An improvement in the statistical validity of the MMPI-168 through modified scoring.

Ward, L. Charles; Wright, H. Wilkes; Taulbee, Earl S.

doi:10.1037/0022-006x.47.3.618

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Scoring these items on all scales of which they are part, for example, would lengthen the SI scale by 4796, PA by 22% MA by 1496, and HY by 11%. Similar increments in scale length previously have been shown to increase the statistical validity of the MMPI-168 (Ward, Wright, & Taulbee, 1979). This possibility was not explored in the current study because the author did not wish to confound the improvement brought about by full K-correction with that yielded by sampledependent conversion equations.…”

Section: I06mentioning

confidence: 80%

An improved MMPI short form: The MMPI-168-E

Moreland

1983

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

K‐corrected MMPI‐168 scales using short and long form K scales (N = 2439). The latter increased the correlation between abbreviated and standard scales in most instances. Because using the entire K scale involves the addition of only 18 items to the MMPI‐168 while it generally improves the statistical validity of several scales in addition to K, this was proposed as a cost‐effective means of improving the MMPI‐168.

show abstract

Section: I06mentioning

confidence: 80%

An improved MMPI short form: The MMPI-168-E

Moreland

1983

J. Clin. Psychol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For all MMPI-168 profiles, clinical-scale T scores were obtained using normative data provided by Overall, Higgins, and de Schweinitz (1976) except for the Paranoia and the Schizophrenia scales. These scales were scored and converted to T scores using the method suggested by Ward, Wright, and Taulbee (1979). Factor-scale T scores were obtained for the MMPI-168 using the method of Overall, Hunter, and Butcher (1973).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship of the MMPI-168 to outcome of a pain management program at long-term follow-up.

Malec¹

1983

Rehabilitation Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Interpretive rules for both standard scal es and factor scal es of the MMPI-168 were devel oped to predict long-term outcome (6 months to 3 years postdischarge) of an inpatient pain management program. Rul es for both standard-scale and factor-scale interpretation correctly identified 79% of pain program "successes" and "failures." Resul ts provide support for the MMPI-168 as a brief, useful measure of personality functioning in a physical medicine setting.Several studies have assessed the full Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) as a predictor of pain program outcome. Maruta, Swanson, and Swenson (1979) found no statistically significant differences on MMPI scales between a group of failures and a group of successes from a pain management program, but did find that high scores on Hypochondriasis and Hysteria scales contributed to an index of premorbid factors predictive of poor pain program outcome. Painter, Seres, and Newman (1980) were unable to discriminate successful from unsuccessful patients of a pain center using the full MMPI. Kuperman, Golden, and Blume (1979) reported that, among a group of patients whose pain problems had a substantiated organic origin, a high Hypochondriasis scale score was associated with poor treatment outcomes in a pain clinic.A shorter form of the MMPI, the MMPI-168 (Overall & Gomez-Mont, 1974), appears to have utility in assessing pain patients. Calsyn, Spengler, and Freeman (1977) demonstrated that factor scoring of the MMPI-168 provided sufficient information to discriminate patients with organic pain from patients with a pain problem consisting of a mix of psychological, social, and organic factors with 74.5% accuracy. In a cross-validation sample, these same authors separated patients with primarily behavioral pain problems from patients with primarily organic pain disorders with 83% accuracy. The Somatization factor was most useful in making these discriminations. The authors

show abstract

“…In computing Tscores for the clinical scales of the MMPI-168, normative data provided by Overall, Higgins, and de Schweinitz (1976) were used. For Scales 6 (Pa) Berven,Habeck,and Malec and 8 (Sc), the method suggested by L. C. Ward, Wright, and Taulbee (1979) was used in order to capitalize on the information available in the short form relevant to these scales.…”

Section: Instrumentationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predominant MMPI-168 profile clusters in a rehabilitation medicine sample.

Berven¹,

Habeck²,

Malec³

1985

Rehabilitation Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The MMPI-168 profiles of 120 rehabilitation medicine inpatients were clustered according to J. H. Ward's minimum-variance method, and four patient clusters were identified. The profile of mean MMPI-168 scores for the largest cluster, representing about onehalf of the total sample, showed no clinical elevations on any scale. The remaining three clusters were characterized primarily by depression, somatic focusing, and personality disorganization, respectively. Discriminant analysis supported the differentiation among clusters in terms of MMPI-168 scores and suggested that ruminative worry and openness to identifying problems accounted for the majority of the differentiation. With the exception of the cluster characterized primarily by depression, the three remaining clusters seemed quite similar to profile types consistently found in research on chronic pain samples.Research on the psychological aspects of physical disability is basic to the practice of psychology in rehabilitation medicine settings (Grzesiak, 1979). Efforts to describe the psychological characteristics associated with disabilities have often been based on "group averages." Common methodologies have included the description of samples with specified disability characteristics in terms of their mean scores on psychological measures, such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), or the comparison of their mean scores with those of other samples having different disability characteristics (Shontz, 1971). In reviewing research using the MMPI, McDaniel (1976) concluded that mean scores reported for samples with a variety of disabilities were consistently elevated one or more standard deviations above the mean on the first three clinical scales (Hs, D9 and Hy), the so-called "neurotic triad." Studies focusing on group averages ignore the preponderance of evidence suggesting that disability and behavior are linked in complex and indirect ways and that the psychological characteristics among individuals who are similarly disabled are typically diverse (

show abstract

An improvement in the statistical validity of the MMPI-168 through modified scoring.

Cited by 6 publications

References 1 publication

An improved MMPI short form: The MMPI-168-E

An improved MMPI short form: The MMPI-168-E

Relationship of the MMPI-168 to outcome of a pain management program at long-term follow-up.

Predominant MMPI-168 profile clusters in a rehabilitation medicine sample.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About