Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 1

Ashley Hudgens

2/19/23

Research Paper: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

Appraisal Procedures for Counselors

Wake Forest University

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 2

Abstract

The MMPI is a highly known, and well researched assessment, used to evaluate people for

mental disorders and personality characteristics. There have been several versions created over

the years, with the last one being the MMPI-3 and including a version for adolescents. Research

has shown that most versions of the MMPI have been reliable and valid, and can be used in a

variety of settings. Many assessments struggle to be culturally inclusive or account for false

reporting from individuals taking it. However, the versions after the original MMPI, have

managed to not only be culturally inclusive by providing the MMPI in different languages but

also have validity scales within the assessment to combat false reporting. The MMPI will

continue to be researched in the future and widely used.

Keywords: MMPI, validity, reliability, inclusive, scales

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 3

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a well researched and

backed assessment designed to assess personality in individuals. The MMPI was first developed

in the 1930s and eventually published in 1942 by Starke Hathaway and Charnley McKinley, at

the University of Minnesota. The original study researched the MMPI, testing it on psychiatric

patients. Starke and McKinley saw it “as an objective aid in the routine psychiatric case work-up

of adult patients and as a method of determining the severity of the conditions” (University of

Minnesota Press, 2015). Due to criticism of the original inventory lacking cultural awareness and

the small study used, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 was published in 1989.

The MMPI-2 was created to make up for the shortcomings of the first published MMPI

and its purpose “is to evaluate individuals for mental disorders and aid counselors and other

helping professionals in treatment planning” (Hays 2017). With any assessment, all versions of

the MMPI have been created to aid counselors in gaining better insight into the issues that a

client may be experiencing so an effective treatment plan can be made for the client.

Assessments are also available to help clients form better self-awareness and to set a foundation

of goal setting and autonomy. The MMPI assessments are heavily studied self-report measures of

personality and psychopathology. Because of their comprehensive coverage of a wide range of

psychopathology and personality traits, these instruments are used in a variety of settings and for

a variety of purposes (Bopp, Aparcero, and Rosenfeld, 2022).

The MMPI-2 is a 567-item, true/false, self-report assessment that contains validity and

clinical scales, where the validity scales fall under three categories based on response styles. The

three categories are inconsistent or random responding, symptom exaggeration or overreporting

(faking bad), and symptom minimization or underreporting (faking good) (Bopp, Aparcero, and
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 4

Rosenfeld, 2022). These validity scales allow the counselor to gauge the client's attitude toward

the testing procedure, while also assessing the “accuracy of a client’s responses” (Hays, 2017).

In terms of the ten clinical scales, these include hypochondriasis, depression, hysteria,

psychopathic deviate, masculinity–femininity, paranoia, psychasthenia, schizophrenia,

hypomania, and social introversion (Hays, 2017). Although the original version of the MMPI

was used on a psychiatric population, the MMPI-2 scales cannot be used to accurately classify

individuals into psychiatric categories, but they are helpful in describing personalities and

providing inferences about an individual's behavior (Hays’ 2017).

One issue I find with many assessments is that they are not always culturally inclusive,

which could affect their reliability and validity. Being multiculturally inclusive is important not

only because of an assessment's reliability and validity, but also to help the counselor get

relevant information about the client while also properly informing the client. When a client does

not fully understand what an assessment is asking, their results may be skewed. Cultures differ,

for example, in terms of what signs or symptoms are considered to be pathological versus

normative, the rate to which an individual is willing to disclose personal or sensitive information,

and their familiarity with certain test formats, like true/false questionnaires (Bopp, Aparcero, and

Rosenfeld, 2022). This could lead to a counselor misunderstanding a client’s answers for

pathology instead of normal, culture related data. This is the reason why counselors should

always work to have multicultural competence and take the time to understand a client’s

background. A big positive to the MMPI-2 in my eyes is that it has been translated into a

multitude of languages, which also helps with administering the MMPI-2 to culturally diverse

clients.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 5

Much of the research I found has stated that the MMPI-2 is a helpful assessment tool in

forensic mental health evaluations. One reason for this is due to the validity scales within the

assessment that are useful in detecting answers that suggest a client is “faking good” or

