evaluación personalidad (butcher)

ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Personality Assessmentfrom the Nineteenth to theEarly Twenty-First Century:Past Achievements andContemporary ChallengesJames N. ButcherDepartment of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010. 6:1–20

First published online as a Review in Advance onJanuary 19, 2010

The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is onlineat clinpsy.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131420

Copyright c© 2010 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

1548-5943/10/0427-0001$20.00

Key Words

assessment history, phrenology, Rorschach, Exner ComprehensiveSystem, TAT, MMPI, MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, RC Scales,Restructured Clinical Scales

AbstractThe historical basis of personality assessment that led to the develop-ment of today’s approaches and applications is described. The mod-ern era of personality assessment began in late nineteenth-centuryEurope. Early twentieth-century highlights included the developmentof projective techniques like the Rorschach and several early self-reportinventories, culminating in the development of the most widely usedmeasure, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).The most recent 30-year period showed expansions into personnelscreening; clinical assessment, including wide use in forensic settings;and therapeutic assessment. However, contemporary controversies areapparent with two of the most widely used measures, the Rorschach andthe MMPI instruments. These controversies are described, includingconcerns about the Exner Comprehensive System for the Rorschachand the last five years of changes to the MMPI-2, including the in-troduction of the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, the adoption ofthe Fake Bad Scale (FBS) into the instrument, and the release of theMMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Current challenges fac-ing psychologists in personality assessment are highlighted.

1

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Contents

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2NINETEENTH-CENTURY

PRECURSORS TOPERSONALITY ASSESSMENT . . 3

EARLY-TWENTIETH CENTURYDEVELOPMENTS INPERSONALITYASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

USE OF PERSONALITYINVENTORIES INPERSONNEL SETTINGS . . . . . . . 5

USE OF PERSONALITYMEASURES IN MENTALHEALTH AND MEDICALSETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

LATTER HALF OF THETWENTIETH CENTURY . . . . . . . 8

CONTEMPORARY CONCERNSABOUT TWO ASSESSMENTSTANDARDS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10Criticisms of the Rorschach . . . . . . . . 10Recent Public Exposure of the

Rorschach Blots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Controversial Changes to the

MMPI-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12CONCLUDING COMMENTS. . . . . . 14

INTRODUCTION

People have been interested in appraising thepersonality of others for as long as our avail-able records show. The earliest documentedattempts at understanding personality charac-teristics can be found in ancient civilizations.Both Hathaway (1965) and Sundberg (1977)pointed out that one of the initial descrip-tions of behavioral observation techniques inassessing personality can be found in the OldTestament when Gideon used observations ofhis men trembling with fear as well as observa-tions of how they chose to drink water from astream as a means of selecting soldiers for battle.In ancient Greece and Rome, Tacitus provideda number of examples in which the appraisal ofa person’s personality entered into judgments

about him, often life-or-death decisions (Grant1956). Tacitus pointed out that in one situation,“Tiberius had pretended to be hesitant for an-other reason too, in order to detect what leadingmen were thinking” (Grant 1956, p. 36). Physi-cians such as Galen and Soranus used medi-cal techniques of the day, particularly observa-tion, to understand the thinking and behaviorof people with mental health problems (Gerdz1994). Galen (AD 130–200) believed that aperson’s temperament was related to the pre-dominance of various body fluids. Soranus (AD96–138) provided descriptions of different per-sonality factors involved in several mental disor-ders, based on observations and medical exam-inations of the day, that are recognizable eventoday in clinical diagnoses.

During the middle ages, in the fifteenth andinto the seventeenth centuries, the assessmentof mental health problems took a morbid direc-tion that led to the accumulation of informationthat contributed to the execution of thousandsof people. Beliefs at the time of the Spanishand Roman Inquisitions maintained that somepeople were witches who worked on behalf ofthe devil and needed to be identified in or-der that they could be stopped. Spanos (1978)pointed out that many of the best-educatedand most intelligent men in Western Europeduring this period believed in the existence ofwitches, mostly women, who belonged to an in-ternational satanic conspiracy dedicated to thedefamation of God. Thousands of people con-fessed to being witches and to carrying out var-ious incredible activities against God duringthis period. The evidence that was most com-monly used by the officials of the day to exposea person as a witch and mentally unbalancedwas the person’s own acknowledgment, usu-ally under intense external pressure and torture(Kieckhefer 1976).

In determining whether a person was awitch, a representative of the church evaluatedindividuals to establish whether they had qual-ities of demonic possession. Church officials,who were referred to as witch prickers, wouldstick sharp objects deep in the suspect’s body,as far as the bone, to determine whether the

2 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


suspect had locations that had been marked bythe Devil (known as Devil’s marks) (Ostermann1629); such areas on the body were consideredto be insensitive to the pain of torture (Guazzo1608/1929). In many cases, the evaluations werecarried out publicly, in situations that resultedin extreme fear and embarrassment for the sus-pects. A person who became terrified and con-fused was considered mentally disordered anda likely witch. According to writings of author-ities of the time (Boguet 1603/1929), most sus-pects readily confessed to their sins. However,some suspects failed to confess when tortured,and it was thought that the Devil had providedthem with protection, such as drugs or spellsthat made them insensitive to pain.

This review addresses the historical rootsof contemporary personality assessment, high-lighting prominent developments from its ori-gins in the nineteenth century to current times.Any view of the history of a field is neces-sarily selective given the constancy of changeand broad development of thinking and in-struments. The present review and perspectivehighlights major contributions, describes themore lasting trends, and highlights some cur-rent challenges facing personality assessment.The scope of this article does not allow fora comprehensive review of all techniques thathave been published to measure various aspectsof personality. One needs to examine criticallyand recognize the limitations of a particularhistorical perspective. Those interested in fur-ther exploration of the historical overviews ofpersonality assessment can find more informa-tion in several resources (e.g., Benjamin 2005,Boring 1950, Goldberg 1971, Gibby & Zickar2008, Paterson et al. 1938, Sundberg 1977).Personality research methods are reviewed byCraik (1986).

NINETEENTH-CENTURYPRECURSORS TOPERSONALITY ASSESSMENT

Historical trends or precursors may not di-rectly contribute to development in a field, butthey can reflect social motivation for change or

methodological ideas that can indirectly influ-ence the transformation. In the nineteenth cen-tury, there were several notable attempts, basedon scientific thinking of the day, to develop for-mal methods for studying personality and char-acter. Two separate and quite different historictrends emerged in this period. One such intel-lectual movement was phrenology, the view thatthere was a means of deriving information aboutthe character of individuals by examining theirhead size and shape. The second approach dur-ing the nineteenth century, begun by FrancisGalton, involved careful scientific observationand mental testing. Galton’s ideas were highlyinfluential to later personality assessmentdevelopments.

The “science of phrenology” was exploredand widely taught by several prominent physi-cians in Europe. Phrenology appealed to in-tellectuals who accepted the view that bio-logical determinism enabled individuals to beable to read and understand the character ofother people by examining their physical ap-pearance. This movement was initiated by theViennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828) and his student Johan Spurzheim (1776–1832). Gall, was a prominent lecturer who ex-plored and taught, for example, that havinga powerful memory was a characteristic re-sulting from having very prominent eyes; hethought that other bodily characteristics suchas head size and shape were related to char-acter or special talents for painting or mu-sic. Gall and Spurzheim became very popularspeakers among upper-class intellectuals andscientists in Europe in the 1820s. They wroteand lectured widely on phrenology through-out Europe. Gall and Spurzheim had a dis-agreement that prompted Spurzheim to starthis own career in phrenology. Spurzheim laterexpanded his theory and established a new andmore complete topography of the skull, fillingin blanks for areas that had not been established.He expanded the terminology of phrenologyand continued to lecture on this theory aroundEurope and the United States. His lectures andwritings influenced some physicians in othercountries, such as the British physician George

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 3

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Combe (1788–1858), who became well knownas a phrenologist. Spurzheim also influencedthe work of John C. Warren (1778–1856), a pro-fessor of medicine at Harvard who performedthe first surgery under ether in the UnitedStates. When Warren returned to Boston, hedeveloped a series of lectures on phrenologyat Harvard and later incorporated these ideasinto presentations for a broader audience at theMassachusetts Medical Society.

One of the most widely traveled promot-ers of phrenology in the United States dur-ing the 1820s was Charles Caldwell (1772–1853), who had attended Spurzheim’s lecturesin Paris. He lectured on phrenology through-out the United States and founded organi-zations that promoted phrenology. In 1832,after a series of lectures in the United States,Spurzheim became ill and died. The most visi-ble phrenologists in the United States were twobrothers, Orson Squire Fowler (1809–1889)and Lorenzo Fowler (1811–1896). The Fowlerslectured and wrote extensively about phrenol-ogy during the 1840s. They established and op-erated a publishing house, a mail-order busi-ness, and a museum of human and animal skullsto promote phrenology as a method for under-standing other people.

