg's (1965),
using large samples and relatively clear criteria, Stilson
and Astrup
(1966) reported that improved predictions
found through the use of non-linear procedures are lost
in cross validation.
In an effort to highlight the value of diagnoses made
by statistical methods, Goldberg
(1968) cites 10 studies
which indicate that the amount of professional training and
experience of a human judge or diagnostician has no
bearing on his diagnostic accuracy.
In addition, he
cites a number of similar investigations which suggest
that the amount of information available to the diagnostician is unrelated to the accuracy of his resulting inferences.
It seems that clinical judgments tend to be unreliable
in terms of consensus and convergent reliability.
Convergent reliability is the reliability of different
judges using different sources of data on the same patient.
Clinical judgments appear to be minimally related to the
experience and amount of data available to the judge.
Goldberg also concludes that clinical judgments are
rather low in validity on an absolute basis.
Goldberg (1965) compared the validity of 29 clinical
psychologists with the validity of the linear model to
find out whether human judges were more accurate in
discriminating psychosis from neurosis on the basis of
18
MMPI profiles alone.
His results were consistent with
those mentioned above.
The model was more accurate than
the judges themselves.
Goldberg
(1972) cites other research with similar
findings in related fields.
In all the cases he discusses,
a linear statistical model has proven to be superior
to man.
He concludes that no research in print has
proven man to be a better predictor of various criteria
than a simple linear statistical model.
The job of
psychometricians in the area of psychodiagnostics has been
to find a statistical method which most nearly represents
the cognitive processes engaged in by the clinician.
Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index has proven to be equal
or superior to both human judges and configural models
as a discriminator between psychotic and neurotic MMPI
profiles in virtually every case.
In another study, Goldberg
(1972) attempted to classify
group rather than individual profiles by utilization of
several linear indexes.
Goldberg used group MMPI profiles
from over 200 groups including various normal, psychiatric,
and sociopathic classifications.
The sex of individual
group members was male, female, or mixed, depending on
which group they belonged to.
Goldberg introduced linear
models similar to his psychotic-neurotic index for discrimination between "normal" and "deviant" profiles, as well
as between "psychiatric" and "sociopathic" profiles.
19
The criteria used to judge the success of these indexes
were the diagnoses applied to the group profiles by
Goldberg's collaborators, who developed them from samples
of homogenous individual profiles.
Analysis of results
demonstrated that application of the psychotic-neurotic
index to group profiles was accurate in 93% of the cases.
Extreme accuracy found with this and other linear models
led Goldberg to conclude that scales and equations constructed on individual profile data may be very potent when
applied to group profiles.
It appears that basic processes
unique to various generally classified groups tend to be
magnified when group profiles are analyzed.
Hartman and Robertson (1972)
suggested possible
reasons for difficulties in obtaining adequate diagnostic
agreement between the MMPI and the Mini-Mult, when
configural models are used.
Gynther, Altman, and Sletten
(1963) have identified a set of two-point code types and
designated the correlates which are significantly related
to them.
One feature of two-point code types is that they
do not depend on a third scale, which is less likely to
remain constant on different profiles produced by the same
subject.
In other words, two MMPI profiles of the same
person are more likely to agree
(even by chance) on a
tentative diagnosis or personality description.
Gynther,
et al., have found that reciprocal two-point code types,
such as 2-1/1-2, have the same correlates in almost all
cases.
20
Hoffman and Butcher (1975) used two-point code types
(Gynther, Altman, and Sletten, 1973),
points, high F scales
as well as high scale
(T > 100), and other configural
codes in a study of the clinical limitations of three
abbreviated versions of the MMPI, including the MiniMult.
nosis.
They found a wide range of hit rates for psychodiagEach version predicted with different hit rates
for each MMPI configural pattern.
No short form consistently
predicted MMPI diagnoses for all code types better than
the other forms.
Each form worked better than the others
for several configuration patterns.
None of the three short
forms were found to predict configural patterns well enough
to be used in a broad clinical situation.
These authors
point out that the MMPI is a psychological tool with a
tremendous number of practical uses.
They also suggest
that if clinical goals are limited, certain instruments
which are valid for limited purposes may be valuable.
Hoffman and Butcher go on to cite a recent article
(Overall, Butcher, and Hunter, 1975)
in which the authors
report a high degree of success with a discriminant function
(unspecified) which seems to accurately differentiate
broad diagnostic categories, when applied to Dean's
168 item version of the MMPI.
(1973)
D.
Rationale
In the preceding sections of this chapter, the
foundations for the present study have been described.
This investigation will attempt to determine the feasibility
of applying Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index to scores
obtained on the Mini-Mult, an abbreviated version of the
MMPI,
for comparable diagnostic classification of patients
in a state psychiatric hospital.
A high degree of agreement
between Goldberg-MMPI diagnoses and Goldberg-Mini-Mult
(oral) diagnoses would illustrate the diagnostic capability
of the Mini-Mult, when processed with Goldberg's index.
It is hypothesized that the Mini-Mult can be used to
discriminate psychosis from neurosis as well as does the
MMPI.
One reason that Goldberg's rule may be particularly
effective in this study involves the specific scales it
employs.
Scales that the Mini-Mult appears to consistently
underestimate are not used to compute Goldberg's index.
In conjuction with the Goldberg comparison,
correlations
between scales for each form of the test will be determined
to find out how well the Mini-Mult is able to predict the
standard scale scores.
Profile high points will also be
compared, as well as two-point codes identified by Gynther,
et al.
(1973).
Obviously,
the success of all these methods
21
22
of comparison will depend, to some degree, on the correlation coefficients found between scales on the tests.
The two-point codes will be used because this method of
comparison eliminates,
for nearly all practical purposes,
the drawbacks to configural comparisons which Hartman and
Robertson
(1972) recognized.
The techniques used in this study were chosen for
their demonstrated superiority over some of those used
in previous investigations of the Mini-Mult.
The psychi-
atric population was chosen because previous studies have
shown that correlations between MMPI and Mini-Mult scales
are consistently higher for populations with more severe
mental disorders.
An important point to keep in mind is
that the main point of this research is the determination
of the applicability of Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index
to the Mini-Mult.
portance,
accuracy
Also of interest, but of lesser im-
is a close look at the increased diagnostic
(if any), or agreement between the MMPI and
Mini-Mult, provided by the use of two-point, rather than
three-point, code types for configural comparisons.
It is hypothesized that scale to scale correlations
will be highest in correlations of the first MMPI with the
internal Mini-Mult, which will be extracted from the first
MMPI, and of the two MMPI's.
results.
