(2015), cover many of the concerns expressed in the literature. A detailed review of the psychometric deficiencies of the MMPI-2-RF exceeds the scope of this article, but Nichols, (2006), Greene, et al.
In fact, based on research, the FAA disallows its psychologists from using the MMPI-2-RF as a substitute for the MMPI-2 in screening air traffic controllers and others. One need only reflect on the police misconduct headlines over the last 10 years to appreciate the importance of avoiding false negatives in the selection of safety sensitive personnel. Several studies have demonstrated a lack of sensitivity for the RC scales, the core scales of the MMPI-2-RF, in detecting psychopathology.
#Mmpi 2 rf online code
Whereas the MMPI-2 relies upon a code type approach to interpretation in which its scales are examined in configural patterns based upon empirically validated code types, the MMPI-2-RF relies upon a scale-by-scale interpretive approach, and just as the empirical correlates for the MMPI-2 code types are not applicable to the MMPI-2-RF, neither will they be to the MMPI-3. The appearance of favoritism by limiting the University Press MMPI research funding to one individual should have no place in development of an MMPI instrument to be marketed for high stakes decision-making.Īn MMPI-3 based on the MMPI-2-RF is not an authentic successor to the MMPI and MMPI-2 and their 70-year history of research and successful clinical use. This gives the impression of favoritism regarding access to funding for development and research proposals by the Press.” “The development of an MMPI-3 instrument has not been mentioned in any of the annual requests for proposals even though Yossef Ben-Porath received $154,000 in 2017 for “Further Development of the MMPI-2-RF/ MMPI-3.” The 2017 award for Ben-Porath’s proposal was awarded without the Press publically advertising the intent of the Press to fund development of the MMPI-3 assessment. Yet, a June 2017 review by the University of Minnesota’s Internal Audit Department indicated: 277) stated recently that the “…MMPI-2-RF was introduced as an alternative to, rather than a replacement for the MMPI-2.” A manager at the University of Minnesota Press confirmed to us that an MMPI-3 is in development.
Despite these significant psychometric problems, the publisher has been very active in peppering the continuing education landscape with workshops and webinars extolling the MMPI-2-RF’s merits relative to those of the MMPI-2.Īnd now we have learned the publisher is funding one of the MMPI-2-RF authors to develop an MMPI-3 that appears based on the MMPI-2-RF, despite the fact that Ben-Porath (2017, p. Indeed, the correlations between the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales and one or another of the MMPI-2 Content Scales or similar content-based scales all but invariably exceed those between the RC scales and their MMPI-2 Clinical Scale counterparts, as evident in the developers own data (Tellegen and Ben-Porath, 2008). In the end, the construct-driven MMPI-2 and MMPI-A morphed into content-driven, face valid instruments. In fact, the MMPI-2-RF was less an evolution than a new creation, with the original empirical, contrasted groups, scale construction strategy abandoned in favor of a factor-analytic construction strategy, one directed in part by a model of mood (Watson and Tellegen, 1985), the credentials of which remain much in question (Ranson et al., 2009).
For the last decade, the publisher of the MMPI instruments, the University of Minnesota Press, and its distributor, Pearson Assessments, told psychologists that “the standard has evolved” with publication of the MMPI-2-RF in 2008 and the MMPI-A-RF in 2016.