Although the phrenology movement waspopular for a time, even among some physi-cians, it was not widely accepted in the broadermedical scientific community. The high inter-est in phrenology occurring in both Europe andthe United States is important in the historyof assessment in that it reflects the idea thatthere was both a general and professional inter-est in the process of evaluating personality char-acteristics and character through use of externalinformation.

In contrast to the pseudoscientific phrenol-ogy fad in the early-nineteenth century, therewere major contributions to the developmentof a science of personality assessment towardthe end of the century. In England, FrancisGalton (1822–1911), a relative and contempo-rary of Charles Darwin, conducted a numberof experiments on mental processes and postu-lated procedures for measuring psychological

attributes. Galton (1879, 1884) thought thathuman character could be studied by observa-tion and experimentation and suggested strate-gies for making personality-based observationsthat could be standardized and compared bythe use of normative procedures. For example,he used Galen’s typology in his studies of tem-perament (Galton 1874). Galton proposed thatquestionnaires could be developed for measur-ing mental traits, although he did not developa specific questionnaire for this purpose. In1890, James McKeen Cattell, following ideas ofGalton, initiated a study of measurements to ap-praise mental processes that incorporated rig-orous standards to evaluate human qualities, forexample, procedures that “would be valuable inthe diagnosis of nervous diseases and in study-ing abnormal states of consciousness” (Cattell1890, p. 349). Although his work primarily fo-cused upon physical measures, his attention toaccurate observation and quantification and hiscoining of the term “mental tests” provided ascientific basis and direction for the objectivestudy of human characteristics.

EARLY-TWENTIETH CENTURYDEVELOPMENTS INPERSONALITY ASSESSMENT

Benjamin (2005) pointed out that psycholog-ical assessment was the beginning of clinicalpsychology and that between the two worldwars, clinical psychology “was essentially aboutassessment.” Most work on mental testing atthe turn of the century included the use ofphysical tests in the tradition of Cattell. Forexample, a manual on testing published byWhipple (1910) addressed primarily physical,motor, sensory, and perceptual tests. However,at about the same time, three early publicationssignaled an interest in using procedures otherthan physical qualities for understanding psy-chological processes. The first formal use ofa questionnaire to study personal qualities in-volved the use of a structured rating scale forstudying human character that was publishedby Heymans & Wiersma (1906). They devel-oped a 90-item rating procedure and obtained

4 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


the collaboration of 3000 physicians to ratepeople with whom they were well acquainted.Other early efforts to evaluate personality canbe found in the work of Carl Jung (1907), whostudied associations to words in order to evalu-ate a person’s thought processes and personality,and Kent & Rosanoff (1910), who developed ameasure to study free association among psy-chiatric patients.

The first personality inventory for use in ob-taining information through self-report was de-veloped by Robert Woodworth (1919, 1920) aspart of a U.S. Army program to develop an in-strument to detect psychiatric problems amongdraftees. The scale, the Woodworth PersonalData Sheet (PDS), included 116 items related tophysical problems, social behavior, and mentalhealth symptoms that were thought to addressthe person’s psychological adjustment. Itemsincluded:

“Have you ever seen a vision?”“Do you have a great fear of fire?”“Do you feel tired most of the time?”“Is it easy to get you angry?”

The scoring on the scale was the total num-ber of problem items that the individual ac-knowledged were an indication of adjustmentproblems. In addition, Woodworth thoughtthat some of the item responses reflected behav-ior problems so severe that the person neededto be carefully evaluated further. These itemswere referred to as “starred items” (similar tocritical items used in assessment today). (SeeTable 1 for a discussion of personality scaleresearch strategy development.) Woodworthconducted a study on a sample of drafteesand returning soldiers with “shell shock” andcompared the results with responses of collegestudents (Woodworth 1919). The PDS waspublished after the war and thus was not used asa means of selecting out maladjusted draftees.Interestingly, many of the actual item contentsdevised by Woodworth for the PDS found theirway into the inventories in use today, althoughitems are now typically formulated as True-False rather than Yes-No questions.

Personality assessment expanded and devel-oped substantially after the end of World War I,following Woodworth’s groundbreaking publi-cation. Two separate but overlapping tracks ofdevelopment in personality inventories beganduring the 1920s and 1930s and can be tracedto the present: (a) personality assessment inpersonnel settings and (b) assessments in men-tal health and medical settings. Both of thesetrends are examined below.

USE OF PERSONALITYINVENTORIES INPERSONNEL SETTINGS

The early personality assessment instrumentsfor personnel applications focused, as did theWoodworth Personal Data Sheet, on evalu-ating maladjustment. Gibby & Zickar (2008)summarize the extensive history of personalityassessment in personnel selection as an “ob-session with adjustment,” although more re-cently measures have attempted to assess otherpersonality dimensions (described below). Ini-tially, personality inventories were devoted toassessing a single personality dimension, such as“adjustment”; however, other more complex as-sessment strategies evolved. For example, theBernreuter Personality Inventory, published byRobert Bernreuter (1931), provided scores forseveral personality characteristics, including anappraisal of neurotic tendencies, ascendance-submission, and introversion-extraversion. TheBernreuter Inventory came to be widely usedin counseling and clinical settings as well asfor personnel applications. This scale was alsoinfluential in the development of other inven-tories. The Humm-Wadsworth TemperamentScale (Humm & Wadsworth 1934) was a 318-item inventory (based upon Rosanoff’s theoryof personality) designed to analyze “tempera-mental mechanisms.” It provided several scoreson personality attributes such as emotionality,self-interest, and harmony or disharmony withthe environment.

The use of personality assessment in screen-ing for personnel applications reached ahigh point during World War II with the


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Table 1 Different methods of scale construction used in the development of personality questionnaires

Theoretically Derived Unidimensional Personality Inventories. Early personality inventories, such as Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet,employed a rational composition of items to address characteristics such as “adjustment” (Woodworth 1920). This type of scalerelies upon “face validity” of the items for measuring the construct of interest. The rational approach assumes a directcorrespondence between the item content and the personality attribute evaluated.

Theoretically Derived Multidimensional Personality Inventories. Some developers of early personality inventories (e.g., Bernreuter 1931,Humm & Wadsworth 1934) followed a rational-theory based scale-construction approach to develop item contents and combineitems into scales to address personality characteristic such as traits or behavior patterns. Multiple personality characteristics wereincluded in a single inventory. This procedure relies upon the scale developer’s insight into the item-construct relationship. Noempirical validation was included.

Empirically Derived Personality Measures. In contrast to the selection of items based on the test developer’s theory, Paterson et al. (1938)recommended that a scale should be validated by a rigorous item analysis and that only items that were highly correlated with thetotal score should be included. The empirical scale developers for the MMPI, Hathaway & McKinley (1940), followed this strategyand required that in order for an item to be included on a scale it had to actually discriminate statistically between a criterion groupof patients with similar problems, such as depressed patients, and a sample of normal individuals. Because items are selected basedon prediction of criterion variables, the scale may be composed of heterogeneous content. Moreover, empirically derived scales formultiple clinical or personality constructs can contain items that overlap other scales because, in part, the constructs themselves arecomposed of complex content, not simple dimensions.

Factor-Analytic Developed Personality Measures. This approach, often referred to as exploratory factor analysis (Cattell 1946, Gorsuch1963), uses internal statistical methods such as item correlation to develop dimensions or scales. In this approach, homogeneousitem sets are obtained when a pool of items is administered and factored, with the resulting dimensions then named as scales. Sinceitems for a scale are selected on the basis of item intercorrelation, the scales tend to be homogeneous in content and narrowlydefined.

Sequential System of Construct-Oriented Scale Development. A somewhat modified factorial approach was developed by Jackson (1970)as a means of constructing construct-oriented measures. Others such as Tellegen et al. (2003), in constructing their RestructuredClinical Scales, modeled their scale development on this strategy. First, personality constructs are theoretically defined; next, arelevant item pool to potentially measure these constructs is formed; then factor analysis is used to assure homogeneity ofconstructs. This factor-dimensional strategy results in homogeneous content scales that can be recognizable to test takers andsomewhat open to response manipulation.

Content-Based Personality Measures. An effective means of constructing personality scales involves grouping items according to similarcontents as done by Wiggins (1973) following, in part, from Cronbach & Meehl’s construct validity approach or using acombination of content grouping and statistical refinement. Constructs such as traits serve as the basis for developing an item poolto measure the personality domains. Some researchers use Alpha coefficients to assure high scale homogeneity once item-scalemembership has been postulated and external validation against behavioral or clinical criteria. (Butcher et al. 1990). This strategy,as in the sequential system, results in scales that are homogeneous in content, recognizable to test takers, and consequentlysomewhat open to response manipulation.

government project for the selection ofSpecial Forces for military duty. The U.S.Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a predeces-sor to the present Central Intelligence Agency,performed extensive psychological evaluationson persons who were to be assigned to secretoverseas missions. The program, supervised byHenry Murray, evaluated more than 5000 can-didates for special duty assignment. The assess-ment team used more than one hundred differ-ent psychological tests and specially designedprocedures to perform the evaluations. The

operations of this extensive assessment programwere described after the war, when the projectwas declassified (Off. Strat. Serv. Assess. Staff1948) [see also a review by Handler (2001) fora discussion of the OSS]. The military servicesimplemented several programs in which testssuch as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personal-ity Inventory (MMPI) were used in personnelselection for positions such as pilots and spe-cial services personnel (Altus 1945, Blair 1950,Fulkerson et al. 1958, Jennings 1949, Melton1955; see discussion by Butcher et al. 2006).