Kincannon
(1968) found these
Since the extracted Mini-Mult and the second
MMPI can be considered primary estimates of reliability,
23
correlations between the first MMPI and the oral Mini-Mult
should be lower than the correlations mentioned above.
This relationship should also hold for high-point and twopoint code comparisons.
It is further hypothesized that
there will be no significant difference between MMPI and
oral Mini-Mult classification decisions made by application
of Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index.
It is hypothesized
that the two-point codes will provide a higher degree of
diagnostic agreement between the MMPI and the Mini-Mult
than has been found with three-point code types.
It is important to realize that this is a limited
investigation of the clinical utility of the Mini-Mult.
should not be construed as an inquiry into the full-scale
clinical capability of the Mini-Mult.
It
CHAPTER II
METHODS SECTION
Instruments
A.
In order to examine the effectiveness of Goldberg's
psychotic-neurotic index, two personality inventories
were employed:
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI, Form R)
and the Mini-Mult
(oral question
form).
The MMPI is a lengthy self-report inventory which
is used to identify a number of outstanding personality
characteristics.
It consists of 566 statement items, of
which approximately seven-tenths are ordinarily scored in
clinical situations.
Items are answered "true" or "false"
on a separate answer sheet.
Objectivity is an important
feature of this instrument.
It may be scored by machine
or by the use of printed answer keys.
The reliability and
validity of the MMPI for a number of populations have been
well documented by Welsh and Dahlstrom (1956).
The Mini-Mult, an abbreviated form of the MMPI,
which includes the validity and basic clinical scales,
except scales 5 and 0, has been described in Chapter I of
this text.
The oral question version of the Mini-Mult
was used here.
The 71 question items are read aloud to
24
25
each subject by the examiner.
Subjects respond vocally to
indicate affirmative or negative answers.
records all responses.
scoring system.
The examiner
The Mini-Mult has an objective
Each response is noted and tallied according
to the scale or scales it happens to represent.
varous constants developed by Kincannon
Then
(1968) are applied
to each scale score so that Mini-Mult scores are comparable
to ordinary MMPI scores.
Various measures of reliability
and validity for the Mini-Mult are documented in Chapter
I of this paper.
B.
Subjects
Subjects involved in this study were 30 male residents
at the Austin State Hospital in Austin, Texas.
The subject
pool includes men from two geographic locations in Texas:
Travis and Harris Counties.
Males were selected as sub-
jects for the investigation since Goldberg
(1965) derived
his index for neurotic-psychotic discrimination from data
collected on male patients.
to 58,
Patients range in age from 20
and meet the criterion of literacy, which is necessary
for administration of the Form R MMPI.
Several other requirements limited the sampling
process in this case.
Hospital administration personnel
allowed patients of four institutional units to serve as
the population for this study.
Approximately three-fourths
of the potential members of the sample group were excluded.
26
ro i 11.0 I'll, m wk o wr*,%m N r--Cw N
N
N <m em
LON
qN NN
r
L
0
.H
N r-i
N
r-i
p
rs
o
4q
o
q
-
-l
4J
0
-H
*4
En.
H
4-
0
H
H
H
Ix
C-)
H
4C/
U
-ri
Cd
0
H
D
14
0
H
PH
0
U)
r-
m
44
En
>U)l
H
0
H
I
-p
En
E
CIC4hOOO
CN LO LO r*(N
NJ
I
I
I
I
I
I i
i
I
I
II rI I I I IrI
HHHH4 -ir-
I
r-HHHHi
r-i r--ir-r-
ro
0
z
z
4-
P
H
0
H
H
4J
0
-a)
ro
4d
NN N
N
N
-
(NJ 00 O Mm 0
I I I I
COHNir
H-HH-
En
r-I
N
CN
I I I I
Lt )C C
M -11 Ln o
-I
-I
)
H
H
rIH-
wCHmH
r-I
I I i N N
OHHOOC'i
No
I rH r-i \H
HHH
Or- r- HH
r- r-
HtLO
mHr-HHN
r-I r-q r- r-4 r-q
27
ON
i eN qq< o mm0:3 m oso
ql'
4q
LOi N m N N 194
C> o
N N N N m
0
0
-H
Y)mil U) CN r-
N
o
r-I r-
N
qv'C)
N
C
U)
P4
0
-Q)
4-)'o
HH':3C
V0Cqr
0
r-
ciA
-H
0
C
H
(N
H-i
I
NN
I
I
I
I
I
I
00 00 lqr RZrLo LO L
r-ir-
I I I I I
Hr-i
I I I
N N N CN CNNN N CN N
r-1i r-i r-I r-i r-I rH
Hr-i r- HHr- r-i r-r-i
N
r-i
r-I Hr-ra)
U
ro
4
-H-I
-H
0
0
0
(D
-J
-H
e
Q)--
NNN'i Q
I I I I
0-N' -iO
V
H
d
r-
V
LO
r-H
N
LN
N
&
N N r-i
r-i 00 N 0
0 r-HHHNN
r- r-i
-r -
4-)
14
N
i
I I
CN LO r-i CN
( N
r-I
Nl r-q
r-i
H
r--
r-
'04
A
-cd
H Hr-I
0
44
.
0 Lr
NNNNNNN
I I I I
OO)
-1
E-1
I
I
0
Uw
r-I
DLn 0r*cOm0 C)
0mHm r- Nm
r-i r-iN N NN N N N N N N m
Nco
28
Some were unable to sustain the concentration necessary
to complete the standard Form R MMPI.
because of medical disabilities.
Others were rejected
Some were uncooperative.
The men in this sample represent the entire portion of the
total male population which could be enlisted with the
assistance of the hospital staff, while also meeting the
subject criteria.
The subjects have been hospitalized for
periods ranging from a few days to almost 20 years.
Twenty-four of the 30 subjects have records of between
one and seven instances of hospitalization prior to
the present one.
Six subjects were in a psychiatric
hospital for the first time, with no record of previous
admissions.
The sample group is comprised of a set of
mixed neurotics and psychotics according to hospital
diagnoses based on observation,
interview, and case history
data.
C.
Procedure
First, all subjects completed a standard Form R MMPI.
On the following day, half took an oral Mini-Mult, while
the others completed- a second MMPI.
procedure was reversed.
On the third day, the
Each subject had completed two
Form R MMPI's and an oral Mini-Mult,
at this point.
oral form was used in this study since that was the
version used in Kincannon's original study.
The
29
Patients were informed that they were participating
in research which may benefit future hospital patients
by changing some
(nonspecific) admission procedures.
Administration of the MMPI is not an ordinary admission
procedure at this hospital.
