Of Fallacies and Errors, New and Repeated: A Rejoinder to Butcher et al. (2018)

Ben‐Porath, Yossef S.

doi:10.1080/00223891.2018.1522640

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 59 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To support their assertion that researchers have raised concerns about false-negative findings with the RC scales, Key et al (2020) cite three publications (Butcher et al, 2015; Gordon et al, 2013; Wallace & Liljequist, 2005). However, they neglect to mention or consider Ben-Porath’s (2019) rebuttal of Butcher et al (2015) and Gordon et al (2013) 1 . A detailed discussion of this literature is beyond the scope of a brief comment.…”

Section: The K-correctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A detailed discussion of this literature is beyond the scope of a brief comment. The interested reader is encouraged to consult Ben-Porath’s (2019) analysis, which, on the basis of a broad empirical literature refuted assertions that the RC Scales lack sensitivity to psychopathology (see also Sellbom & Wygant, 2018). It is worth noting in this context, that in their own data, RC6 was the most frequently elevated of all the MMPI-2 scales Key et al’s (2020) analyzed.…”

Section: The K-correctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1Ben-Porath (2019) notes that Wallace and Liljequist (2005) do not actually interpret their findings as indicating that the RC Scales lack sensitivity to psychopathology.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A cautionary note on Key et al.’s (2020) recommendations for using the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations.

Ben‐Porath¹,

Sellbom²

2021

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Key et al. (2020) report descriptive statistics for Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) scale scores of a sample of 230 individuals tested in the context of parenting capacity evaluations (PCEs). On the basis of their findings, the authors recommend that K-corrected, rather than non-K-corrected MMPI-2 Clinical Scale scores be used in PCEs and they conclude that scores on the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales reflect false-negative findings that could have serious implications for the welfare of children. They also recommend applying a makeshift "L-correction" in PCEs. In this cautionary note, we explain why the authors' conclusions about the K-correction and the RC Scales cannot be supported with the data they report and run counter to a robust literature. Their recommendation that clinicians who use the MMPI-2 in PCEs (or any other setting) apply an L-correction is both unfounded and potentially harmful to evaluees and their children. Public Significance StatementIn a paper previously published in this journal, Key et al. (2020) recommend that K-corrected MMPI-2 Clinical Scale scores be used in parental capacity evaluations and they conclude that scores on the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales reflect "false-negative findings." They also recommend correcting Clinical Scale scores on the basis of the L scale. This commentary identifies significant problems with the authors' conclusions and recommendations, which could have harmful implications for evaluees and their children.

show abstract

Section: The K-correctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The K-correctionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A cautionary note on Key et al.’s (2020) recommendations for using the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations.

Ben‐Porath¹,

Sellbom²

2021

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We noted in our article that “previous researchers have raised concerns about the risk of false negative determinations of psychopathology when the RC scales are used in place of the MMPI-2 clinical scales” (Key et al, 2020, p. 639). Ben-Porath and Sellbom (2021) accused us of ignoring rebuttals to these claims, such as Ben-Porath (2019). We are aware of these rebuttals, but we believe that our data do raise a concern about false negatives with the RC scales.…”

Section: The K-correctionmentioning

confidence: 80%

Response to “A cautionary note on Key et al.’s (2020) recommendations for using the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations”.

Key¹,

Fisher²,

Micucci³

2021

Professional Psychology: Research and Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We respond to the criticisms of our article (Key et al., 2020) raised by Ben-Porath and Sellbom (2021). We defend our recommendation that clinicians using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) in parental competency evaluations (PCEs) should rely on the K-corrected clinical scales and consider adjusting scores when Scale L (Lie) is elevated. We also clarify our position on the relative merits of the clinical and restructured clinical (RC) scales in PCEs. Public Significance StatementWe defend the conclusions made in our original article (Key et al., 2020) in response to concerns raised by Ben-Porath and Sellbom (2021) regarding the appropriate use of the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations.

show abstract

“…Previous research demonstrated that students' problems may stem from lack of sound and logical reasoning and persuasion along with traps such as fallacies of argumentation which at the first sight they may appear logical and convincing but at the second sight they contain mistakes in reasoning (Dufour 2019). These issues for EFL students become even much more terrible in international proficiency examinations such as GRE and IELTS, as pointed out by the Educational Testing Service centre (2009), when students are supposed to utilize essays and employ precise argumentations as an entrenched criterion of evaluation (Ben-Porath 2019).…”

Section: )mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Relationship between Critical Thinking, Frequency, Informal Fallacy and Evidence in Argumentative Writing

2021

JJMLL

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study was an investigation of the relationship between the EFL learners’ critical thinking, their frequency, and types of informal fallacy and evidence in argumentative writing. Few studies have been conducted to investigate these issues. To this end, 356-second grade female senior state high school students from four schools in Zanjan were selected through multistage cluster random sampling (MCRS) method and based on Cambridge placement test (2010); 130 students proved to be upper-intermediate and participated in this correlational study. The main data collection stage took place for one month. Then, the informal fallacies based on Johnson's definitions and four types of evidence categorized in Hoeke and Hustinkx were identified and counted within language learners' argumentative writings. The evaluation of the arguments was also conducted based on Walton, Reed, and Macagno. Based on the results achieved from the first research question, there was a significant negative correlation observed between the participants' critical thinking and the frequency of use of informal fallacies in their written argumentation. Based on the results achieved from the second research question, there was a potential and significant correlation between the participants' critical thinking and the frequency of use of informal fallacies. Keywords: Argumentative Writing, Critical Thinking, Evidence, Informal Fallacy.

show abstract

Of Fallacies and Errors, New and Repeated: A Rejoinder to Butcher et al. (2018)

Cited by 4 publications

References 59 publications

A cautionary note on Key et al.’s (2020) recommendations for using the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations.

A cautionary note on Key et al.’s (2020) recommendations for using the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations.

Response to “A cautionary note on Key et al.’s (2020) recommendations for using the MMPI-2 in parental competency evaluations”.

The Relationship between Critical Thinking, Frequency, Informal Fallacy and Evidence in Argumentative Writing

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About