6 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Personnel selection using personality ad-justment questionnaires in industry diminishedin the 1970s as a result of criticisms that theavailable measures lacked predictive validityfor job-related criteria and also discriminatedagainst people or were unfair to persons seek-ing employment because they addressed qual-ities that were not job related (Butcher et al.2009). However, the use of personality assess-ment instruments in personnel selection hasmade a comeback in contemporary psychology,particularly with respect to evaluating personsfor high-risk occupations.

USE OF PERSONALITYMEASURES IN MENTAL HEALTHAND MEDICAL SETTINGS

A few years after the end of World War I,Woodworth & Matthews (1924) adapted thePersonal Data Sheet approach for children andadolescents. They published a 75-item ver-sion of the inventory that included some ofthe original items as well as some additionalitems they thought would address the prob-lems of young people, such as “Are you troubledwith dreams about your play?” and “Do youfind school a hard place to get along in?” and“Did you ever feel that you were very wicked?”The inventories developed by Woodworth andhis colleagues influenced the development ofa number of clinical personality scales to as-sess psychological adjustment problems duringthe 1920s and 1930s. Multidimensional person-ality inventories following the rational scale-development strategy, such as the Bernreuterand the Humm-Wadsworth, became availableduring this period as well. For example, the BellAdjustment Inventory (Bell 1934) was a 140-item scale that included questions dealing withareas of home, health, and social and emotionaladjustments.

Hathaway & McKinley (1940) developedone of the most effective measures in person-ality assessment, the MMPI, in the late 1930s.Hathaway and McKinley, who were critical ofthe rational strategy of developing personalityinventories, followed an empirical method for

item selection that had been used effectivelywith other measures (Paterson et al. 1938).They developed a large set of items without de-termining in advance which items measured aparticular characteristic. They next defined sev-eral clinical problem areas, such as somatizationof problems, depression, and schizophrenia, bygrouping homogeneous sets of patients withsimilar problems and symptoms. They thenconstructed their scales by selecting only itemsthat actually discriminated the clinical groupfrom a sample of nonpatients or “normals,” i.e.,individuals not receiving patient care. The testwas widely adapted for both clinical assessmentand research during the 1940s and 1950s andbecame the most widely used personality instru-ment in psychology. The MMPI was not with-out criticism (see Ellis 1946, Goldberg 1974).Ellis (1946) criticized all group-administeredpaper-and-pencil questionnaires as being ofdubious value in distinguishing betweengroups of adjusted and maladjusted individuals.Goldberg (1974) questioned the utility of theempirical scale-development strategy used inthe MMPI compared with other methods ofscale development.

Parallel to the development of paper-and-pencil inventories in personality assessment,other psychologists were exploring very dif-ferent methods of personality appraisal thatused more indirect stimuli to obtain responsesthrough which personality inferences could bedrawn, for example, ink blots, ambiguous pic-tures, and drawings. This approach, referredto as projective assessment, uses ambiguousstimuli to which a person responds, therebyproviding information about himself or her-self through “projecting” his or her own feel-ings, thoughts, attitudes, etc. Although somerecent theorists (Meyer & Kurtz 2006) haveexplored moving away from the distinction be-tween objective and projective personality as-sessment strategies, this conceptualization hasa clear historical basis as well as (in my view)pertinent contemporary value.

A key direction for clinical assessmentemerged in the 1920s and 1930s with the de-velopment of projective techniques. Herman


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Rorschach (1921) published his monograph,Psychodiagnostik, which detailed the develop-ment of the Rorschach inkblot technique in1921. This method of assessment was adaptedin the United States by Levy in 1924 (Beck1973). Subsequent developments and refine-ments of the Rorschach inkblot technique oc-curred in the United States when Beck (1938),Klopfer & Tallman (1938), and Hertz (1938)developed Rorschach interpretation strategiesto understand personality and emotional char-acteristics of patients in a movement that wasto see the publication of thousands of arti-cles and recruitment of countless advocates.Beck, Klopfer, and Hertz also developed sep-arate interpretation systems for the inkblots inthe 1940s. The most widely used contemporaryRorschach interpretive system was developedby John Exner (1974).

Henry Murray and Christiana Morgan de-veloped the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT;Murray 1938, 1943). The TAT is a projectivemeasure made up of a series of pictures thatportray human figures in a variety of activi-ties and situations, to which a client is askedto make up a story describing the events go-ing on in the picture. The client’s responsesallow the clinician to develop a picture of theclient’s thought patterns, attitudes, beliefs, ob-servational capacity, and emotional responses.The TAT has been administered to individu-als in a variety of settings, such as clinical as-sessment, personnel screening, and research inpersonality, to gain a picture of what a clientthinks and feels. It has been shown to be an ef-fective means of eliciting information about aperson’s view of others as well as his or her at-titudes toward the self and expectations of rela-tionships with peers, parents, or other authorityfigures.

Lilienfeld et al. (2001) criticized the TATas being unreliable and invalid in describ-ing personality attributes and noted a lack ofan effective scoring system for use in assess-ment. Although the TAT is still used exten-sively in clinical evaluations, its use in re-search has diminished significantly comparedwith the Rorschach and MMPI instruments.

Contemporary criticisms of the Rorschach arediscussed below.

LATTER HALF OF THETWENTIETH CENTURY

A plethora of clinical personality assessmentprocedures were explored and developed dur-ing the latter half of the twentieth century,ranging from structured interviews to behav-ioral assessment instruments to projective testssuch as sentence completion, sensory appraisaltasks, and drawing of objects such as figures orthe hand (see handbooks surveying various per-sonality assessment measures by Butcher 2009,Graham & Naglieri 2003, Weiner & Greene2008). The sheer number of research articlesand journals devoted to personality assessmentmethods makes it difficult to keep current inmore than a few techniques. A number of rea-sons can be found for the increased rates ofresearch publication and clinical application ofpersonality assessment methods. For example,personality assessment devices are often usedas criterion measures for psychological researchinto abnormal behavior and psychological pro-cesses. Psychological tests have become a re-spected and engaging task for clinical practi-tioners today, with diverse applications such aspsychological screening in health care settingsas well as traditional mental health assessment.

In addition, there is an increased acceptanceof personality assessment in forensic settings.Psychological tests are more frequently re-quested and admitted as evidence in court todaythan they were even a decade ago (see Pope et al.2006). Moreover, psychological assessment iswidely accepted in industrial applications, bothfor conducting fitness-for-duty evaluations andfor personnel screening (Butcher et al. 2006).

In personnel or industrial settings today,two distinct types of personality assessmentsare conducted that differ in terms of goals, de-mands of government rules, and the measuresused. The first is selection for management po-sitions, and the second is evaluation of individ-uals in high-risk occupations, such as police,firefighters, and airline pilots. In management

8 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


selection, the use of personality scales to assesspositive personal qualities involves the appraisalof more general personality factors such as the“Big Five” personality dimensions that are usedin management appraisal. Some research has in-dicated that personality assessment in personneland industrial applications is making a come-back (Hough 2001).

One of the most widely used instruments inpersonnel selection was developed shortly afterthe end of World War II by using factor anal-ysis as the primary mode of scale construction.Cattell & Stice (1957) published the Six-teen Personality Factors Questionnaire (16-PF)based upon a number of factor analyses con-ducted on a large pool of adjectives they used toconstruct trait names. The 16-PF included a setof fifteen personality trait scales and one scaleto assess intelligence, which were designed toassess the full range of normal personality func-tioning (Cattell & Stice 1957). Another person-ality inventory that attained broad acceptance,but was based on a different scale-constructionmethodology, was the California Psychologi-cal Inventory (CPI) by Harrison Gough (1956).Gough, who had studied with Starke Hathawayat the University of Minnesota, began work ona set of personality trait scales that would as-sess general personality characteristics or traitsin nonclinical populations. The CPI contained489 items (over 200 of which were from theoriginal MMPI). He included an additionalgroup of items to address personality traits thatwere not dealt with by MMPI items. The CPIscales were grouped into four categories thataddressed different personality constructs: (a)poise; (b) socialization; (c) achievement poten-tial; and (d ) intelligence and interest modes.The CPI scales used both a rational and anempirical scale-development strategy to assesspersonality attributes found in “normal” pop-ulations. The CPI became a standard measurefor assessing personality in personnel selectionand in conducting psychological research (seediscussion by Megargee 2009).

The NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO-PI) was developed by Paul Costa & RobertMcCrae (1985) as a means of assessing what

they consider to be the major personality traitdimension often referred to as the “Big Five”or Five-Factor Model of personality. The NEOwas published in 1985 to measure these majordimensions in normal personality, referred to asopenness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraver-sion, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae1985). This instrument has been widely used asa measure of general personality characteristics(Costa & McCrae 2009).

Evaluating potentially detrimental person-ality characteristics for high-risk occupationsis an important activity today. Such assess-ments are now conducted posthire, as are pre-employment medical examinations to assure fit-ness for duty. A more extensive evaluation thatinvolves the assessment of personality or emo-tional stability is required for personnel evalu-ations of applicants for positions of high risk orpublic safety, such as police and fire departmentworkers, airline pilots, and nuclear power plantemployees. In such settings, there is a need toclosely assess personality using clinical instru-ments such as the MMPI for positions of highpublic responsibility.

The MMPI became the most widely usedadjustment-oriented personality scale, in partas a result of its wide use in military screen-ing during and after World War II. However,during the 1960s and 1970s, the MMPI was in-creasingly criticized because of some awkwarditem wording and content given changes in lan-guage usage over time; an item pool that did notaddress relevant contemporary problems; andlimited and out-of-date norms (Butcher 1972,Butcher & Owen 1978). In 1982, the MMPI re-vision and data collection began. The MMPI-2Revision Committee was composed of JamesButcher and W. Grant Dahlstrom. Within thefirst year, they invited John Graham to par-ticipate in the revision. Auke Tellegen joinedthe Committee in the data analysis stage, afterthe research protocol had been developed andthe data collected. The MMPI-2 was publishedin 1989 and the MMPI-A (for adolescents) in1992 (Butcher et al. 1992).

Research on the MMPI-2 and MMPI-Acontinues to this day. More than 19,000 articles


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and books have been published on the MMPI,the MMPI-2, and MMPI-A. The MMPI-2manual was revised in 2001 (Butcher et al.2001). This revision added new validity andsupplementary scales to the instrument.

In addition to the developments on theMMPI-2 and MMPI-A, several personalityquestionnaires were developed in the 1970s and1980s to address clinical problems. The twomost widely used of these newer measures forclinical settings, the Millon Clinical MultiaxialInventory (MCMI) and the Personality Assess-ment Inventory (PAI), illustrate these develop-ments. In 1977, Theodore Millon developedthe MCMI (see Millon 1977) to assess person-ality problems among clients in psychotherapy.Millon based his test development strategyupon his theory of psychopathology. Itemdevelopment followed a rational strategy, andhis comparison samples were patients in psy-chotherapy rather than a “normal” population.The MCMI largely addresses the Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)Axis II dimensions of personality rather thansymptom disorders on AXIS I of DSM thatare addressed by other more general measures.However, the most recent version, MCMI-III,does have a number of scales that are specificto DSM-IV-TR Axis I disorders (e.g., alcoholdependence, bipolar manic, major depression,dysthymia, somatoform disorder, and drugdependence).

Leslie Morey developed the PAI in 1991.Very similar to the MMPI, the PAI was de-signed to address the major clinical syndromes,such as depression (Morey 1991) and the per-sonality disorders. Other personality measuresaddressing personality disorders are also avail-able (see Widiger & Boyd 2009). In addi-tion, many personality scales have been devisedto address more focal problems such as anxi-ety (Spielberger et al. 1972), depression (Beck1973, Hamilton 1960), and psychopathic be-havior (Hare 2003), to mention a few.

The Rorschach technique has been widelyused in clinical and forensic assessment for al-most 90 years, and the Exner Comprehensive

System has been used for scoring and inter-pretation for almost 35 years. The Rorschachand the Exner Comprehensive System areconsidered by many assessment psychologistsas effective means of identifying personalitycharacteristics, assessing progress in treatment,appraising cognitive and behavioral dysfunc-tion, and evaluating posttraumatic stress dis-order and many other behavioral features orproblems (Weiner & Greene 2008, Weiner &Meyer 2009). The Rorschach is also widely usedin forensic evaluations, particularly family cus-tody cases, as well as in clinical settings (Archeret al. 2006).

One of the more innovative and recent ap-plications of personality assessment in clin-ical settings is the use of test feedback toclients as a means of bringing about behavioralchange. Several researchers have demonstratedthat providing sensitive test feedback to clientsbased upon the MMPI-2 or the Rorschachcan have powerful effects. Finn & Tonsager(1992), in what has been called therapeuticassessment, have shown that patients in psy-chological treatment can gain substantial self-esteem, understanding of their problems, andreduced adjustment difficulties if they have aclear picture of their MMPI-2-measured per-sonality factors. For a more extensive discussionof psychological assessment and client feed-back, see Finn & Kamphuis (2006) and Fischer(1994).

CONTEMPORARY CONCERNSABOUT TWO ASSESSMENTSTANDARDS

Progress in the personality assessment fieldover the past century has been accompaniedby controversies surrounding two of the mostwidely used instruments, the Rorschach and theMMPI-2. In the case of the Rorschach, the con-troversies center around the Exner Compre-hensive System for interpreting the Rorschach,introduced 35 years ago. The MMPI-2 contro-versies involve changes to the instrument madein the past five years.

10 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Criticisms of the Rorschach

The norms underlying the Exner Comprehen-sive System have been described as problematicin that they are from small and unrepresenta-tive samples, suffer redundancy of subjects, andare considered an inaccurate reference popu-lation (Garb et al. 2005, Wood et al. 2001).In response to this criticism, the generality ofRorschach norms has been more broadly sup-ported in a cross-cultural normative study of21 samples in 17 different countries. An inter-national normative study showed that the re-sponses of the normative population across cul-tures was similar regardless of the language thesubjects spoke. These results show congruencewith scoring relationships across internationalsamples (Shaffer et al. 2007).

The Rorschach has also been criticized asan instrument that overpathologizes people(Wood et al. 2001). The norms have been crit-icized as characterizing test takers, even nor-mal individuals, as having emotional problems(Shaffer et al. 1999). This situation is consid-ered to result in excessive false positives. Thiscriticism has been countered by others (seeGanellen 2001, Weiner 2009, Weiner & Meyer2009), including two meta-analyses that re-ported the Rorschach predictive power is com-parable to other personality assessment mea-sures (Grønnerød 2004, Hiller et al. 1999).

The use of the Rorschach in forensic eval-uations has been questioned by Wood et al.(2001) and Grove et al. (2002). They suggestthat “common knowledge” about the test is ei-ther incorrect or in dispute and that psycholo-gists who use the test in forensic cases can besuccessfully challenged. Rorschach proponentshave countered this argument. Meloy (2008) re-ported that in the years 1996 to 2005, 150 casesinvolved the Rorschach, with only 2% beingchallenged by opposing attorneys. An earlier re-view reported that the Rorschach had been usedin 247 cases between 1945 and 1995 and ac-cepted into evidence without challenge in 90%of the cases (Meloy et al. 1997).

The Rorschach is still widely used in bothclinical assessment and research (Weiner &

Meyer 2009) despite the limitations on its use,in particular the amount of time required foradministration, scoring, and interpretation—which makes it difficult for contemporarymanaged-care programs to support (Piotrowskiet al. 1998)—as well as the fact that a reducednumber of graduate training programs offerRorschach training (Viglione & Hilsenroth2001). The current controversy over the ade-quacy of Rorschach score norms and predictivevalidity continues in the literature.

Recent Public Exposureof the Rorschach Blots

A recent controversy has emerged with theRorschach that could, over time, have a sig-nificant impact on clinical use of the test. Theentire set of 10 inkblots was recently placed onthe Wikipedia Web site along with a listing ofpossible responses to the test, which some havereferred to as a “cheat sheet” (Cohen 2009). Al-though efforts have been made to have the pic-ture of the blots removed from the site, theyhave not been successful because the copyrightfor the test has expired and the pictures are con-sidered to be in the public domain. The open-ness and pervasiveness of the Internet makethe general distribution of the cards on othersites likely, for example, on YouTube, Facebook,comedy shows, and so forth. The familiaritythat people can gain about the Rorschach cardscould have an impact on their assessment if theyare scheduled for an evaluation.

The widespread availability of the card stim-uli can have a significant influence on the util-ity of the test in clinical applications. One ofthe basic assumptions of the test is that clientsare presented with a vague stimulus upon whichthey project their own interpretation, includingattitudes, beliefs, perceptions, motivations, andfeelings.

Although some psychologists who re-sponded on the Web site have considered theWikipedia exposure to be of minimal impor-tance, it is unclear as to what the actual impactof this availability will have on patients’ per-ceptions over time. Further consideration and


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


empirical research are needed to evaluate theimpact of this potential problem on the testnorms and interpretations.