After the three forms of the
scale had been administered and scored, all validity and
clinical scale raw scores, excluding scales 5 and 0, were
correlated between each form, and with raw scale scores
obtained from an internal Mini-Mult extracted from the
first administration of the MMPI.
Correlations will be
reported as Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficients.
MMPI1
- MMPI 2 ; MMPI 1 - oral Mini-Mult; MMPI2
oral Mini-Mult; MMPI1
- internal Mini-Mult; MMPI2
-
relations:
-
This statistical analysis will result in six sets of cor-
internal Mini-Mult; and oral Mini-Mult - internal Mini-Mult.
Student's t tests will be made to point out any significant
differences between mean scale scores.
Then, t tests will be run to determine whether there
are significant differences between percentages of diagnostic
agreement.
Correlations were also calculated
continuous scores, Goldberg's index)
combinations of test forms.
(on the
between the varous
Tests of significance were
made to determine the significance of these correlation
coefficients.
The next step will be to compare high-point scales and
two-point codes across all tests, and to compute percentages
of agreement among tests for both of these diagnostic
methods.
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
From the three test administrations,
scores were obtained,
four sets of
including the internal Mini-Mult
extracted from the first administration of the standard
MMPI.
These were the first standard administration (Ml),
the second standard administration
administered oral Mini-Mult
Mult
(E).
(M2 ), the independently
(0), and the internal Mini-
All Mini-Mult scores have been converted into
the appropriate standard scale scores for analysis of
results.
Table 2 summarizes the means and standard deviations
of the scale scores for both administrations of each
form of the test.
In almost every case,
the standard
deviations of the Mini-Mults were smaller than those of
the standard MMPI's.
marked for scales F,
The restriction in variablity was most
6, 8, and 9,
suggesting that the
Mini-Mult underestimates extreme elevations on those
scales.
The t tests for the various combinations of data sets
showed statistically significant differences between the
means for scales L, F,
3, 6,
7 and 8 on the M E comparison.
Significant differences were also found
30
(Table 3)
between
31
means for scales L, F, K,
6, 7, and 9 on the M1 0 comparison.
In fact, significant differences were found for several
scales
(L, F, K,
6, 7, and 8 being most frequent)
all comparisons with the sole exception of M 1 M 2 .
for
Even
though correlations between comparable scales were significant in nearly all comparisons
(Table 4), these
differences between means of comparable scales were found.
Also, while nearly all of the scale to scale correlations
were significant, many were fairly low.
Almost all of
these correlations were lower than those found by Kincannon
(1968)
in his original research with the Mini-Mult.
They
were higher though, than similar correlation coefficients
reported by Newton (1971), Armentrout
and Rouzer
(1970), and Armentrout
(1970).
The point of this study is to focus more on the
decisions- made by interpretation of the tests, than to
question the scale to scale correlations.
Of course, this
is affected by the comparability of the -scales, but the
interest of this investigation is to evaluate the outcomes
provided by use of each test.
Table 5 illustrates the
percentages of diagnostic agreement between various combinations of the two administrations of the two test forms.
The use of Goldberg's index provides scores which are
classified as psychotic or neurotic for each test protocol.
Accordingly,
Table 5 shows how much agreement was found
between test forms for these classifications.
Percentages
32
of diagnostic agreement were computed, also for high points
and two-point codes.
Goldberg's index was highly successful
as a method of diagnosis in most cases.
Goldberg's index
classified 29 M, protocols as psychotic and one as neurotic.
It classified 29 oral Mini-Mult protocols as psychotic
and one as neurotic.'
Goldberg's index classified 28 M2
protocols as psychotic and two as neurotic, while it
lableled 18 of the extracted Mini-Mult protocols psychotic
and 12 neurotic.
The two administrations of the MMPI
agreed on a general diagnosis made with Goldberg's index in
90% of the cases,While M,
and E agreed on only 63% of the cases.
Other comparisons involving the internal Mini-Mult resulted
in relatively low percentages of agreement.
Tests of
significance of these percentages indicate no statistically
significant differences in the diagnostic abilities
(a la Goldberg) of the MMPI, and the oral Mini-Mult.
Significant differences were found; however,
in the Goldberg
diagnostic abilities of the MMPI and the extracted
Mini-Mult.
These differences were present in the diagnostic
abilities of the two Mini-Mults, also.
These differences
in percentages of agreement indicate that the oral MiniMult is a better diagnostic predictor of the MMPI than the
extracted Mini-Mult, regardless of
scale to scale corre-
lations.
Scale high-point comparisons were found to show less
agreement than was possible by the use of Goldberg's
33
index.
Comparisons of the standard forms and the Mini-
Mults resulted in percentages of agreement which were
comparable to percentages found by most other investigators,
including Kincannon
(1968), Armentrout and Rouzer
and Hartman and Robertson
(1972).
(1970),
The two-point codes
were less successful than the high-point codes when
percentages of agreement were calculated.
Even so, the
two-point codes provided higher agreement between the
MMPI and the oral Mini-Mult with this psychiatric sample
than Armentrout and Rouzer
(1970) found when they used a
similar method of profile analysis for a group of delinqpents.
Gynther, Altman, and Sletten
(1973) identify,
along with two-point codes, a high F scale raw score
(F
> 25) with a set of replicated correlates.
of agreement on this measure were as follows:
30%; M1 0 = 10%; M 1 E = 13%; M 2 E = 10%; M 2 0 -
Percentages
M1 M 2 =
7%; OE = 10%.
The fact that these percentages are lower than those for
high-points and two-point codes must be carefully considered.
For example, these percentages represent agreement between
test forms on only one scale, while the high-point percentages represent the occurrence of agreement on any one
of several possible clinical scales.
Table 6 shows correlation coefficients found for
continuous scores on Goldberg's index for the various
combinations of the test forms.
Values of p included
on the table signify that only the correlation coefficients
34
for the M 1 M 2 , M 1 E, and M 2 0 comparisons were statistically
significant.
This table, when compared with Table 5,
reveals a possible complication involved in the dichotomy
of psychotic-neurotic that Goldberg's index provides.
For the M 1 M2
combination, the percentage of agreement was
high and the correlation was significant.
held true for the M 2 0 combination.
The same
The M1 0 combination had
an insignificant correlation with a high percentage of
agreement on Goldberg's index.
This difference is probably,
not necessarily, due to sampling error.
A significant
correlation coefficient with a low percentage of agreement
is found in comparing the data for the M1 E combination on
Tables 5 and 6.
This is not what would be expected in
view of the dramatic differences found between the oral
Mini-Mult and the extracted internal Mini-Mult.
