The debate about black Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories (MMPIs) and white norms was renewed recently. Pritchard and Rosenblatt, revewing 16 studies, claimed to find no evidence that the MMPI is racially biased. Gynther and Green, reviewing 40 studies, concluded that racial bias in the MMPI varies as a function of sampling, with bias more likely when normal blacks are compared with normal whites but not when abnormal groups are compared. No study yet published has compared black alcoholics with white alcoholics, although problem drinking is classified as a major diagnostic problem. We found that black alcoholics scored significantly lower on a few MMPI scales (e.g., Hysteria), but profile differences were not clinically meaningful, particularly when the covariates of age, education, and socioeconomic status were controlled. Blacks differed appreciably on the Family Environment Scale (FES), however, rating social climates more positively than whites. Findings that blacks obtained negligible differences on a wholly white normed test (the MMPI), contrasted with the significant differences and better adjustment shown by blacks over whites on a test normed with minority-group representation (the FES), interject new considerations into the issue of racial bias. Whereas nonsignificant differences would not appear to support the contention of racial bias on the MMPI, FES results question whether such nonsignificance actually rules out test bias.The debate about using white norms for eluded that degrees of ethnic bias in the interpreting blacks' performances on the MMPI may vary in part as a function of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-kinds of samples being compared. Among tory (MMPI) was advanced recently in a normal subjects, blacks tend to score 5-10 lively exchange between Pritchard and Ro-T points higher on the MMPI, particularly senblatt (1980a, 1980b) and Gynther and on the Validity (F), Schizophrenia (Sc), and Green (1980). Pritchard and Rosenblatt Hypomania (Ma) scales. When subjects are concluded that there was no evidence to sup-psychiatric patients, however, differences port the notion of differential performance are less pronounced and more equivocal, peron the MMPI between blacks and whites, haps because profile elevations produced by whereas Gynther and Green (1980) con-maladjustment obscure racial differences.Moreover, when samples consist of heroin This study was conducted with funds furnished by the addicts, the direction of differences is re-General Medical Research Service and the Alcohol versed so that whites score higher than Dependence Treatment Program of the Veterans Adblackg (p enk & R 0 binowitz, 1974).'^S^^SSS^SS^ for his A . J» contradictory nature of black-white processing of MMPI protocols used in this study. Deep differences among normal and abnormal appreciation is expressed to Frank Harris for his un-groups-persisting even after such potenflagging labors at all stages of data reduction and pro-tially confounding variables as age, intelli-^RSiestsforreprintsshould...

Specialists working in isolated, confined, and extreme environments may need to negotiate unique combinations of potentially stressful circumstances. This paper reports on three studies using the Brief COPE to examine some of the dispositional and situational coping strategies reported by navy divers and submariners.The first study investigated whether individual members of these specialist groups would favor similar coping response styles, and found that divers (N 5 174) and submariners (N 5 195) generally report similar coping styles, with some context appropriate nuances in their reports. Further, they share much of their profiles with other high-demand occupational settings, making their coping style profiles unique only in degree, rather than direction.The second study examined whether these navy specialists' coping response styles would be stable across time, and through repeat administration of the Brief COPE (N 5 237), found that they were remarkably stable over a period of almost 2 years.The third study investigated whether the same dispositional profile will be visible during specific submarine missions, or whether different, e.g., situational, coping strategies would be reported on board. Submariners appear to rely on similar coping strategies whether ashore or at sea, while also drawing on additional-and contextually appropriate-situational strategies while at sea. Thus while they rely on dispositional coping styles, they also seem responsive to changing environments during deployments.Practically, these findings could be used to assist divers and submariners to develop optimal coping strategies suited to their environments.

This study asked, “What are the psychological characteristics of Vietnam combat veterans who claim Agent Orange exposure when compared with combat‐experienced cohorts who do not report such contamination?” The question was researched among 153 heroin addicts, polydrug abusers, and chronic alcoholics who were seeking treatment: 58 reported moderate to high defoliant exposure while in combat; 95 reported minimal to no exposure while in Vietnam. The null hypothesis was accepted for measures of childhood and present family social climate, premilitary backgrounds, reasons for seeking treatment, patterns and types of illicit drug and alcohol use, interpersonal problems, intellectual functioning, and short‐term memory. The null hypothesis was rejected for personality differences, however, those who self‐reported high Agent Orange exposure scored significantly higher on MMPI scales F, Hypochondriasis, Depression, Paranoia, Psychasthenia, Schizophrenia, Mania, and Social interoversion. The results suggest that clinicians carefully assess attributional processing of those who report traumatic experience.

Explored similarities and differences among home and community adjustment ratings by clients, community informants, and psychiatrists. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories, and Personality Adjustment and Role Skills (PARS) scales (Ellsworth, 1975) were administered to 169 consecutively-admitted psychiatric patients. Psychiatrists rated each client on the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scales and 141 community informants rated client's home and community adjustment on the PARS. Simple, multiple, and canonical correlational analyses were performed with scores from these tests. Although clients, community informants, and psychiatrists agree when rating clients' symptomatology, nevertheless each person highlighted different aspects of adjustment. Moreover, "impression management" (as measured by subtle-obvious MMPI scales) emerged as influential. These two findings suggest that outcome assessment must be based not only on ratings from multiple perspectives but also outcome assessment must entertain possible biases among raters. Supplementary analyses indicated that outcome assessment for psychiatric clients can be improved by adding response style scales which evaluate dimensions of "sick" and "healthy" symptom presentation and by identifying interaction of diagnosis with ratings of home and community and adjustment.

No abstract

Data loss is a plague in outcome studies, particularly for research strategies using significant others to rate home and community adjustment of clients in treatment. This study asked, "Do psychological factors contribute to data loss?" for 169 consecutively admitted psychiatric clients who differed in outcome response rates. Clients who evidenced less favorable pretreatment adjustment on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and on psychiatrists' Brief Psychiatric Rating Scales ratings also turned out to be those for whom posttreatment outcome return rates were poorest. The findings suggest data loss is systematic: Clients who are less well-adjusted may be underrepresented in program evaluation.

Tested hypotheses, empirically generated from rating scales, which predicted that patients treated in partial, day hospital settings improve more in intellectual efficiency and social interaction than patients treated in full time, inpatient settings. Thirty matched pairs of day hospital and inpatient volunteers were administered a group psychological test battery at the beginning of treatment and then 5 weeks later. The day hospital sample differed significantly on 7 of 24 pre‐ and posttest measures, the inpatient sample on 2. Gains occurred primarily in increased intellectual efficiency and social interaction. Multiple discriminant function analyses yielded no significant pretest differences, but posttest differences approached significance (p < .06); day hospital patients registered increased Extraversion (Eysenck Personality Inventory).

No abstract