Controversial Changes to the MMPI-2

Since 2003, several controversial changes havebeen made to the MMPI-2, including the re-lease of a new set of scales, the addition of acontroversial validity measure to the standardscoring of the MMPI-2 and its recommendeduse in all settings, and the release of a newversion of the instrument.

The MMPI-2 community of researchersand practitioners is sharply divided about thesechanges. Each of these changes is describedbelow. Perhaps the most significant change isthe release of a shortened MMPI-2, called theMMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; re-leased in August 2008) (Ben-Porath & Tellegen2008, Tellegen & Ben-Porath 2008). This in-strument uses a portion of the MMPI-2 itempool (338 items, a reduction of 40% of the itemcontent of the MMPI-2), eliminates the Clini-cal Scales and their code-type data derived overthe past 70 years, and uses the normative datacollected during the MMPI RestandardizationProject (Butcher et al. 1989) to develop non-gendered norms, all significant departures fromthe historical research foundation of this instru-ment. The MMPI-2-RF replaces the MMPI-2Clinical Scales with the Restructured Clinical(RC) Scales, a set of measures that was in-troduced in the previous four years for useas supplementary scales (Tellegen et al. 2003).Although the developers of the RC Scales pub-lished a series of articles about their scales sub-sequent to their release in 2003 (see PearsonAssessments 2009 for a bibliography of researchon the RC Scales), critics of the RC Scales, in-cluding the current author, have been resolutein descriptions of their limitations and the un-derlying theory and methodology that led totheir creation (see Butcher & Williams 2009).

The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales.The MMPI-2 RC Scales and MMPI-2-RFwere developed following the model described

by Jackson (1970) using rational-factor-analyticprocedures rather than the empirical traditionused to establish the MMPI and MMPI-2. TheRC scales are not the first attempt to remakethe MMPI clinical scales through factor analy-sis. Welsh (1956), using scale-level factor anal-ysis, recommended a system of interpretationbased on combining results from the factorscales Anxiety (A) and Repression (R). This in-terpretive approach was not widely accepted.The Tellegen et al. (2003) factor approach usedessentially the same main Welsh factor (A), re-naming it Demoralization (RCd),1 to determinewhich items to delete from the Clinical Scales.Many of the RC Scale constructs, such as RCd,RC1, and RC3, were also reported in an earlieritem factor analysis by Johnson et al. (1984).

The MMPI-2 RC Scales (Tellegen et al.2003, p. 2) were introduced in a 2003 mono-graph with the following statement: “At thispoint, the RC Scales can be used as aids in theinterpretation of the Clinical Scale profile. Itwill be necessary to conduct additional studiesto determine what other roles these new scalesmay ultimately play. In the final chapter we re-turn to these possible future developments.”

The final chapter of the RC monographconcluded, “The RC Scales hold promise bothas research tools and as clinical instruments”(Tellegen et al. 2003, p. 85). The RC devel-opers identified the following areas for futureresearch:

� Exploration of the utility of the RC Scalesin a wider variety of settings than thoseincluded in the 2003 manual (i.e., sub-stance abuse, general medical, correc-tional, forensic, and personnel screening).

� Comparisons of the predictions from theRC Scales with code-type descriptorsincluding psychopathology, personalitycharacteristics, and behavioral propensi-ties associated with the code types.

� Additional investigations and analyses ofthe construct validity of the RC Scales.

1Welsh A and RCd are correlated at 0.90 (see Rouse et al.2008).

12 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


� Additional MMPI-2 scale developmentfollowing the theoretical and method-ological strategies of Tellegen et al.(2003) to eliminate “demoralization” asa confounder in other important MMPI-2 scales in addition to the ClinicalScales.

Tellegen et al. (2003, p. 86) indicated,“Through such efforts it may be possibleto eventually capture the full range of coreattributes represented by the large body ofMMPI-2 constructs with a set of new scalesmore transparent and effective than those cur-rently available.”

However, before the above program of re-search was undertaken, a project was initiatedto develop a shortened version of the MMPI-2,based on the RC Scales (and funded by the testpublisher), in 2002, a year prior to the publi-cation of the RC Scales monograph. Not sur-prisingly, given its methodological departurefrom the empirical tradition of Hathaway andMcKinley, the developmental approach in thisrestructuring effort resulted in measures thatwere highly different from those of the Clini-cal Scales (Rogers et al. 2006). Making drasticchanges to a standard in personality assess-ment like the MMPI-2 with over 70 yearsof research support is a risky venture, as de-tailed by Ranson et al. (2009), especially whenthose changes are based on a substantially al-tered test-development strategy with a limitedresearch base. There can be no coattails ef-fect in establishing the validity and utility ofpersonality assessment instruments. A new in-strument should be thoroughly vetted by thefield before widespread adoption for clinicalassessment.

Development of this alternate form of theMMPI-2, with the RC Scales as its core, con-tinued even with growing criticism in the re-search literature about the utility and validityof these new scales (e.g., Binford & Liljequist2008, Butcher et al. 2006, Gordon 2006,Nichols 2006, Ranson et al. 2009, Rogers& Sewell 2006, Rouse et al. 2008, Simmset al. 2005, Wallace & Liljequist 2005). Critics

argued that the RC Scales are new measuresdistinct from the Clinical Scales, and theirvalidity needs to be established independent ofthe past 70 years of research on the ClinicalScales and their code-type descriptors. For ex-ample, Simms et al. (2005, p. 357) pointed outthat, “Also, despite the temptation to do so, italso is apparent that the RC scales cannot beinterpreted on the basis of previous empiricalstudies of the original scales; the RC scales rep-resent new measures whose meanings now mustbe determined empirically.”

Several problems have been reported withthe RC Scales. The theoretical model to de-velop the scales has been questioned (Butcher& Williams 2009, Gordon 2006, Nichols 2006,Ranson et al. 2009). In addition, the majorityof the RC scales do not address the personal-ity constructs from the original MMPI clinicalscales but are simply redundant measures of sev-eral other MMPI-2 Content and Supplemen-tal Scales (Caldwell 2006, Greene et al. 2009,Nichols 2006, Rogers et al. 2006, Rouse et al.2008). The RC Scales show a low sensitivity tomental health problems (Binford & Liljequist2008, Butcher et al. 2006, Cumella et al. 2009,Gucker et al. 2009, Megargee 2006, Rogers &Sewell 2006, Wallace & Liljequist 2005). Forexample, Binford & Liljequist (2008, p. 613),in a study of outpatient mental health clientsconcluded, “RC2 appears to predict fewer be-haviors conceptually related to depression thanits Clinical Scale counterpart or Content ScaleDEP reflecting the more narrow focus of RC2.Removal of the general distress componentchanges the strength of the empirical correlatesof two Clinical Scales measured in this studyand may do so for the other scales not assessedin this study, possibly to the benefit of some andthe detriment of others.”

The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale. Another re-cent and controversial decision by the MMPI-2 publisher and distributor was the additionof the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) to the ExtendedScore Report for the MMPI-2 in January 2007and the inclusion of a shortened version of the


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


scale (FBS-r) in the MMPI-2-RF.2 The FBSwas developed originally by Lees-Haley et al.(1991) to assess malingering of symptoms inpersonal injury cases. It has been shown toresult in high false-positive rates among per-sons in mental health treatment (Butcher et al.2003, 2008). For example, 62% of inpatientwomen with eating disorders would be consid-ered malingering based upon Lees-Haley et al.’s(1991) original recommended cutoff scores, and11% would be considered to be malingeringbased on the currently used cutoff scores onthe FBS (Butcher et al. 2008). This inher-ent bias in the FBS results, in part, from thefact that the developers of the scale includea large portion (one-third) of items on thescale that were used by Hathaway and McKin-ley to identify somatic problems that occurfrequently in psychiatric patients and anotherlarge portion (again, one-third) of items thatwere used to assess a defensive response style.The FBS scale has been excluded from use aspart of psychologist’s expert witness testimonyin court cases through six recent Frye hearings(Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al. 2007,Stith v. State Farm Insurance 2008, Vandergrachtv. Progressive Express et al. 2007, Williamsv. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2007, Limbaugh-Kirker & Kirker v. Dicosta 2009, Anderson v.E & S Enterprises 2009). Butcher et al. (2008)provide descriptions about the limitations of useof the FBS. Ben-Porath et al. (2009) provided aresponse to these concerns, and Williams et al.(2009) answered their response.