It may be
that the relatively high scale to scale correlations for
the M 1 E comparison resulted in a significant correlation
coefficient for the continuous Goldberg scores.
diagnostic ability of the extracted Mini-Mult
The poor
(Table 5)
seems to be a result of a drastically low mean score on
Goldberg's index
(Table 7).
tests are quite a bit higher.
Mean scores for the other
35
<0
LO W mm m qql owC) 4O
0
m m q
-H
i
r
L4LO
m Co
r-
-o
oo~r-~~r'
0
-H
-4
4-)
Ui)
-H
-H
rd
In
ro
0
z m r-- B >qv-io(Y
ro)HCO
m t0 > ) m flHLC
HO Lr- nNor-N H
r-N r-i r-i N N N r-I (m) o rN
(RI
H
rd
0
&0
OO-c'OOC
5
0
5
*
0
Ul)
H
OC'W)
S
0
5
L
S
S
S
0C
0
0C
0
cOmOON'mOO
0
pi
5
0
S
n
0
H
S
0
V H C &T
C-\J-HHHCN ri
-io
)
r14
\1
E-1
-.
_______________________
0
r-
r-
z
[ii
z-
0
En
r-
4J
P4
0
ohm IT 4:1 mN
M r-i
o m "ZI m M -
0
H
om
-
i oh e
q lo
0
.H
-P
rd
-H
r0
-)
U)
.-H
L0 O 50oL &
H-
--
05
0
m OO
N
0
LO
r-i
N
MNHN
-4
rp
.q na- o M-i Lnr-i CN a)
o Ln r..- ko m mr-i o Ln mo o
H4
0
*0
0
0
5 *
0
0
0
#
OCOO-H
LCLOLO
-)
LoCr) 0%- 0C)
m toQ0
00 00 00 m R 00 Coi-i 0 o n co
.14:T Mr-4 -- Ln m 0 o OLn q 1
r-i r-
HHQ r-c o0a)
r-iN %o
0)
.-
rc.,
r-i NN
C
N M m ;r N
36
-K
-K-KK
4 1
H-HH
I
to
z0
H
I
H
I
H 4P4
LO LO M3 m 0) LO
C0000 NN'r,- o
00 LO ) Y
0
(Y nH N
000
I
-H- H
;
I
No
CN a
ro
'c:T CY) 00 (N
a
-H I
2
0
H
0
(N
-H
HOC)
r- co -oL 0 0 CN on
r-i 10
C
-'-H
E0
I
0
C)
I
H
I
z
ri 0o
E-
H
04
41
-o
U)
z
0
0
z
H
C)
H
Cd
.
-H-
43
- 4
4-)
$4-H
rc C0
0 1
-K
:E
H
4
roC p r--H-
I4
4-)JrdO
'K
Oi H- CC C3 O3 H
HO<r- H
r-i
rd
rd O H
m m a) cq
IIo
-I
z0
4-4
d|
*
U)
I
-H
r O
C-) 0 00 CL')
0
EU)
H
P:i
MCI, H
mmCN@LC) 0 O 00
Lo o
P
-H -H C
CC) (Y Nq11:3
.
.
.
E(d a
<
-H
-H. -PC
I r-i-Ha
-
C)
H
4
r-H0
'
EC
0
N IC.0
00(
-K
CN 4cr-i
0
)
r k
I
.
0
IC) 4
CC)m
Ln or,
m 00 0 HCoCC
C-
II
E-i
A -H X
(rdo
(N
H
0
0
---
T
*
0
0
0
0
OOOOOOOOOOH
H
r-I
N
0
EH
(n
U)
0
<
w
0
C0
v
11
a),.o
rd (d
(d U) 4-)
04
> r
I r-
0
P- 0 -H
4 ( Wr--
11111
r- I
I oo
L)
..
Qv 4-0
Z
-K
ad
1clC
37
I
r4
0-4-
4-)
H
0
r-
. -K
.
-K-
--
-O.L
--
-H40
0
0
4-)
0
44 Z
0
H
E-
MC
4
m r- mm wQ
0
P4
0
I-I
E---i
rT4
C
-H
H
mNC4rO-Il0C
-
-
-
4-H
NN
.0 -
L
-.r O
-H
ri
L.--m
0
C)
ID4
0
(N
z0E-1
I
to & <
0 rd
4C
E
Lo
P
4
0O0
OO
-H
to
-H P
444
-H
E
-H
4J-
to
N
HCe
C)Otooa
-H
Q
LOco
ers
LC
O O
-K
0)
to
)
:
4-4k
(0 4
-H
Q4
4-)
0
0
4
u
$-4 (0 r
w %%-to
-H
rd O
-
0
C)
U)
)
H
12:
H
C0)
CU)
0
H
Sr
m
H
-
r
r-
1
m
t
r
m w
t
to
m0
.- z O
w
0
4
(NJ
H-i
H
0
04-
P.
Va
v *-H
-H
4M
0
-
z
p to d
H d-H rd
C
to t:1
P4
H
Cd
-K
0-K C
- H
U-~l
4 PZ4
r--l N M qzl' t- r%- M
H E-a
0 rd
C
*0
V H
0
H
Cd Ird
0
-
P~
-H P o
04
-. Ic Cd
C)
0)
r-I
Cd
- N
a.
H.-
Im
e
O rN CO
38
4-)
r01
0
0
.H
4-)
-
m~
rd rd
4-)H0H'
IC
N
(n)
N**
H-
0
z
H
E-i
P
0
z
rE-
0
pq
u
a
)
04-)
O
0
E-i
pq
N
N
-H
-d
~
-H
-H
rO0
$ -H
-dcd
4-I rrd4-P
od4-J
(d
,0Q
pq
H
pq
E-1
Ed
E1
P4 rd o
0
H
zP4
z
H
C)
-z|
co
0
H
E-
?
0
LC)
0 ro
0
(N
||rd
ro1
a)
E -H
.H E
H
0
Ord
-Pa)
0
E1
0
N
U
-
Hr
-H
00-1
Cd& cd
re o
Mcd CW
(d4J -Hm a)
0
P)
H
E-
C
U)
(n
0
-H
(d
P
F
Uo
r o
4
z
o
N
o
C?)
