The MCMI-II as a treatment outcome measure for psychiatric inpatients

Abstract

Recently, the MCMI‐II (Millon, 1987) has been introduced as a successor to the MCMI‐I (Millon, 1983). This study evaluated the MCMI‐II as a treatment outcome measure for psychiatric inpatients. Ninety‐eight patients were tested at admission and discharge with the MCMI‐II. Changes in mean MCMI‐II scores on the basic and pathological personality scales, as well as the moderate and severe symptom scales, were generally congruent with findings from a previous outcome study with the MCMI‐I (Piersma, 1986a). However, several differences between the MCMI‐II and MCMI‐I were noted, which suggests that the MCMI‐II will need to be cross‐validated as an instrument distinct from the MCMI‐I.

Individual variability in self-reported improvement for depressed psychiatric inpatients on the MCMI-II

“…For example, research findings most commonly presented are as group means and standard deviations, with associated tests of statistical significance. To illustrate, one of the present authors has reported several studies (Piersma, 1986(Piersma, , 1989) on the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI and MCMI-11;Millon, 1983Millon, , 1987 in which psychiatric inpatients were tested at admission and discharge. Data were reported in a format that highlighted statistically significant group mean changes from admission to discharge.…”

“…Patients typically are seen for individual therapy and group therapy two to three times per week; in addition, they receive a full complement of activity therapy classes, including psychodrama. Previous studies conducted on these units (Piersma, 1986(Piersma, , 1989) have shown that 80 to 85% of patients have an affective disorder as the primary Axis I diagnosis.…”

Detection of deception on the millon clinical multiaxial inventory (MCMI)

“…Though there are liabilities with the MCMI (Cantrell & Dana, 1987;Piersma, 1989Piersma, , 1987; Van Gorp & Meyer, 1986), it has advantages that make it quite useful in various settings (Greer, 1984;Meyer, 1989).…”

The MAPI as a treatment outcome measure for adolescent inpatients

“…Such changes are expected on the Expressed Concerns (symptom) scales; however, the Personality Style scales were designed to measure relatively enduring traits. As Pantle et al (1990) and Piersma (1986and Piersma ( , 1989 have indicated, the Millon personality style scales appear to be sensitive to mood states, especially depression. Millon et al (1982), in their discussion of the reliability of the MAPI, reported that the reliability of the test (including the Personality Style scales) for clinical populations (i.e., adolescents in treatment), is "contaminated by both natural changes in their clinical states and those fostered by the effects of treatment,'' as well as by "the fluidity of concerns typifying the teenage years" (p. 50).…”

“…The pattern of statistically significant changes in mean MAPI scores from admission to discharge for the Depressed group was consistent with those obtained by Fons (1988) and Piersma (1986Piersma ( , 1989 for the MCMI and MCMI-11. This consistency presumably is related to the diagnostic similarities among the samples studied.…”