The MMPI-2-RF. A number of inherentweaknesses have emerged with the MMPI-2-RF in addition to the above concerns aboutthe RC Scales and the Fake Bad Scale. Scalesmust have solid validity and reliability be-fore they are depended upon in making de-cisions about individuals. The majority of thescales in MMPI-2-RF are new, with limited—if

2The name Fake Bad Scale was changed to Symptom Valid-ity Scale by the publisher at the end of 2007, although theabbreviation remains the same. See Williams et al. (2009) fora discussion of the name change.

any—psychometric studies conducted by in-dependent researchers. A number of thesemeasures, as acknowledged by Tellegen &Ben-Porath (2008), show very low reliabilitycoefficients for personality measures perhaps,in part, because of their scale length (e.g., fourto six items). For example, the reliability coeffi-cient for the Helplessness or HLP scale (fiveitems) was only 0.39 for men and 0.50 forwomen in the normative sample; the Behavior-Restricting Fears or BRF scale (nine items)had reliability coefficients of only 0.44 for menand 0.49 for women; and scale Suicidal/DeathIdeation or SUI (five items) had correlations ofonly 0.41 for men and 0.34 for women (Tellegen& Ben-Porath 2008).

The well-established gender response dif-ferences in personality item responding (e.g.,Cattell 1948, Hathaway & McKinley 1940,Nichols et al. 2009) were not sufficiently ad-dressed in the development of MMPI-2-RF(see discussion by Butcher & Williams 2009).Unlike the original MMPI and MMPI-2, inwhich separate gender norms were provided,the MMPI-2-RF authors combined gendersinto one comparison sample. This situation mayresult in different standards being applied formen and women in assessment and prediction.Further study of this potential bias needs to beconducted. However, the MMPI-2-RF manu-als do not provide the information necessary forexploring this question because raw score databy gender are not reported.

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

In contrast to its emerging status at the begin-ning of the twentieth century, the field of per-sonality assessment holds a generally respectedand dynamic position as we go forward in thetwenty-first century. Much has transpired overthe past century to make this advancement pos-sible. The use of personality tests to assist inmaking decisions and conclusions about peo-ple has gained a strong acceptance. At present,psychological assessment has strong publicsupport from clinical administrators, person-nel managers, and the courts. An impressive

14 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


array of personality assessment instruments isavailable today—often creating a challenge forassessment psychologists attempting to chooseappropriate instruments. The next generationof assessment psychologists has a great manyresources that can lead to positive growth anddevelopment.

In addition to support in the United States,there exists a growing worldwide network ofpsychologists who are interested in and quali-fied to conduct research in assessment. For ex-ample, Butcher & Williams (2009) highlightthe international use of the MMPI-2. Thereare numerous opportunities for developing andconducting cross-cultural assessment researchtoday, given the expansion of the profession ofpsychology in other countries and the generallybroad understanding of psychological assess-ment methodology and instruments. Researchcommunication and project decisions can beimmediately conveyed to distant sites in mostcountries through the Internet. In this era ofglobalization of intellectual interests and tech-nology assessment, psychology has the oppor-tunity to contribute substantially to broadenedunderstanding of cross-cultural personality pat-terns. One imperative in this globalization ofpersonality assessment is that instruments mustbe carefully evaluated and tested for utility andvalidity in other cultures (Cheung 2009, Zapataet al. 2009).

The future advance of personality assess-ment will likely have some uneven steps andmisdirections given the controversial issuesfacing the field, some of which are describedabove. Assessment psychology faces a numberof challenges requiring careful attention if thetradition is to continue to develop and maintain

the confidence of the public. It is imperativethat new psychological measures that areintroduced for professional use are developedaccording to the highest standards and thatthey actually perform as promised (Geisinger& Carlson 2009, Ranson et al. 2009). Testusers must fully understand the instrumentsand demand that tests actually measure whatthey are supposed to measure (that is, havedemonstrated validity) and perform in areliable manner. Newly introduced measures,such as MMPI-2-RF, that appear to rely ex-tensively upon the reputation of the traditionalMMPI instruments, need to be independentlyevaluated by psychologists, including care-ful consideration and understanding of thecriticisms in the published literature.

Assessment psychologists need to be awarethat many of the available personality assess-ment measures are owned and managed bycommercial rather than scientific organizationsand need to be alert that commercial interestscan sometimes “prevail over scientific needs”(Adams 2000). Campbell (1972) and Ransonet al. (2009) describe important steps that needto be taken in test development and revisions.Both called for transparency in test develop-ment if consumer confidence is to be assured.

Personality assessment researchers andpractitioners have, in the past, shown a strongcapacity to deal with methodological challengesand missteps. A resilience for developing instru-ments that work is evident in our history. I hopethat the present and next generations of assess-ment psychologists will pursue objective andeffective assessment methods and rigorouslyvalidate traditional, redeveloped, and new in-struments to assure confident application.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is one of the developers of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. He, like the other authors of theMMPI-2 and MMPI-A, declined royalties on the sales of those instruments and their scales. Heauthored a computer interpretation system for the original MMPI in the 1980s, the MinnesotaReports, and continues to keep it updated for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. He receives royal-ties from the University of Minnesota for the Minnesota Reports. The author’s comprehensivedisclosure statement appears at http://www1.umn.edu/mmpi/disclosure.php.


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author acknowledges the valuable comments on a draft of this article by Carolyn L. Williamsand David S. Nichols.

LITERATURE CITED

Adams KM. 2000. Practical and ethical issues pertaining to test revisions. Psychol. Assess. 12:281–86Altus WD. 1945. The adjustment of Army illiterates. Psychol. Bull. 42:461–76Anderson v. E & S Enterprises. 2009. Case RG05-211076, Superior Court of Alameda Co., CAArcher RP, Buffington-Vollum JK, Stredny RV, Handel RW. 2006. A survey of psychological test use patterns

among forensic psychologists. J. Personal. Assess. 87:84–94Beck AT. 1973. The Diagnosis and Management of Depression. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. PressBeck SJ. 1938. Personality structure in schizophrenia: a Rorschach investigation in 81 patients and 64 controls.

Nerv. Ment. Dis. Mon. Ser. 63:ix–88Bell H. 1934. The Bell Adjustment Inventory. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. PressBenjamin LT Jr. 2005. A history of clinical psychology as a profession in America (and a glimpse at its future).

Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 1:1–30Ben-Porath YS, Greve KW, Bianchini KJ, Kaufman PM. 2009. The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS)

is an empirically validated measure of overreporting in personal injury litigants and claimants: reply toButcher et al. 2008. Psychol. Injury Law 2:62–85

Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A. 2008. MMPI-2RF: Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation.Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Bernreuter RG. 1931. The Personality Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. PressBinford A, Liljequist L. 2008. Behavioral correlates of selected MMPI-2 clinical, content, and Restructured

Clinical Scales. J. Personal. Assess. 90:608–14Blair WRN. 1950. A comparative study of disciplinary offenders and non-offenders in the Canadian Army,

1948. Can. J. Psychol. 4:49–62Boguet H. 1603/1929. Discours des sorciers (An examen of witches). Ed. and transl. M Summers. London:

RodkerBoring EG. 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 2nd ed.Butcher JN, ed. 1972. Objective Personality Assessment: Changing Perspectives. New York: AcademicButcher JN, ed. 2009. Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment. New York: Oxford Univ. PressButcher JN, Arbisi PA, Atlis M, McNulty J. 2003. The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale

(FBS): Does this scale measure malingering and feigned emotional distress? Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol.18:473–85

Butcher JN, Dahlstrom WG, Graham JR, Tellegen A, Kaemmer B. 1989. Minnesota Multiphasic PersonalityInventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Butcher JN, Gass CS, Cumella E, Kally Z, Williams CL. 2008. Potential for bias in MMPI-2 assessmentsusing the Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Psychol. Injury Law 1:191–209

Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen YS, Dahlstrom WG, Kaemmer B. 2001. Minnesota Multi-phasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. Rev.ed.

Butcher JN, Graham JR, Williams CL, Ben-Porath YS. 1990. Development and Use of the MMPI-2 ContentScales. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Butcher JN, Gucker DK, Hellervik LW. 2009. Clinical personality assessment in the employment context.See Butcher 2009, pp. 588–609

Butcher JN, Hamilton CK, Rouse SV, Cumella EJ. 2006. The deconstruction of the Hy scale of MMPI-2:failure of RC3 in measuring somatic symptom expression. J. Personal. Assess. 87:199–205

Butcher JN, Ones DS, Cullen M. 2006. Personnel screening with the MMPI-2. In MMPI-2: The Practitioner’sHandbook, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 381–406. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.

Butcher JN, Owen P. 1978. Survey of personality inventories: recent research developments and contemporaryissues. In Handbook of Clinical Diagnosis, ed. B Wolman, pp. 475–546. New York: Plenum

16 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Butcher JN, Williams CL. 2009. Personality assessment with the MMPI-2: historical roots, internationaladaptations, and current challenges. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 1:105–35

Butcher JN, Williams CL, Graham JR, Tellegen A, Ben-Porath YS, et al. 1992. Manual for Administra-tion, Scoring, and Interpretation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents: MMPI-A.Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

Caldwell AB. 2006. Maximal measurement or meaningful measurement: the interpretive challenges of theMMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales. J. Personal. Assess. 87:193–201

Campbell DP. 1972. The practical problems of revising an established psychological test. In Objective PersonalityAssessment: Changing Perspectives, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 117–30. New York: Academic

Cattell JM. 1890. Mental tests and measurements. Mind XV:373–80Cattell RB. 1946. The Description and Measurement of Personality. New York: Harcourt Brace & WorldCattell RB. 1948. The primary personality factors in women compared with those of men. Br. J. Psychol.