L
-c4-
H
0
z
P4
vI 4-)0
U)
Ea
-H
U)
0
rO
01)
0 (d
a)
-q H
.44-4
4
o
-4
0
0
-Ki
In
4-)
-H
-)
0
-H
0
m
P0 0
0 u
-H
ro
O
we
39
L
o(3
-H
CN
0
-0
-4
LCr)
0
z 11 x-0
-H
c0
-PH
o
x
-H 0
oi
0) N
o -HISM
Cn4-
C4
0
W
(10
4-Cd-H
- i
(
U)
u
H
E0
H
P1
E-q
H
E-j
0
0
E
S 4-) C
n-H
-H -P
4Jr= U)
z
H
(n
m
U
04
H
0
P-1
0
r4
E-1
0
04
H
0
H
124
LO
co
pq
E-i
H
H
:3:
-H
0
z4
4-0
rd
0.1
11 ro a)
,.U
0
H
E o'
r-
E-i
0
po
M
Z 4-
o -H
E-4
I-
v
rP4
4- H 4-
0
I
0
H
ON
LO
c-
-
A
0
z
E-1
0
u
C"
r-
H
V
-4-) I
IIw -H 4-
04
0
-H
I0
rCd C
0
-H
-P
C
-H
0
0
H
-P6
)
H
0
H
E-
TABLE 7
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF GOLDBERG'S
INDEX SCORES FOR THE TWO ADMINISTRATIONS
OF THE TWO FORMS
Test
M
SD
MMPI
(M1 )
85.47
26.40
MMPI
(M2 )
86.40
25.49
70.93
18.00
53.53
18.07
Oral Mini-Mult
(0)
Extracted Mini-Mult (E)
40
CHAPTER III
DISCUSSION
The bulk of the evidence produced in this study
differences between Goldberg - MMPI diagnoses and Goldberg
-
indicates that there are no statistically significant
This means that the oral Mini-
Mini-Mult (0) diagnoses.
Mult is as efficient a discriminator of psychosis and
neurosis as is the standard MMPI, when the decision is based
Goldberg's method of discri-
on Goldberg's index scores.
mination enjoyed much better success than did the Meehl and
Dahlstrom rules for psychotic-neurotic discrimination,
when Harford, et al.
(1972) applied them to the Mini-Mult
comparison with the MMPI.
One point to keep in mind when
considering the results discovered in this study is that
approximately 83% of the subjects were psychotic according
to hospital diagnoses.
Research of this kind usually
is based on a sample group
divided
(or groups)
which is more evenly
(i.e., 50% psychotic and 50% neurotic).
This type
of representative sample was difficult to obtain from the
population being examined.
Therefore,
the results of this
study should be applicable for similar populations.
Generalization to different populations must be made with
extreme care.
41
42
The Mini-Mult's tendency to underestimate extreme
elevations of certain scales was not a problem in this
study.
Scales F and 9 are not employed in the computation
of Goldberg's index.
Apparently,
the subjects in this
psychiatric sample scored high enough on scales 6 and 8 of
the Mini-Mults that any underestimates of the scores
were unimportant.
Indeed, the tendency of the Mini to
underestimate scales 6 and 8 may be a result of sampling
error,
since Kincannon
(1968) and Lacks
(1970) failed
to arrive at the same conclusion with their samples of
psychiatric patients.
It would be interesting to determine the actual
degree of general (psychotic vs. neurotic) diagnostic
accuracy allowed by the two-point codes for which Gynther,
et al.
(1973) found replicated correlates.
However, it
was prevented in this study by the sample size and by
the nature of the replicated correlates.
In many cases,
a two-point code type is not labeled psychotic,
or anything else.
neurotic,
The reason is that behavioral correlates
are used rather than broad classification categories.
Some code types can clearly be labeled "psychotic" or
"neurotic" on the basis of the behavioral correlates.
Others cannot be separated so easily.
For limited clinical applicability in a psychiatric
hospital,
the oral form of the Mini-Mult appears to work
as well as the standard MMPI.
Its applicability is
43
restricted to simple discrimination between psychosis and
neurosis in a population of hospitalized psychiatric
patients.
Since this is such a limited purpose,
and since
only six scales are involved in computation of Goldberg's
index
(for the discrimination), it seems reasonable to
believe that the length of the Mini-Mult could be further
reduced.
Kincannon
(1968) realized that changes in
context might have a significant impact on the functioning
of the scales of the Mini-Mult when compared with the MMPI.
He cites several articles which indicate any differences in
the functioning of the Mini-Mult scales are negligible.
Therefore, it seems likely that an abbreviation of the
oral Mini-Mult, which included only those questions found
on scales L, 6,
8, 7, and 3 (scales used to compute
Goldberg's index) would work as well as both the MMPI
and the oral Mini-Mult as a diagnostic discriminator.
Such an abbreviation would accomplish the same goal while
further reducing the amount of time and effort required
for administration and scoring.
The abbreviation would be
composed of 51 orally administered questions.
The reduction
in size compared to the oral question form of the Mini-Mult
would be about 28%.
An equal reduction of required time
for administration and scoring would also be possible.
The ability of Goldberg's index to discriminate
between psychotic and neurotic profiles seems to work as
well for the oral Mini-Mult as it does for the standard MMPI.
44
The abbreviated Mini-Mult, then, would be a selection of 51
MMPI statements
(in oral question form) which could be
used to discriminate psychosis from neurosis with as much
accuracy as the MMPI itself, for populations of hospitalized
psychiatric patients.
APPENDIX
TABLES 8 - 21
46
#O
0
0
4I-)
-H
C
-H
r;
-H
N k- m m m
m 493 m
o 0 lo
m Itil %.0 m
.
