Third, the “ MMPI–2” in the MMPI–2–RF is a misnomer because the only relationship to the MMPI–2 is its use of a subset of the MMPI–2 item pool, its normative group, and similar validity scales. Second, none of the MMPI–2 content and supplementary scales can be scored on the MMPI–2–RF, and so all of this research and clinical usage also is lost. Greene (2011) listed three disadvantages of using the MMPI–2–RF instead of the MMPI–2:įirst, the absence of the MMPI–2 clinical scales from the MMPI–2–RF makes it impossible to utilize code type interpretation that has been the core of the MMPI/MMPI–2 interpretation for over 50 years. Consequently, the professional who uses the MMPI–2–RF in forensic settings should be prepared to address challenges based on the instrument’s novelty. In forensic settings, the acceptance of a relatively new assessment instrument is predicated on accumulated research supporting the use of the instrument and the extent to which the instrument is accepted by the professional community as a whole.
In settings where the goal of assessment is a comprehensive understanding of test takers, this author would choose the MMPI–2 because it is his opinion that interpretations based on the MMPI–2 can yield a more in-depth analysis of personality and psychopathology. Consider, for example, the opinion of one of the coauthors of the RC scales, Graham: Several recent textbooks challenge the notion that the MMPI–2–RF is the instrument of choice for forensic evaluations (Butcher, 2011 Graham, 2012 Greene, 2011 Nichols, 2011). The MMPI–2–RF has not gained acceptance as a replacement for the MMPI–2. Many experts do not consider the MMPI-2-RF to be a viable replacement for the MMPI-2 in critical evaluations such as child custody. Psychologists considering including them as part of a test battery must evaluate their psychometric properties by carefully examining the test manuals, empirical studies, and recent textbooks. The MMPI-2-RF and its scales are novel measures whose use may be challenged inforensic settings. This article describes many of the criticisms of the MMPI–2–RF, and its various scales, including the RC Scales and the Fake Bad Scale (recently renamed the Symptom Validity Scale). Unfortunately, this recommendation was not supported by a comprehensive review of the literature similar to the one she used to address her primary questions about MMPI-2 Scale 4. Toward the end of her article addressing the prevalence of MMPI-2 Scale 4 elevations among child custody litigants, Ellis recommended use of the MMPI-2-RFscales in child custody evaluations. Journal of Child Custody: Research, Issues, and Practices, Vol 9(4), Oct, 2012. Problems with using the MMPI–2–RF in forensic evaluations: A clarification to Ellis.
0 kommentar(er)