“faking bad”. Malingering is a diagnosis individuals can get when they intentionally over-report

or fake symptoms for external gains, such as avoiding potential criminal charges in court

(Wygant, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Stafford, Freeman, and Heilbronner, 2007). For example,

Wygant, Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Stafford, Freeman, and Heilbronner, 2007, looked at the

relationship between MMPI-2 scale scores and cognitive symptom validity tests (SVT) in civil

and criminal forensic settings. Their findings revealed that cognitive SVT failure was associated

with MMPI-2 symptom reporting indicators and over-reporting measures differently depending

on the setting. Furthermore, their findings support the MMPI’s fake bad scale (FBS) value

“indicator of non-credible presentation of somatic and cognitive complaints in both civil and

criminal forensic

psychological assessments”.

Another study done by Lange, Sullivan, and Scott (2010), also reports that the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 is a widely used method of detecting false reporting of

symptoms in forensic psychological and psychiatric assessments. Their specific study compared

the effectiveness of the MMPI-2 and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI). Although their

study showed that both can be effective in detecting false reporting of symptoms, all of the

MMPI-2 validity indicators outperformed any of the PAI validity indicators in detecting feigned

responses (Lange, Sullivan, and Scott, 2010). The article made it clear that although the MMPI-2

outperformed the PAI, it is newer than the MMPI-2 and by now, there could be more research

that shows better validity from the PAI. There are many other studies available that have
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 6

researched the validity and reliability of the MMPI-2, but based on the few that I looked at for

this paper, it is clear that the MMPI-2 is widely backed by research and it is evidence of why it is

highly trusted and used in a variety of settings.

When researching the limitations of the MMPI, it was difficult to gather much

information. The limitations of the original MMPI were clear due to when it was developed. It

lacked inclusiveness culturally, which could affect the reliability and validity of the assessment,

which is why the MMPI-2 was published in 1989. Mike Drayton (2009) brought up a valid

limitation about who can administer this assessment. The MMPI-2 is a licensed test that may

only be purchased, delivered, and interpreted by a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist with

sufficient experience, meaning that the MMPI is a level C test. Test publishers have set levels of

competency that an individual has to possess in order to purchase and use a test. Level C tests are

ones that only someone with a “doctorate in psychology-related or education-related field,

appropriate training, or license or other credential that requires assessment training/ experience”

(Hays, 2017). This qualification does make it more difficult to obtain and accurately use this test

in certain settings, such as occupational health or anyone that holds a master's degree in a

counseling or psychology related field.

Hays (2017), also pointed out that further research into the MMPI-2 has revealed that its

scales are incapable of accurately categorizing people into psychiatric groups, and instead, are

best used by offering personality descriptions and serving as a means of drawing conclusions

about an individual's behavior. Furthermore, Marek, Ben-Porath, Epker, Kreymer, and Block,

(2020) reported that although the MMPI-2 is widely used, assessment psychologists have

identified substantial psychometric problems with its clinical scales.

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 7

Just as counselors and psychologists are expected to stay up to date with relevant clinical

methods and research to ethically and effectively practice with clients, assessments also need to

occasionally be revised to reflect such changes. For this reason, the Minnesota Multiphasic

Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) was published in 2008. The major

differences between the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF are that the latter is shorter, with only 338

true/false statements instead of the former 567-item version. Also, the majority of the MMPI-2

validity scales, such as F, Fp, FBS, L, and K, were kept in the MMPI-2-RF, although most of the

scales were shortened and reconstructed for the modification (Bopp, Aparcero, and Rosenfeld,

2022). It is also still a self-report assessment that can aid counselors in treatment planning for

clients.