r-H
p
m m r- qr .0Q Q
t D. L r-i
Hr
%1.0 m
m
r0
0
:3
0
E-
0
H
O 0 m t-D wIC . LO
P.4
0
00 LO)My t-0 Q m N
H 00 LO 0
H
H
r-I
Or-i
HMNM
r-
- r
rro
U)
(n
OD
0
SH
H
r-12
.0
U))
0
H
U)
ON (3. L CN 2 "p.. TT 0 r. 0 0. ) W-11
.: 0 qc 2 pa
H
-
0
H
Li)
z
0
LO
0
U
(Y
EH
z
F-
0
rd
Q qll
q LO
qg
& ~orl-LO
0
qcr Q r- Iq N LO
0
0
-p
-H
-H
0
(1
41
-H
0
ri
4-
-i
0
4
-H
rO
4
rO
H
00
0r-I)
0
0
-H
4-)
0
>1
(12
Il
0
-)
(1)
-H
N
.O00(N
0
r- i
o
LO
0
r-i ri
)00R
LO N
Lr) 0) 110 m00 0O
r-I
N r-
toQn 0
- - r-i
Cd
-I
P4
-)
r-
(Y)
0N rLO
rC-0Lr-
r-HHH-
M T.0
C)N
r- r-q e-I
H-
-C
I
47
0
0
-H
4-)
4-)
-H
Cd
EH
H
-H
-H
ooMNHH
C r-JiHHM
I (r-
r---r-m
M LO M
t
0
r*.-m nmmm o
mOm
t12
To
0
0
C
Cl
E-4
rz~
-H
H
0
u
En
00
p
P4
il)
H
z
U
0
Cl)
Ul)
mm
:3
o 9,L
r-I
co
w-m M LO
.OLOOOOH
r-i
rrr-Ir-I- r-i
ro
x
e4G)
ro
-H
0
C)
0
PA
ro
z
0 rQ
Ul)
0
0
M Or-oNN
P4
O0
H
H
H
one oN
mi r-
~
m
-H
k-
0
DN m r- Q0%-0 e.O
94I N m r-- m w
0
SO
0
00
C)
E l)
(
o c %1to
H
-
To
0
P4
H
r nV
r14
0
0
H
4-) -H
0 4-)
4
0
-H
() p
o
r
m
Cl)
t-
r-
Q
C
0
..- m00wCo0
r-i
C r-
Mmr-C\Lor*a)
@ r-I T
0Hr-i
C mLCN
r-
HHH-i r-i
r4
Cl)
Cdcd1
II
-p
C-)
0i)
Q4
0
04
toce
I
-K-
%
r-H
l 00O1)H0-N m z in0o 0 co 0
H- r- r-N N N N N
NN
NNN
m
TABLE 9
HIGH POINT SCALES ON THE FOUR TESTS
Test
m20
Subject
m
8
8
2
2
4
2
4
4
8
8
8
8
8
2
8
4
7
8
8
8
8
8
2
7
2
9
4
8
6
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
Note:
8
8
2
2
8
4
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
2
1
3
2
8
8
9
8
8
2
8
8
4
8
8
9
6
E
6
2
8
2
6
2
3
4
1
8
6
8
8
2
4
2
4
8
8
6
8
8
2
4
7
9
4
8
8
7
7
2
2
2
4
2
4
4
2
2
6
3
2
4
1
1
4
4
1
1
4
9
2
4
2
9
4
8
4
7
Mi=MMPI-first standard adminiAbbreviated:
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration, E=
extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Ml.
48
TABLE 10
TWO-POINT CODES ON THE FOUR TESTS
Test
Subject
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
8-6
8-6
2-8
2-8
4-8
2-4
4-9
4-7
8-7
8-7
8-6
8-6
8-7
2-4
8-1
4-2
7-2
8-2
8-1
8-1
8-6
8-6
2-4
7-8
2-6
9-8
4-6
8-6
6-8
6-8
Note:
M
0
E
8-6
8-6
2-7
2-8
8-2
4-1
2-4
8-6
8-6
8-1
8-9
8-6
8-7
2-8
1-8
3-1
2-7
8-6
8-4
9-6
8-6
8-4
2-7
8-6
8-7
4-9
8-6
8-6
9-6
6-8
6-8
2-7
8-4
2-7
6-4
2-4
3-2
4-8
1-8
8-7
6-4
8-4
8-2
2-4
4-6
2-8
4-1
8-2
8-4
6-4
8-2
8-2
2-7
4-8
7-2
9-4
4-8
8-6
8-4
7-8
7-4
2-4
2-7
2-7
4-1
2-4
4-3
4-1
2-1
2-4
6-4
4-6
2-3
4-2
1-2
1-2
4-3
4-2
1-2
1-2
4-6
9-4
2-4
4-7
2-7
9-4
4-3
8-2
4-6
7-8
M =MMPI-first standard adminiAbbreviated:
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration, E=
extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1.
49
TABLE 11
RAW SCORES ON SCALE L ON THE FOUR TESTS
Test
Subject
m
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9,
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
m2
4
6
3
6
7
3
11
12
5
2
5
3
3
6
8
3
14
12
2
2
1
0
0
6
3
10
3
9
3
7
6
1
2
3
12
4
9
1
8
7
3
9
5
3
3
4
8
9
1
4
5
4
2
6
4
1
1
3
3
2
Note:
0
E
4
8
6
6
10
4
10
10
6
6
2
4
4
8
10
10
12
2
12
12
8
6
8
8
6
6
4
2
4
6
6
4
4
8
6
6
10
8
4
4
2
2
6
4
10
6
10
2
8
6
10
2
6
6
4
4
6
4
4
4
Abbreviated:
Mi=MMPI-first standard administration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Mi.
50
TABLE 12
RAW SCORES ON SCALE F ON THE FOUR TESTS
Test
Subject
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
m
M2
0
E
16
29
8
10
28
7
6
14
28
35
21
37
11
5
27
7
4
32
34
31
25
11
9
20
19
11
22
31
31
27
18
19
10
13
18
6
25
25
37
40
19
40
16
10
18
8
4
34
31
6
26
23
6
34
20
3
36
33
32
29
16
11
14
23
6
9
21
4
4
16
21
28
21
28
4
4
14
6
4
28
18
16
16
28
6
11
16
14
9
16
23
23
9
6
14
2
11
11
9
30
6
25
9
4
11
6
4
23
11
16
16
28
2
11
11
14
6
23
11
14
Mi=MMPI-first standard adminiNote: Abbreviated:
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Mi.
51
TABLE 13
RAW SCORES ON SCALE K ON THE FOUR TESTS
Test
Subject
E
m0M2
1
10
16
13
17
19
15
27
18
5
9
8
10
11
15
17
14
13
25
18
10
6
4
6
10
10
14
14
25
11
13
15
10
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
1
8
11
25
16
25
7
10
18
4
24
4
9
12
18
13
2
3
16
0
4
14
11
13
18
5
4
16
11
11
13
14
17
17
11
24
18
14
13
11
11
7
11
20
13
24
11
21
20
11
7
8
18
15
14
18
7
10
15
14
20
14
11
20
17
13
8
5
8
10
13
11
14
24
11
13
11
14
4
7
17
14
13
18
8
7
18
M =MMPI-first standard adminiAbbreviated:
stration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M 1
.
Note:
11
52
TABLE 14
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 1 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Test
Subjects
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
16
26
11
16
29
18
25
21
18
34
12
24
14
18
29
19
18
20
19
14
6
28
10
15
23
10
21
11
16
20
15
24
13
19
23
16
14
18
23
30
9
21
15
18
22
18
16
19
29
24
13
10
10
19
27
8
19
14
14
19
0
E
18
21
11
15
21
12
16
13
21
32
10
20
12
20
12
17
18
20
15
12
14
26
12
22
15
18
25
12
14
19
23
24
9
16
15
23
20
23
18
16
25
22
17
10
14
14
11
26
9
13
18
15
12
21
27
9
19
20
18
19
*K=corrected scores.
