Readministration of the MMPI-2 Following Defensive Invalidation in a Military Job Applicant Sample

Abstract

Job applicants whose response style on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer) is excessively defensive create a dilemma for psychologists working in personnel selection settings. Clinical guidelines recommend the profile be considered uninterpretable, but the absence of usable testing data could lead to the elimination of otherwise qualified candidates. Readministering the MMPI-2 with altered instructions to reduce defensive responding has been suggested as an alternative. This option has lacked empirical support until recently. One study (Butcher, Morfitt, Rouse, & Holden, 1997) evaluated the effects of altered instructions on retest validity in a civilian job applicant sample, with the majority of participants obtaining valid and normal profiles on retest. The purpose of this study was to determine if these results would be replicated in a military job applicant sample. Participants were 97 military personnel who completed the MMPI-2 as part of application for selection to instructor duty. Forty-seven participants had obtained invalid profiles and retook the MMPI-2 after receiving instructions intended to reduce defensiveness. The results showed that 83% of retested participants obtained valid profiles on the second MMPI-2. The second test results were very similar in profile to those obtained from a comparison group of 50 participants whose initial MMPI-2 results were valid. The findings are discussed in terms of study limitations and future research directions.

Impact of electronic warnings on online personality scores and test-taker reactions in an applicant simulation

“…While research has provided some support for the use of warnings, the nature of manipulating test conditions has been a tricky proposition for practitioners meeting strict legal and ethical conditions of fairness. Additionally, research on accusations in applied personality assessment (Butcher et al, 1997;Cigrang & Staal, 2001;Ellingson et al, 2012) indicates that this is a strategy implied in practice, but very little is known about how it impacts test takers.…”

“…For example, it is recommended that practitioners interpreting MMPI profiles marked as invalid (i.e., a profile with an elevated L, K, or F scale) refrain from making interpretation conclusions (Butcher, 1977). One recommended solution is to inform applicants that their scores are uninterpretable and to have them complete the test again (Butcher, Morfitt, Rouse, & Holden, 1997;Cigrang & Staal, 2001). Whereas researchers with the MMPI have primarily focused on retesting due to defensiveness, Ellingson, Heggestad, and Makarius (2012) found that similar effects were observed when asking test-takers to retest due to intentional distortion.…”

“…Such procedures could also be developed based on other measures of faking behavior, such as social desirability scales or overclaiming measures (Bing et al, 2011). Although such messages are usually explored as warnings with consequences, research by Butcher et al (1997), Cigrang and Staal (2001), and Ellingson et al (2012) indicate that some organizations are already implementing accusations as a form of warning.…”

“…Based on the research reviewed above, we hypothesized that these warnings would suppress personality scores in a group responding under job application instructions (Hypothesis 1). We also wanted to introduce a stronger warning more similar to the accusations presented by Butcher et al (1997), Cigrang and Staal (2001), and Ellingson et al (2012). We hypothesized that accusations of faking would suppress scores more than either positive or negatively worded warnings (Hypothesis 2).…”

Between the Pew and the Pulpit: Can Personality Measures Help Identify Sexually Abusive Clergy?

“…Personality tests are frequently used as a screening tool for job applicants across a wide range of settings, including law enforcement agencies, business corporations, government agencies, professional sports leagues, the military, aviation, and religious institutions (Butcher, 1994; Butcher, Ones, & Cullen, 2006; Cha, 2005; Cigrang & Staal, 2001; Coleman, 2006; Goldstein & Epstein, 2008; Muha & May, 1973). Psychological assessments have some demonstrated benefit in predicting behavior and future success in employment, and approximately 30% of companies use personality assessments when making hiring decisions (Cha, 2005; Goldstein & Epstein, 2008).…”