1:114–30Cattell RB, Stice GE. 1957. The Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Inst. Personal. Ability

Test.Cheung FM. 2009. The cultural perspective in personality assessment. In Oxford Handbook of Clinical and

Personality Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 44–58. New York: Oxford Univ. PressCohen N. 2009. A Rorschach cheat sheet on Wikipedia. NY Times. July 28:A1Costa PT Jr, McCrae RE. 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychol. Assess. Serv.Costa PT Jr, McCrae RE. 2009. The Five-Factor Model and the NEO Inventories. In Oxford Handbook

Personality Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 305–28. New York: Oxford Univ. PressCraik KH. 1986. Personality research methods: an historical perspective. J. Personal. 54:18–51Cumella E, Kally Z, Butcher JN. 2009. MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales with eating disorder patients. Paper

presented at Soc. Personal. Assess., ChicagoDavidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al. 2007. Case #05-4320 (Hillsborough County, FL)Ellis A. 1946. The validity of personality questionnaires. Psychol. Bull. 43:385–440Exner JE Jr. 1974. The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. New York: WileyFinn SE, Kamphuis JH. 2006. Therapeutic assessment with the MMPI-2. In Practitioner’s Guide to the MMPI-2,

ed. JN Butcher, pp. 165–92. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.Finn SE, Tonsager M. 1992. Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to college students

awaiting therapy. Psychol. Assess. 4:278–87Fischer CT. 1994. Individualizing Psychological Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: ErlbaumFulkerson SC, Freud SL, Raynor GH. 1958. The use of the MMPI in the psychological evaluation of pilots.

J. Aviat. Med. 29:122–29Galton F. 1874. English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. New York: D. Appleton & Co.Galton F. 1879. Psychometric experiments. Brain 2:179–85Galton F. 1884. Measurement of character. Fortnightly Rev. 42:179–85Ganellen RJ. 2001. Weighing evidence for the Rorschach’s validity: a response to Wood et al. 1999. J. Personal.

Assess. 77:1–15Garb HN, Wood JM, Lilienfeld SO, Nezworski MT. 2005. Roots of the Rorschach controversy. Clin. Psychol.

Rev. 25:97–118Geisinger KF, Carlson JF. 2009. Standards and standardization. In Oxford Handbook of Personality and Clinical

Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 99–111. New York: Oxford Univ. PressGerdz J. 1994. Mental illness and the Roman physician: the legacy of Soranus. Hosp. Community Psychiatry

45:485–87Gibby RE, Zickar MJ. 2008. A history of the early days of personality testing in American industry: an obsession

with adjustment. Hist. Psychol. 11:164–84Goldberg LR. 1971. A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In Advances in Psychological

Assessment, ed. P McReynolds, 2:293–339. Palo Alto, CA: Sci. Behav. BooksGoldberg LR. 1974. Objective diagnostic tests and measures. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 25:343–66Gordon RM. 2006. False assumptions about psychopathology, hysteria and the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical

Scales. Psychol. Rep. 98:870–72


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Gorsuch RL. 1963. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Press. 2nd ed.Gough HG. 1956. California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. PressGraham JR, Naglieri JA. 2003. Handbook of Psychology: Volume 10. Assessment Psychology. New York: WileyGrant M. 1956. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome. Transl. Michael Grant. New York: PenguinGreene RL, Rouse SV, Butcher JN, Nichols D, Williams CL. 2009. The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC)

Scales and redundancy: response to Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and Sellbom. J. Personal. Assess. 91:1–5Grønnerød C. 2004. Rorschach assessment of changes following psychotherapy: a meta-analytic review.

J. Personal. Assess. 83:256–76Grove WM, Barden RC, Garb HN, Lilienfeld SO. 2002. Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-based

testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standards. Psychol. Public Policy Law 8:216–34

Guazzo F. 1608/1929. Compendium Maleficarum. Transl. M Summers, EA Ashwin. London: RodkerGucker DK, Kreuch T, Butcher JN. 2009. Insensitivity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales in personnel

assessment. Paper presented at Soc. Personal. Assess., ChicagoHamilton M. 1960. A rating scale for depression. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 23:56–62Handler L. 2001. Assessment of men: personality assessment goes to war by the Office of Strategic Services

assessment staff. J. Personal. Assess. 76:558–78Hare RD. 2003. Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. 2nd ed.Hathaway SR. 1965. Personality inventories. In Handbook of Clinical Psychology, ed. BB Wolman, pp. 451–76.

New York: McGraw-HillHathaway SR, McKinley JC. 1940. A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the

schedule. J. Psychol. 10:249–54Hertz MR. 1938. Scoring the Rorschach test with specific reference to “normal detail” category. Am. J.

Orthopsychiatry 8:100–21Heymans G, Wiersma E. 1906. Beitrage zur spezillen psychologie auf grund einer massen-unterschung.

Z. Fur Psychol. 43:81–127Hiller JB, Rosenthal R, Bornstein RF, Berry DTR, Brunner-Neuleib S. 1999. A comparative meta-analysis of

Rorschach validity. Psychol. Assess. 11:278–96Hough LM. 2001. I/Owes advance to personality. In Personality Psychology in the Workplace, ed. BW Roberts,

R Hogan, pp. 19–44. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.Humm DG, Wadsworth GW Jr. 1934. The Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale: preliminary report.

Personal. J. 12:314–23Jackson D. 1970. A sequential system for personality scale development. In Current Topics in Clinical and

Community Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. CD Spielberger, pp. 61–96. New York: AcademicJennings LS. 1949. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: differentiation of psychologically good and

poor combat risks among flying personnel. J. Aviat. Med. 19:222–26Johnson JH, Butcher JN, Null C, Johnson K. 1984. Replicated item level factor analysis of the full MMPI.

J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 47:105–14Jung CG. 1907. On psychological relations of the association experiment. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 31:249–57Kent GH, Rosanoff A. 1910. A study of association in insanity. Am. J. Insanity 67:37–96Kieckhefer R. 1976. European Witch Trials: Their Foundations in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300–1500.

Berkeley: Univ. Calif. PressKlopfer B, Tallman G. 1938. A further Rorschach study of Mr. A. Rorschach Res. Exchange 3:31–36Lees-Haley PR, English LT, Glenn WT. 1991. A Fake Bad Scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants.

Psychol. Rep. 68:203–310Lilienfeld SO, Wood JM, Garb HN. 2001. What’s wrong in this picture? Sci. Am. 284(5):81–87Limbaugh-Kirker & Kirker v. Dicosta. 2009. Case 06-CA-00706, Florida 20th Circuit in and for Lee County, FLMegargee EI. 2006. Using the MMPI-2 in Criminal Justice and Correctional Settings. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.

PressMegargee EI. 2009. The California Psychological Inventory. See Butcher 2009, pp. 329–41Meloy JR. 2008. The authority of the Rorschach: an update. In The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Psychology,

ed. CB Gacono, FB Evans, pp. 79–88. New York: Routledge

18 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Meloy JR, Hansen T, Weiner IB. 1997. Authority of the Rorschach: legal citations in the past 50 years.J. Personal. Assess. 69:53–62

Melton RS. 1955. Studies in the evaluation of the personality characteristics of successful naval aviators.J. Aviat. Med. 25:600–4

Meyer GJ, Kurtz JE. 2006. Advancing personality assessment terminology: time to retire “objective” and“projective” as personality test descriptors. J. Personal. Assess. 87:223–25

Millon T. 1977. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Personality Inventory (MCMI). Minneapolis, MN: Natl. Comput.Syst.

Morey LC. 1991. The Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychol.Assess. Resourc.

Murray HA. 1938. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford Univ. PressMurray HA. 1943. Manual for the Thematic Appreciation Test. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. PressNichols DS. 2006. The trials of separating bath water from baby: a review and critique of the MMPI-2

Restructured Clinical Scales. J. Personal. Assess. 87:121–38Nichols DS, Greene R, Williams CL. 2009. Gender bias in the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (FBS) and FBS-r in

MMPI-2-RF. Paper presented at Soc. Personal. Assess., ChicagoOff. Strat. Serv. Assess. Staff. 1948. Assessment of Men. New York: RinehartOstermann P. 1629. Commentarius Juridicus. Cologne: Petrum Metternich. 172 pp.Paterson DG, Schneidler GG, Williamson EG. 1938. Personality Tests and Questionnaires 1938 Student Guidance

Techniques: A Handbook for Counselors in High Schools and Colleges. New York: McGraw-HillPearson Assessments. 2009 ( Jan.). Selected Bibliography: MMPI-2 RF References by Topic. http://

www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/8A2248FA-32D3-46B696DB-FD166D59B434/0/MMPI2RF bib.pdf

Piotrowski C, Belter RW, Keller JW. 1998. The impact of “managed care” on the practice of psychologicaltesting: preliminary findings. J. Personal. Assess. 70:441–47

Pope K, Butcher JN, Seelen J. 2006. The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court: Assessment, Testimony, andCross-Examination for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. 3rd ed.

