| Abstract: | Responds to comments by P. Horvath (see record 2007-09683-001) and G. C. Fekken (see record 2007-09684-001) on the current authors' original article entitled The Research Base, Psychometric Properties and Clinical Uses of the MMPI-2 (see record 1992-25725-001). Horvath and Fekken have made a substantial contribution to the evolution of MMPI-based assessment by providing thoughtful evaluations of key issues in the revision. We appreciate both their endorsement of the improved aspects as well as the questions and critiques they skillfully raise. In the limited space allotted to us, we will try to respond to the major issues. Both Horvath and Fekken, while noting the ways in which MMPI-2 improves the original instrument, point out apparent deficiencies in the original instrument that were not eliminated. The current authors contend that regardless of its psychometric ugliness and somewhat archaic aspects, the MMPI has worked extremely well as a screening instrument for psychopathology. Second, Fekken raises an important concern about the validity of the MMPI-2. Two published studies are cited to debate this critique. Third, Fekken cites the work of Duckworth which reports apparent "differences" between the profiles of some participants who took both the original and revised MMPI. Unfortunately, Duckworth's report fails to address a fundamental prerequisite of experimental design: the test-retest variable. Fourth, Horvath, in his critique of the original MMPI, questions validity generalization. However, the cited research did not study the original MMPI instrument but rather an abbreviated derivation or approximation of the test, the Minimult, which utilizes only 81 of the original MMPI items. Fifth, both Horvath and Fekken note that there are additional aspects about the revision process, the psychometric properties, and the applicability of the MMPI-2 that were not addressed in our original article. These are significant issues that deserve a much more detailed response than we can render in this brief response. However, these issues have been and continue to be addressed in the research literature. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
