MMPI-2 validity scales in child custody evaluations: clinical versus statistical significance

Medoff, David

doi:10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199910/12)17:4<409::aid-bsl357>3.0.co;2-n

Cited by 24 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The MMPI-2 is based on extensive peer-reviewed and published research and compares a test subject's individual scores with data from both normative samples and severa1 clinical samples. Multiple studies over long periods of time have established reasonable and acceptable levels of validity and reliability for the MMPI-2, and it remains a robust and widely used assessment tool in both clinical and forensic settings (e.g., Butcher & Williams, 1992;Greene, 2000;Hiller, Rosenthal, Bomstein, Beny, & Brunell-Neuleib, 1999;Medoff, 1999;Nichols, 2001).…”

Section: A Sample Of Empirically Derived Well-validated and Reliablmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Basis Of Psychological Testing: Considerations Following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner

Medoff¹

2003

fam court rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The legal standards for admissibility of expert testimony have recently been raised following several U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Although forensic mental health experts have reiied on psychological testing as a method of data collection for many years, the scientific basis of such testing has traditionally gone unquestioned in court. Given the increased scmtiny currently being applied to expert testimony, it is more important now than ever for attorneys, judges, and forensic experts to understand the scientific principles underlying psychological tests. In this article, the scientific principles of validity and reliability are explained, and scientifically acceptable methods for the forensic use of psychological testing are discussed. The application of recent case law to several well-known tests is described.

show abstract

Section: A Sample Of Empirically Derived Well-validated and Reliablmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Scientific Basis Of Psychological Testing: Considerations Following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner

Medoff¹

2003

fam court rev

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Perhaps the greatest difficulty in using the NEO PI-R=PI-3 with child custody litigants is limiting the impact of impression management on interpretation. As is well known from research with other self-report instruments, the selfpresentation of most child custody litigants is suffused with self-favorableness (Bathurst, Gottfried, & Gottfried, 1997;Halon, 2001;Lenny & Dear, 2009;McCann et al, 2001;Medoff, 1999;Siegel, 1996). Indeed some authors assert that no test is defensible and suitable for forensic use unless there are mechanisms for ascertaining the impact of impression management (Heilbrun, 1992;Otto, Edens, & Barcus, 2000).…”

Section: The Neo Pi-r=pi-3 and Custody Evaluationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using the NEO Personality Inventory in Child Custody Evaluations: A Practitioner's Perspective

Langer¹

2011

Journal of Child Custody

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since the 1980s the Five-Factor Model (FFM) has become increasingly prominent as a systematic and comprehensive description of normal personality. Since the 1990s investigators using the FFM have shown that individual differences in normal personality are associated with parenting behavior and child outcomes. Yet custody evaluators are not using FFM measures in their work. The NEO PI-R=PI-3 is recommended as a reliable FFM measure with widespread use in both research and applied settings. The greatest challenge evaluators face with the NEO PI-R=PI-3 is weighing the impact of custody litigant impression management. Support is available via child custody litigant norms presented here, validity scales from other sources, and the correlation of a litigant's score profile with the modal self-favorable profile calculated from research into impression management on the NEO PI-R.

show abstract

“…One question that must be answered, however, is how much underreporting is necessary before the clinician should consider the MMPI-2 profile invalid. In discussing this point, Medoff (1999) differentiated between statistical and clinical significance. Medoff pointed out that, although defensiveness is often found in custody examinees in higher levels than in individuals from comparison groups not undergoing custody evaluations (i.e., statistical significance), this fact often provides little case-specific information (i.e., clinical significance).…”

Section: The Mmpi-2mentioning

confidence: 99%

A Critical Examination of the Suitability and Limitations of Psychological Tests in Family Court

Erickson

Lilienfeld

Vitacco

2007

Family Court Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists are frequently consulted by the courts to provide forensic evaluations in a variety of family court proceedings. As part of their evaluations, psychologists often use psychological tests to assess parents, guardians, and children. These tests can have profound effects on how psychologists arrive at their opinions and are often cited in their reports to the court. However, psychological tests vary substantially in their suitability for these purposes. Most projective tests in particular appear to possess little scientific merit for evaluations within family court proceedings. Despite these serious limitations, expert testimony derived from evaluations using both projective and objective tests is often admitted uncontested. This article reviews the psychometric properties of psychological tests that are widely used in family court proceedings, cautions against their unfettered use, and calls upon attorneys to inform themselves of the limitations of evaluations that incorporate these tests.

show abstract

MMPI-2 validity scales in child custody evaluations: clinical versus statistical significance

Cited by 24 publications

References 4 publications

The Scientific Basis Of Psychological Testing: Considerations Following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner

The Scientific Basis Of Psychological Testing: Considerations Following Daubert, Kumho, and Joiner

Using the NEO Personality Inventory in Child Custody Evaluations: A Practitioner's Perspective

A Critical Examination of the Suitability and Limitations of Psychological Tests in Family Court

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About