Adapting assessment processes to consider cultural mistrust in forensic practices: An example with the MMPI instruments.

Abstract

Objective: Our first goal in this study was to identify cultural mistrust critical items (CMCIs) on two versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-the MMPI-Second Edition-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) and MMPI-Third Edition (MMPI-3)-that might be endorsed by people of color because of cultural mistrust rather than clinical paranoia. Our second goal was to determine whether CMCIs and items on the MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-3 Ideas of Persecution scale (Restructured Clinical Scale 6 [RC6]) were endorsed at different rates across cultural groups in a nonclinical college sample and a forensic inpatient sample. Hypotheses: Our primary hypothesis was that expert raters would reliably identify a subset of MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3 items as reflective of cultural mistrust. Black college students would endorse the highest level of CMCIs, followed by Latina/o students, and then White students. We hypothesized that the same pattern of findings would occur in forensic inpatients but that the differences would be attenuated because of the high base rate of psychiatric symptomatology and the nature of the forensic assessment setting. Method: Three Black female and three Black male psychologists rated the degree to which each item on the MMPI-2-RF and MMPI-3 reflected cultural mistrust. Black (n = 90), Latina/o (n = 83), and White (n = 100) college students were compared on CMCIs and on MMPI-2-RF/MMPI-3 RC6 item endorsement. The same comparisons were made among Black (n = 221), Latina/o (n = 142), and White (n = 483) forensic inpatients who completed the MMPI-2-RF. Results: Black college students endorsed the highest levels of cultural mistrust, followed by Latina/o students, and then White students, resulting in small-to-medium effect sizes (Hedges's gs = 0.14-0.52). Although we observed some item-level differences in forensic patients, the overall pattern of item endorsement did not significantly differ in this group. Conclusions: There are multiple reasons for the reporting of clinical paranoia and cultural mistrust in forensic assessment. Public Significance StatementCultural mistrust is an adaptive response to racial oppression and discrimination faced by people of color (POC) in the United States but can be misinterpreted as clinical paranoia. In the present study, we outlined a method for identifying items on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) instruments to help differentiate cultural mistrust from clinical paranoia, which will assist forensic psychologists with accurately assessing POC. Overall, the findings from the present study suggest that POC are, in fact, more likely to endorse items on the MMPI instruments that are intended to measure clinical paranoia and that forensic practitioners should assess for cultural mistrust.

Racial justice in psycholegal research and forensic psychology practice: Current advances and a framework for future progress.

“…Their findings indicate that the instrument predicts recidivism across race and ethnic subgroups; however, scores were higher for Black and Indigenous individuals, and the predictive accuracy of the measure was lower for Indigenous individuals than other groups. Likewise, Dixon et al (2023) consider how items reflecting clinical paranoia on a widely used clinical instrument, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), could be more indicative of cultural mistrust-which can be an adaptive response to discrimination and historical trauma-among BIPOC individuals. They encourage forensic practitioners to consider the possibility of cultural mistrust when conducting assessments.…”

“…These perspectives can inform and enhance psycholegal research and practice. For example, historical analyses of the mistreatment, discrimination, and violence experienced by BIPOCs in the United States show why cultural mistrust is an important issue to study (Dixon et al, 2023). Further, engaging in partnerships with experts from other fields can assist in diversifying our perspectives, frameworks, and methods, creating work that not only strengthens the scientific literature but also increases fair treatment and outcomes for disadvantaged communities.…”