M 1 =MMPI-first standard adminiNote: Abbreviated:
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Mi.
53
TABLE 15
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 2 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Test
Subject
m20
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
24
27
25
34
38
19
39
32
23
34
22
30
23
27
33
23
25
30
21
20
18
30
28
26
35
15
24
19
18
42
21
32
26
33
30
25
17
24
29
39
20
31
23
31
27
24
25
37
27
28
24
20
27
30
39
11
20
20
15
43
22
29
26
29
29
20
22
22
18
38
18
29
22
22
16
26
22
38
26
18
29
35
33
28
40
16
16
29
24
29
22
31
26
31
28
24
16
20
31
38
22
24
28
29
26
26
22
33
31
28
26
26
31
28
40
16
24
33
24
35
*K=corrected scores.
Note:
Abbreviated:
M 1 =MMPI-first standard administration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken
from M
1
.
1
E
54
TABLE 16
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 3 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Subj ect
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
17
31
18
24
21
25
20
23
28
31
17
24
21
25
20
25
26
28
33
30
20
13
15
29
39
14
27
16
22
34
0
E
16
30
17
22
38
24
37
28
19
34
16
26
17
23
32
29
26
26
34
16
9
32
14
20
30
16
25
15
20
38
24
30
24
21
29
19
29
19
24
38
19
22
16
25
19
23
24
32
27
21
21
20
25
22
38
15
22
24
24
24
21
25
22
25
27
21
24
21
25
38
19
21
22
32
22
27
27
29
30
27
24
16
21
33
40
14
29
22
29
33
*K=corrected scores.
Note:
Abbreviated:
M 1 =MMPI-first standard administration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M 1
.
1
Test
m2
55
TABLE 17
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 4 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
m
Test
m2
0
E
29
34
24
27
39
27
28
34
25
36
27
35
18
32
23
28
27
31
32
23
27
25
27
32
31
22
38
24
32
36
30
35
24
28
34
30
37
27
25
39
28
30
19
26
36
25
27
33
34
18
18
38
24
28
37
28
33
22
30
38
27
30
29
28
32
22
21
30
22
40
24
39
24
29
29
23
26
36
31
24
29
29
26
30
38
24
22
28
36
32
29
32
24
28
36
25
26
30
31
36
28
33
24
33
25
24
30
36
26
20
36
30
29
30
39
28
33
31
36
32
Subject
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
*K=corrected scores.
Abbreviated: M 1 =MMPI-first standard administration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M 1
.
Note:
56
TABLE 18
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 6 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Test
Subject
E
Mm
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
19
21
9
11
15
8
14
21
23
26
15
26
17
11
19
13
11
24
17
11
21
20
12
20
22
8
20
22
25
34
19
22
13
11
16
14
13
10
23
24
18
25
13
14
15
8
14
24
23
9
21
25
13
19
25
11
21
24
25
31
21
12
8
14
22
7
12
10
8
22
12
22
8
7
14
7
12
22
10
12
14
21
14
19
17
12
10
21
17
12
13
17
10
10
12
10
10
8
17
17
17
19
10
12
8
7
14
15
12
8
19
17
14
15
21
12
15
17
19
22
*K = corrected scores.
Note:
Abbreviated:
M 1 =MMPI-first standard administration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Ml.
57
TABLE 19
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 7 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Test
Subject
mM2
37
39
25
36
33
28
33
37
33
46
28
29
44
34
35
27
32
39
33
21
32
39
33
38
46
26
35
38
35
40
36
37
28
36
31
29
26
34
45
47
29
32
34
35
30
24
33
35
42
32
39
38
32
47
42
22
31
43
34
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
0
E
34
36
32
35
33
20
28
22
20
50
22
28
25
27
24
22
30
48
34
24
34
37
38
41
52
20
27
39
35
40
37
31
30
36
32
22
22
23
36
38
21
21
28
33
27
25
26
31
36
29
25
31
30
42
46
22
31
35
30
41
*K=corrected scores.
Abbreviated:
M 1 =MMPI-first
standard admini-
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1
.
Note:
58
TABLE 20
RAW SCORES ON SCALE
8 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Test
Subject
E
MM2
1
54
53
27
40
50
28
43
46
52
70
43
58
50
35
45
32
30
61
50
21
50
51
27
54
49
27
47
50
44
58
50
56
31
40
45
31
31
33
55
65
46
63
36
37
42
27
27
66
49
44
54
59
28
45
46
30
39
58
45
57
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
24
35
29
30
35
18
22
30
34
32
23
34
20
28
24
27
28
37
26
24
24
28
17
32
40
22
22
45
33
44
40
34
38
32
38
21
28
28
29
67
21
54
31
32
30
31
28
62
39
24
40
53
32
44
50
29
36
50
45
39
*K=corrected scores.
Abbreviated:
M 1 =MMPI-first standard admini-
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M 1
.
Note:
59
TABLE 21
RAW SCORES ON SCALE 9 ON THE FOUR TESTS*
Test
m2
Subjects
24
20
19
14
21
24
17
20
33
30
27
31
30
15
19
21
17
32
27
23
29
22
19
24
24
24
23
29
26
24
15
11
18
21
25
25
29
28
24
32
25
15
27
23
17
33
29
25
30
34
20
29
20
28
30
27
34
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
37
20
E
24
16
18
13
20
19
16
19
20
23
17
27
19
19
17
14
16
26
24
15
22
23
19
22
27
23
22
26
26
23
22
19
16
15
20
12
23
20
27
26
23
27
17
16
20
20
16
26
18
22
23
28
19
21
25
30
24
22
26
21
*K=corrected scores.
Note:
M 1 =MMPI-first standard adminiAbbreviated:
stration, M 2 =MMPI-second standard administration,
O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,
E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Ml.
60
REFERENCES
The psychometric
Anderson, A. L., and Hanvik, L. J.
The differential
lesions:
brain
of
localization
on MMPI
lesions
parietal
and
effect of frontal
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1959,
profiles.
6, 177-180.
Correspondence of the MMPI and MiniArmentrout, J. A.
Journal of Clinical
Mult in a college population.
493-495.
26(4),
1970,
Psychology,
Utility of the
Armentrout, J. A., and Rouzer, D. L.
Journal of Consulting
Mini-Mult with delinquents.
and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 450.
Bier, W. C. A comparative study of a seminary group
Studies in
and four other groups on the MMPI.