The MMPI-2-RF was developed and published by Professors Yossef Ben-Porath and

Auke Tellegen because they wanted to create “a psychometrically improved and more efficient

alternative to the MMPI-2” (Sellbom, 2019). Just like the MMPI-2, the MMPI-2-RF is a highly

researched and widely used assessment among clinicians who want to measure psychopathology

symptoms and maladaptive personality traits in people. It can be used in a variety of settings

such as forensic, medical, and mental health, just as the MMPI-2. Within the MMPI-2-RF, there

are nine validity scales in place as a safeguard from random or inaccurate answering, with the

rest of the scales being clinical scales.

As mentioned, the scales are similar but have been modified in the newer version of the

MMPI. The modified clinical scales now include demoralization, somatic complaints, low

positive emotions, cynicism, antisocial behavior, ideas of persecution, dysfunctional negative

emotions, aberrant experiences, and hypomanic activation. These RC scales are considered the

same as the MMPI-2 clinical scales, however, the revised RC Scales “reflect transdiagnostic,
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 8

dimensional psychological categories rather than psychiatric disorders” (Sellhom, 2019). Since

its conception over 10 years ago, the MMPI-2-RF has been thoroughly researched and found to

be both reliable and valid.

A factor that has been established to affect the validity and reliability of an assessment is

response bias. Not all assessments are created equal when having the ability to account for

response bias, however, just as the MMPI-2 was fairly successful in doing so, the MMPI-2-RF,

was also created to account for such issues. A study conducted by Marek, Ben-Porath, Epker,

Kreymer, and Block, (2020), took a look at spinal surgery patients and their reports of pain and

well-being after surgery. The article reported that it is not uncommon for patients to report

diminished outcomes, and assessments like the MMPI-2-RF, can provide additional information

past the regular clinical interviews and the patient's medical records. The study concluded that

the MMPI-2-RF scales were in fact reliable and were able to provide evidence of strong

discriminant and convergent validity within both samples.

Sellbom (2019)'s research also dived into the accuracy of the RC scales of the MMPI-2-

RF and found that research has “indicated substantial support for the RC Scales based on their

associations with clinician ratings on a variety of intake and process variables”. This information

came about after the MMPI-2-RF assessment was used in mental health settings for evaluations.

There is substantial research available that again, supports the validity and reliability of the

MMPI-2-RF, just as the previous MMPI-2 version had.

As of October 2020, an updated version of the MMPI was published which was the

MMPI-3. Ben-Porath, Heilbrun, and Rizzo, (2022) explain that the MMPI-3 is also a self-report

assessment, comprising of 335 true/false items, making it the shortest version of the MMPI yet.

The version includes changes to the items, scales, and the normative samples. A strength of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 9

MMPI, beginning with the second version was how culturally inclusive they are, such as

providing the assessment in different languages. The MMPI-3 has taken this strength a step

further by having its “Spanish-language normative sample is the first to provide separate U.S.

norms for a Spanish translation of the inventory” (Ben-Porath, Heilbrun, and Rizzo, 2022). The

same article also reports that some of the reasoning for the newest version of the MMPI being

published was to correct some of the language within it and to simplify the assessment further

without compromising its accuracy.

Since the MMPI-3 is still new, there has not been time for as much research to be done.

However, there have been some to show the validity and reliability of it. Pona, Marek, Panigrahi,

and Ben-Porath, (2022) conducted a study on a preoperative bariatric surgery sample to test the

reliability and validity of the MMPI-3. They hypothesized that the scores from the MMPI-3

scales would be similar to what they were in the MMPI-2-RF. Their conclusion of the MMPI-3

after their study was that the scales were comparable in terms of reliability to the MMPI-2-RF.

They also found “evidence of good convergent validity with extra-test measures assessing

depression, anxiety, alcohol use, and eating disorder psychopathology in a preoperative bariatric

sample” (Pona, Marek, Panigrahi, and Ben-Porath, (2022). Overall, present research on the

MMPI-3 is positive and more research will be conducted on different samples in the future.

