Validity of the Substance Abuse Scales of the MMPI-2 in a College Student Sample

Abstract

This study assessed the validity of three Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-based (MMPI-2; Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) substance abuse scales. The scales were the MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale-Revised (MAC-R; Butcher et al., 1989) and the recently developed Addiction Acknowledgment Scale and Addiction Potential Scale (AAS & APS; Weed, Butcher, McKenna, & Ben-Porath, 1992). Study participants were 308 male and female college students who completed the MMPI-2 and the substance use disorder modules of the Diagnostic Interview Schedule. The MAC-R and the APS had a nonsignificant-to-weak relationship with substance dependence as defined by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd ed., rev. [DSM-III-R]; American Psychiatric Association, 1980). The AAS had a moderate ability to identify the 33 study participants who met DSM-III-R criteria for a substance use disorder, primarily alcoholism. Broadening the definition of substance abuse to a continuum of alcohol/drug problems did not alter the character of findings. These results highlight the relative superiority of direct (AAS) versus subtle (APS, MAC-R) scales to detect substance dependence and support studies that question the overall utility of traditional MMPI scales to identify substance abuse.

Differences in the Personality Profile of Medication-Overuse Headache Sufferers and Drug Addict Patients: A Comparative Study Using MMPI-2

“…We paid particular attention to the 3 scales related to addiction (Mac‐R, Aas, Aps) in order to detect whether or not MOH patients have personality characteristics prone to substance abuse. The 3 scales have been validated in studies concerning personality dimensions related to substance abuse 30,32,34,35 . MMPI‐2 scoring was obtained by a specific software.…”

Psychometric Properties of the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 Brief Form in an Undergraduate Sample of South African University Students

“…Because the DSM-5 (APA, 2013a) states that the onset age of personality disorders is generally in late adolescence to early adulthood (Blonigen et al, 2008;Caspi et al, 2005;Roberts et al, 2006;Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), in line with research indicating that the key period for personality change is during late adolescence and early adulthood (Jackson et al, 2012;Josefsson et al, 2013;Kanacri et al, 2014;Roberts & Davis, 2016;Roberts & Mroczek, 2008), university students, irrespective of race, language, or gender, in this study can be seen as adequate research participants. In addition, student populations, or participants in early adulthood, irrespective of possible personality pathology or disorders, are frequently used in validation studies, like the Community Assessment of Psychic Experience (CAPE; for example, Mossaheb et al, 2012); MMPI-2 (e.g., Svanum et al, 1994); NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI; for example, McCrae et al, 1996);and PID-5 (e.g., De Fruyt et al, 2013) to name but a few. One would likely not suspect to see elevations on pathology scales, given the sample (i.e., an assumingly intelligent group), but as the aim is to explore correlations between the assessments to establish validity for the constructs, characteristics of personality pathology are not pivotal in this regard (Anderson et al, 2018;Druckman & Kam, 2009;Krueger et al, 2012).…”

Gender Differences in the Validity of the Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory—3 (SASSI-3) With a Criminal Justice Population

“…3 The DSM-IV is the predominant criterion measure used in studies that examine the effectiveness of a wide variety of screening instruments (Caetano & Schafer, 1996;Peters et al, 1998). Although there have been criticisms of the diagnostic categories and criteria in the DSM (e.g., lacks sensitivity to cultural issues), they are the standards used to develop screening tools, including the SASSI-3 (see Lazowski et al, 1998), and the criteria on which such instruments are judged and assessed (Bradley et al, 1998;Svanum, McGrew, & Ehrmann, 1994).…”