Ranson M, Nichols DS, Rouse SV, Harrington J. 2009. Changing or replacing an established personalityassessment standard: issues, goals, and problems, with special reference to recent developments in theMMPI-2. See Butcher 2009, pp. 112–39

Rogers R, Sewell KW. 2006. MMPI-2 at the crossroads: aging technology or radical retrofitting? J. Personal.Assess. 87:175–78

Rogers R, Sewell KW, Harrison KS, Jordan MJ. 2006. The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: a paradig-matic shift in scale development. J. Personal. Assess. 87:139–47

Rouse SV, Greene RL, Butcher JN, Nichols DS, Williams CL. 2008. What do the MMPI-2 RestructuredClinical Scales reliably measure? J. Personal. Assess. 90:435–42

Rorschach H. 1921. Psychodiagnostik. Bern, Germany: Hans HuberShaffer TW, Erdberg P, Haroian J. 1999. Current nonpatient data for the Rorschach, WAIS-R and MMPI-2.

J. Personal. Assess. 73:305–16Shaffer TW, Erdberg P, Meyer GJ, eds. 2007. International reference sample for the Rorschach comprehensive

system [Special issue]. J. Personal. Assess. 89(Suppl. 1):entire issueSimms LJ, Casillas A, Clark LA, Watson D, Doebbeling BN. 2005. Psychometric evaluation of the Restruc-

tured Clinical Scales of MMPI-2. Psychol. Assess. 17:345–58Spanos NP. 1978. Witchcraft in histories of psychiatry: a critical analysis and an alternative conceptualization.

Psychol. Bull. 85:417–39Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. 1972. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:

Consult. Psychol. PressStith v. State Farm Mutual Insurance. 2008. Case No. 50-2003 CA 010945AG, Palm Beach County, FLSundberg ND. 1977. Assessment of Persons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-HallTellegen A, Ben-Porath YS. 2008. MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressTellegen A, Ben-Porath YS, McNulty J, Arbisi P, Graham JR, Kaemmer B. 2003. MMPI-2: Restructured Clinical

(RC) Scales. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press


Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Vandergracht v. Progressive Express et al. 2007. Case 02-04552, Hillsborough County, FLViglione DJ, Hilsenroth MJ. 2001. The Rorschach: facts, fictions, and future. Psychol. Assess. 11:251–65Wallace A, Liljequist L. 2005. A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the

MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales. Assessment 12:290–94Weiner IB. 2010. Rorschach inkblot method. In Corsini’s Encyclopedia of Psychology, ed. IB Weiner, WE

Craighead. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 4th ed. In pressWeiner IB, Greene RL. 2008. Handbook of Personality Assessment. New York: WileyWeiner IB, Meyer GJ. 2009. Personality assessment with the Rorschach inkblot method. In Oxford Handbook

of Personality Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 277–98. New York: Oxford Univ. PressWelsh GS. 1956. Factor dimensions A and R. In Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine, ed. GS

Welsh, WG Dahlstrom, pp. 264–81. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressWhipple GM. 1910. Manual of Mental and Physical Tests. Baltimore, MD: Warwick & YorkWidiger TA, Boyd SE. 2009. Personality disorders: assessment instruments. In Oxford Handbook of Personality

Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 336–63. New York: Oxford Univ. PressWiggins JS. 1973. Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-WesleyWilliams v. CSX Transportation, Inc. 2007. Case 04-CA-008892, Hillsborough County, FLWilliams CL, Butcher JN, Gass CS, Cumella E, Kally Z. 2009. Inaccuracies about the MMPI-2 Fake Bad

Scale in the reply by Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, and Kaufman 2009. Psychol. Injury Law 2:182–97Wood JM, Nezworski MT, Garb HN, Lilienfeld SO. 2001. The misperception of psychopathology: problems

with the norms of the comprehensive system. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 8:350–73Wood JM, Nezworski MT, Stejskal WJ, McKinzey RK. 2001. Problems of the comprehensive system for the

Rorschach in forensic settings: recent developments. J. Forensic Psychol. Pract. 1:89–103Woodworth RS. 1919. Examination of emotional fitness for war. Psychol. Bull. 15:59–60Woodworth RS. 1920. Personal Data Sheet. Chicago, IL: StoeltingWoodworth RS, Matthews E. 1924. Personal Data Sheet (Children and Adolescents). Chicago, IL: StoeltingZapata A, Kreuch T, Landers RN, Hoyt T, Butcher JN. 2009. Clinical personality assessment in personnel

settings using the MMPI-2: a cross-cultural comparison. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 9:287–98

20 Butcher

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR407-FM ARI 6 March 2010 12:23

Annual Review ofClinical Psychology

Volume 6, 2010 Contents

Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to Early Twenty-FirstCentury: Past Achievements and Contemporary ChallengesJames N. Butcher � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Prescriptive Authority for PsychologistsRobert E. McGrath � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �21

The Admissibility of Behavioral Science Evidence in the Courtroom:The Translation of Legal to Scientific Concepts and BackDavid Faust, Paul W. Grimm, David C. Ahern, and Mark Sokolik � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Advances in Analysis of Longitudinal DataRobert D. Gibbons, Donald Hedeker, and Stephen DuToit � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �79

Group-Based Trajectory Modeling in Clinical ResearchDaniel S. Nagin and Candice L. Odgers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 109

Measurement of Functional Capacity: A New Approach toUnderstanding Functional Differences and Real-World BehavioralAdaptation in Those with Mental IllnessThomas L. Patterson and Brent T. Mausbach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 139

The Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: The Problem of ReificationSteven E. Hyman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 155

Prevention of Major DepressionRicardo F. Munoz, Pim Cuijpers, Filip Smit, Alinne Z. Barrera, and Yan Leykin � � � � � � 181

Issues and Challenges in the Design of Culturally AdaptedEvidence-Based InterventionsFelipe Gonzalez Castro, Manuel Barrera Jr., and Lori K. Holleran Steiker � � � � � � � � � � � � 213

Treatment of PanicNorman B. Schmidt and Meghan E. Keough � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

Psychological Approaches to Origins and Treatments of SomatoformDisordersMichael Witthoft and Wolfgang Hiller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 257

vi

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR407-FM ARI 6 March 2010 12:23

Cognition and Depression: Current Status and Future DirectionsIan H. Gotlib and Jutta Joorman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 285

The Genetics of Mood DisordersJennifer Y.F. Lau and Thalia C. Eley � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 313

Self-InjuryMatthew K. Nock � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 339

Substance Use in Adolescence and Psychosis: Clarifying theRelationshipEmma Barkus and Robin M. Murray � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 365

Systematic Reviews of Categorical Versus Continuum Models inPsychosis: Evidence for Discontinuous Subpopulations Underlyinga Psychometric Continuum. Implications for DSM-V, DSM-VI,and DSM-VIIRichard J. Linscott and Jim van Os � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 391

Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality DisorderAaron L. Pincus and Mark R. Lukowitsky � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 421

Behavioral Treatments in Autism Spectrum Disorder:What Do We Know?Laurie A. Vismara and Sally J. Rogers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 447

Clinical Implications of Traumatic Stress from Birth to Age FiveAnn T. Chu and Alicia F. Lieberman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 469

Emotion-Related Self-Regulation and Its Relation to Children’sMaladjustmentNancy Eisenberg, Tracy L. Spinrad, and Natalie D. Eggum � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 495

Successful Aging: Focus on Cognitive and Emotional HealthColin Depp, Ipsit V. Vahia, and Dilip Jeste � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 527

Implicit Cognition and Addiction: A Tool for Explaining ParadoxicalBehaviorAlan W. Stacy and Rineout W. Wiers � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 551

Substance Use Disorders: Realizing the Promise of Pharmacogenomicsand Personalized MedicineKent E. Hutchison � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 577

Update on Harm-Reduction Policy and Intervention ResearchG. Alan Marlatt and Katie Witkiewitz � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 591

Violence and Women’s Mental Health: The Impact of Physical, Sexual,and Psychological AggressionCarol E. Jordan, Rebecca Campbell, and Diane Follingstad � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 607

Contents vii

Ann

u. R

ev. C

lin. P

sych

ol. 2

010.

6:1-

20. D

ownl

oade

d fr

om a

rjou

rnal

s.an

nual

revi

ews.

org

by U

nive

rsid

ad A

dolf

o Ib

anez

on

04/1

5/10

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

evaluación personalidad (butcher)

Documents

universidad adolfo ibanez

fake bad scale

california psychological inventory

world war ii

exner comprehensive system

recent public exposure

personality assessment inventory

objective personality assessment