Lastly, I find it important to briefly highlight that the MMPI is offered to adolescents as

well. The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A) and the

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent–Restructured Form (MMPI-A-RF)

have been developed and published for use. The MMPI-A was published in 1992 and is

considered to be “one of the most frequently used inventories for young people” (Hays, 2017).

The MMPI-A was developed to assess psychopathology in adolescents ranging from ages 14 to
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 10

18 (Osberg and Poland, 2002). This version of the MMPI has 478 true/false items and

adolescents can finish it in about an hour. The revised version was published in 2016, and is

shorter than the MMPI-A, with 241 true/false items (Stanborough, 2020).

Overall, the MMPI assessment is a reliable and useful test for mental health professionals

to use in a variety of settings. It provides an objective, reliable, and valid assessment of an

individual's mental health and can be used to diagnose mental health disorders, evaluate

treatment progress, identify potential areas of concern, and simply look at an individual's

personality. It has also proven to be a useful tool for research, providing valuable insight into the

psychological functioning of individuals. The MMPI is an invaluable assessment that can help

mental health professionals make informed decisions and provide the best possible care for their

clients.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 11

References

Ben-Porath, Y. S., Heilbrun, K., & Rizzo, M. (2022). Using the MMPI-3 in Legal Settings.

Journal of personality assessment, 104(2), 162–178.

https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00223891.2021.2006672

Bopp, L. L., Aparcero, M., & Rosenfeld, B. (2022). Detecting symptom exaggeration and

minimization using translated versions of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF: A systematic

review and preliminary meta-analysis. Law and Human Behavior, 46(1), 81–97.

https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1037/lhb0000469

Drayton , M. (2009). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2).

Occupational Medicine, 59(2), 135–136. Retrieved from

https://academic.oup.com/occmed/article/59/2/135/1387433.

Hays, D.G. (2017). Assessment in counseling (6th ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling

Association.

Lange, R. T., Sullivan, K. A., & Scott, C. (2010). Comparison of MMPI-2 and PAI validity

indicators to detect feigned depression and PTSD symptom reporting. Psychiatry

Research, 176(2–3), 229–235.

https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2009.03.004

Lee, T.T.C. (2020). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). In: Zeigler-Hill, V.,

Shackelford, T.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences.

Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24612-3_914

Marek, R. J., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Epker, J. T., Kreymer, J. K., & Block, A. R. (2020). Reliability

and Validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 - Restructured Form

Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 12

(MMPI-2-RF) in Spine Surgery and Spinal Cord Stimulator Samples. Journal of

personality assessment, 102(1), 22–35.

https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1488719

Osberg, Timothy & Poland, Danielle. (2002). Comparative accuracy of the MMPI-2 and the

MMPI-A in the diagnosis of psychopathology in 18-year-olds. Psychological assessment.

14. 164-9. 10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.164.

Pona, A. A., Marek, R. J., Panigrahi, E., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2022). Examination of the

Reliability and Validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3)

in a Preoperative Bariatric Surgery Sample. Journal of clinical psychology in medical

settings, 1–14. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-022-09908-2

Sellbom M. (2019). The MMPI-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Assessment of Personality

and Psychopathology in the Twenty-First Century. Annual review of clinical psychology,

15, 149–177. https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050718-095701

Stanborough, R. J. (2020). MMPI test: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.

Healthline. Retrieved February 17, 2023, from https://www.healthline.com/health/mmpi-

test#other-versions

University of Minnesota Press. (2015). MMPI history: A Brief History of the MMPI Instruments.

Minnesota Test Division . Retrieved February 18, 2023, from

https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/bibliography/mmpi-history

Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Stafford, K. P., Freeman, D. B., & Heilbronner,

R. L. (2007). The relation between symptom validity testing and MMPI-2 scores as a
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) 13

function of forensic evaluation context. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 22(4),

489–499. https://doi-org.wake.idm.oclc.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.01.027