University
Catholic
the
of
Psychiatry
Psychology and
1-107.
7,
1948,
of America,
MMPI profiles in multiple sclerosis.
Canter, A. H.
1951, 15, 253-256.
Journal of Consulting Psychology.
The Midi-Mult.
A lengthened Mini:
Dean, E. G.
28, 68-71.
1972,
Psychology,
of Clinical
Journal
Farberow, N. L. Personality patterns of suicidal mental
Genetics Psychological Monographs,
hospital patients.
1950, 42, 3-80.
Utility of the MiniGaylon, W. F., and Wilson, W. T.
Journal of
setting.
clinic
guidance
child
a
Mult in
569-575.
35(6),
1971,
Personality Assessment,
EducaGhiselli, E. E. The prediction of predictability.
3-8.
20,
tional and Psychological Measurement, 1960,
Ghiselli, E. E. Differentiation of individuals in terms
Journal of Applied Psyof their predictability.
chology, 1956, 40, 374-377.
Ghiselli, E. E. Moderating effects and differential
Journal of Applied Psyreliability and validity.
chology, 1963, 47, 81-86.
61
62
Goldberg, L. R. Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs:
The diagnosis of psychosis vs neurosis from the
MMPI. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 79,
(Whole No. 602).
Goldberg, L. R. The search for configural relationships
The diagnosis of psyin personality assessment:
Multivariate
MMPI.
the
from
neurosis
vs.
chosis
523-536.
4,
1969,
Behavioral Research,
A rationale,
Goldberg, L. R. Man vs. model of man:
plus some evidence, for a method of improving on
clinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 1970,
73, 422-432.
Simple models or simple processes? Some
Goldberg, L. R.
research on clinical judgments. American Psychologist,
1968, 23, 483-496.
Some recent trends in personality
Goldberg, L. R.
Journal of Personality Assessment,
assessment.
36(6), 547-560.
1972.
Regional differences in MMPI responses
Goodstein, L. D.
Journal of Consulting
among male college students.
Psychology, 1954b, 1_8, 437-441.
Diagnostic patterns on the MMPI.
Gough, H. G.
of Clinical Psychology, 1946, 2, 23-37.
Journal
Guthrie, G. M.,. Six MMPI diagnostic profile patterns.
Journal of Psychology, 1950,. 30, 317-323.
Replicated
Gynther, M. D., Altman, H., and Sletten, I. W.
The Missouri
correlates of MMPI two-point code types:
Journal of Clinical Psychology,
Actuarial System.
(Monograph)
1973, 29(3), 268-289.
Effects of morphine and
Haertzen, C. A., and Hill, H. E.
phenobarbital on differential MMPI profiles.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1959, 15, 434-437.
MMPI profiles in patients with low back
Hanvik, L. J.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15,
pain.
350-353.
Harford, T., Lubetkin, B., and Alpert, G. Comparison
of standard MMPI and the Mini-Mult in a psychiatric
Journal of Consulting and Clinical
outpatient clinic.
243-245.
39(2),
1972,
Psychology,
63
the comparison of the
Hartman, G., and Robertson, M.
a
community mental health
in
MMPI
Mini-Mult and the
Proceedings of the Annual Convention of the
agency.
APA, 1972, 7(1), 33-34.
Objective configural rules for discriminating
Henrichs, T.
Journal
MMPI profiles in a psychiatric population.
of Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20, 157-159.
Clinical limitations of
Hoffman, N. G., and Butcher, J. N.
Journal of Consulting and
three MMPI short forms.
Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43(1), 32-39.
Cue-consistency and configurality in human
Hoffman, P. J.
In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal Representation
judgment.
Wiley, 1968.
New York:
Judgment.
of Human
Somatization and other neurotic reactions
Hovey, H. B.
Journal of Clinical Psychology,
and MMPI profiles.
1949, 5, 153-156.
MMPI profiles and personality characteristics.
Hovey, H. B.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17,,142-146.
Prediction of the standard MMPI scale
Kincannon, J. C.
Journal of
the Mini-Mult.
scores from 71 items:
Consulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 490.
Further investigation of the Mini-Mult.
Lacks, P. B.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970,
35(1), 126-127.
an evaluation of its usefulness
MMPI:
Leverenz, C. W.
in the psychiatric service of a station hospital.
War Medicine, 1943, 4, 618-629.
Short-term stability of
Lichtenstein, E. and Bryan, J.
Journal of Consulting Psychology,
MMPI profiles.
1966, 30, 172-174.
Profile analysis of the MMPI in differential
Meehl, P. E.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 1946, 30,
diagnosis.
517-524.
Objective configural
Meehl, G. J., and Dahlstrom, W. G.
rules for discriminating psychotic from neurotic
Journal of Consulting Psychology,
MMPI profiles.
1960, 24, 375-387.
A study of the MMPI in clinical practice
Modlin, H. C.
with notes on the Cornell Index. American Journal
of Psychiatry, 1947, 103, 758-769.
64
The fallacy of the short form.
Mumpower, D. L.
of Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20, 111-113.
Journal
Comparative
Overall, J. E., Butcher, J. N. and Hunter, S.
validity of alternative MMPI scoring procedures.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975,
in press.
Palmer, A. B. A comparison of the MMPI and Mini-Mult
in a sample of state mental hospital patients.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 29(4), 484-485.
Predicting hospitalization of psychiatric
Peterson, D. R.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psyoutpatients.
chology, 1954, 49, 260-265.
The perception: A theory of statistical
Rosenblatt, F.
Cornell
Buffalo:
separability in cognitive systems.
Aeronautical Laboratory, Inc., Report No. VG-1196-G-1,
1958.
Saunders, D. R. voderator variables in prediction.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1956, 16,
209-222.
The
Test profiles as a diagnostic aid:
Schmidt, H. 0.
Journal of Applied
Minnesota Multiphasic Inventory.
Psychology, 1945, 29, 115-131.
"Validity" of short-form intelligence
Silverstein, A. B.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965,
tests.
29, 392-383.
Stilson, D. W., and Astrup, C. Nonlinear and additive
methods for long-term prognosis in the functional
Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,
psychoses.
1966, 141, 468-473.
Personality characteristics of selected
Weiner, D. N.
Journal of Clinical Psychology,
disability groups.
1948, 4, 285-290.
Norms for the MMPI with student nurses.
Weisgerber, C. A.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1954, 10, 192-194.
Basic readings on the
Welsh, G. S. and Dahlstrom, W. G.
UniverMinneapolis:
MMPI in psychology and medicine.
sity of Minnesota Press, 1956.