Principal Components Analyses of the MMPI-2 PSY-5 Scales

Abstract

The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) is a five-factor personality trait model designed for assessing personality pathology using quantitative dimensions. Harkness, McNulty, and Ben-Porath developed Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) scales based on the PSY-5 model, and these scales were recently added to the standard MMPI-2 profile. Although the PSY-5 constructs are multidimensional in definition, explicit subscales for the broader PSY-5 scales have not been developed. The primary goals of this study were to empirically derive subscales for the MMPI-2 PSY-5 scales using principal components analysis (PCA) and to replicate these subscales with an independent sample. Individual PSY-5 scales were analyzed using PCA with an initial sample of 4,325 MMPI-2 protocols, and the component structure was replicated with a second sample of 4,277 MMPI-2 protocols. A third sample of 4,327 protocols was used to further evaluate the internal consistency reliabilities of the resulting facet subscales. Overall, replicable facet subscales were identified with content areas that are largely congruent with Harkness and McNulty's model.

Psychometric and Structural Analysis of the MMPI-2 Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Facet Subscales

“…Two items from this facet subscale did not load significantly on any of the four components; an additional two items that did not load significantly on either the Antisocial History/Norm Violation or the Impulsivity/Low Harm Avoidance facets subscales loaded significantly on Components II and III. One item from the DISC scale failed to load on the Arnau et al (2005b) facet subscales and any of the four components extracted in the current investigation.…”

“…Overall, there is good (but not perfect) congruence among the Disengagement/Anhedonia facet subscale and Component I, the Low Sociability facet subscale and Component IV, and the Low Diligence/Hypomania subscale and Component II. From the INTR domain, three items that failed to load on any of the facet subscales loaded on Components II and III, and two items did not load on the facet subscales identified by Arnau et al (2005b) or the Component scales extracted in the current investigation.…”

“…The components correlated from -.22 (Component II with V) to .53 (Component II with IV); the mean correlation among the components was .19. Arnau et al (2005b) identified only two facet subscales; Irritability/Dysphoria and Phobias; in the current investigation we identified five components. The items composing the Irritability/Dysphoria facet subscale were dispersed four of the five Components (I, II, IV, and V).…”

MMPI-2 Symptom Validity (FBS) Scale: Psychometric Characteristics and Limitations in a Veterans Affairs Neuropsychological Setting

“…PCA is an appropriate and recommended methodology for evaluating the phi coefficients derived from dichotomous data such as in the MMPI-2 (R. L. Gorsuch, personal communication, October 10, 2011;Gorsuch, 1983, p. 296;Nunnally, 1978, pp. 132ff) and is customarily used in MMPI-2 item-level research (Arnau, Handel, & Archer, 2005;Ben-Porath & Sherwood, 1993;Hamilton, Finlayson, & Alfano, 1995;Hale & Finn, 2010;Han, Weed, & Butcher, 2003;Han, Weed, Calhoun, & Butcher, 1995;Henry, Heilbronner, Mittenberg, & Enders, 2006;Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, & Jordan, 2006;Sawrie et al, 1996). PCA was part of the methodological basis for the development of the restructured clinical scales of the MMPI-2-RF (Restructured Form; Tellegen et al, 2003).…”

Personality Disorder in Psychological Injury: A Biopsychosocial and Forensic Perspective

“…On the one hand, they found "substantial" overlap between the instruments, but on the other hand, each provided "incrementally valid information in predicting extra-test criteria" (Ben-Porath 2006, p. 361). Arnau et al (2005) developed lower-level facet subscales of the PSY-5. More research is needed to test their utility, for example, because the internal consistency of some facets is unacceptably low (Graham 2006).…”