Comparability of MMP-2-RF with MMPI-2 in assessing psychiatric patients: A shortfall. Leone, C., Mosticoni, S., Iannella, F., Biondi, M., & Butcher, J.N. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 48, 282-285.
![mmpi 2 test questions pdf mmpi 2 test questions pdf](https://econtent.hogrefe.com/cms/10.1027/1016-9040.12.3.206/asset/images/medium/epp1203206tbl1a.gif)
Response to Ben-Porath’s update to Williams and lally (2017). The personality psychopathology five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI-2 scales. Harkness A.R., McNulty, J.L., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF: An interpretive manual (3rd ed.). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). National Psychologist, November/December, pp 1, 5. MMPI-3: Revision of the MMPi-2 or marketing hype. New York, NY: Routledge.įriedman, A.F., & Nichols, D.S. Psychological Assessment with the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF. Washington, DC: Federal Aviation Administration.įriedman, A.
![mmpi 2 test questions pdf mmpi 2 test questions pdf](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/wt2xsDxIris/maxresdefault.jpg)
Guide for aviation medical examiners: Decision considerations, disease protocols, psychiatric and psychological evaluations. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.įAA (2013). Essentials of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 7, 320-329.īutcher, J.N., & Williams, C.L. Methodological problems and issues in MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A research. Professional Psychology Research and Practice, 48, 275-278.īutcher, J.N., Graham, J.R., & Ben-Porath, Y.S. An update to Williams and Lally’s (2017) analysis of MMPI-2-RF acceptance. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.īen-Porath, Y. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.īen-Porath, Y. Does the â€new†MMPI beat the â€classicâ€? APA Monitor, pp.
![mmpi 2 test questions pdf mmpi 2 test questions pdf](https://i1.wp.com/psychtest.net/wp-content/uploads/MMPI-Scales-2.jpg)
Leone et al.’s (2018) discussion fails to acknowledge the many limitations of their study and veers to a tangential and misleading consideration of MMPI-2-RF use and research.Īdler, T. Even if these shortcomings are set aside, the findings reported are inconsistent with or contradict the authors’ conclusions, many of which have already been rebutted in previous publications, which they ignored. However, their study fails to meet basic requirements for sound research methodology and reporting of research findings. On the basis of analyses conducted with a sample of patients clinically diagnosed with Schizophrenia, Depressive Disorders, Somatic Symptom Disorders, or Borderline Personality Disorder the authors conclude that the MMPI-2-RF is less sensitive to psychopathology and is susceptible to gender bias. Leone, Mosticoni, Iannella, Biondi, and Butcher’s (2018) comparison of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF in a clinical sample falls well short of its goals.