using the mmpi-2-rf in forensic assessments -...

1

Using the MMPI-2-RF in Forensic Assessments

Yossef S. Ben-Porath

Department of Psychology

Kent State University

Kent, [email protected]

Disclosure

Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota, and distributor, Pearson. As co-author of the MMPI-2-RF he receives royalties on sales of the test.

2

Agenda MMPI-2-RF Overview


Admissibility and “Weight of the Evidence” Considerations

Case Example

MMPI-2-RF Overview

338-item version of MMPI-2 Released August, 2008

Authors: Ben-Porath & Tellegen

Subset of MMPI-2 pool

Norms based on MMPI-2 sample

MMPI-2 remains available as well

3

MMPI-2-RF Overview• 51 Scales

• 9 Validity Scales• 3 Higher-Order Scales• 9 RC Scales• 23 Specific Problems Scales

• 5 Somatic/Cognitive• 9 Internalizing• 4 Externalizing• 5 Interpersonal

• 2 Interest Scales• 5 PSY-5 Scales


4

Using the MMPI-2-RF in Forensic Assessments Why?

Efficient, comprehensive, validated assessment of variables of relevance in forensic assessments Self-presentation

Psychopathology

Personality characteristics

Behavioral proclivities

Shorter instrument more likely to produce valid results in individuals who struggle with 567-item inventory

Less time to interpret

More likely to generate reliable interpretation based on standard interpretation guidelines

Using the MMPI-2-RF in Forensic Assessments Why not?

Familiarity (Competence)

Concerns about Admissibility

5


Documentation


Documentation Manual for

Administration, Scoring and Interpretation

6




Technical Manual




Technical Manual

Support competent use of the test

7


Training National Program of General and Setting-

Specific Workshopshttp://psychcorp.pearsonassessments.com/pai/ca/training/workshops/MMPI.htm

Admissibility

Daubert and Frye Daubert = Scientific Validity Frye = General Acceptance

Admissibility issues also pertain to “weight of the evidence” considerations in cross-examination

8

Daubert Factors and the MMPI-2-RF

Daubert Factors

Has the technique been tested?

Has it been subjected to peer review?

What is the technique’s known or potential rate of error?

Are there standards controlling the technique’s operation?

Is the technique generally accepted?

9

Has the MMPI-2-RF been tested?

Are empirical data available on the technique? MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual

10


Empirical Correlates in Mental Health

Outpatient Inpatient

Medical Substance Abuse Treatment Forensic- Civil Forensic- Criminal Non-Clinical

N= 4,336 Men; 2,327 Women 604 Criteria 53,886 Correlations

11

MMPI-2-RF: Standard Comparison Groups

MMPI-2-RF Normative (Men & Women) Outpatient, Community Mental Health Center (Men & Women) Outpatient, Independent Practice (Men & Women) Psychiatric Inpatient, Community Hospital (Men & Women) Psychiatric Inpatient, VA Hospital (Men) Substance Abuse Treatment, VA Hospital (Men) Bariatric Surgery Candidate (Men & Women) College Counseling Clinic (Men & Women) College Student (Men & Women) Forensic, Child Custody Evaluation (Men & Women) Forensic, Disability Claimant (Men & Women) Forensic, Independent Neuropsychological Evaluation (Men & Women) Forensic, Pre-trial Criminal (Men & Women) Prison Inmate (Men & Women) Personnel Screening, Law Enforcement (Men & Women Combined) Personnel Screening, Corrections Officer (Men & Women Combined) Personnel Screening, Clergy Candidates (Men & Women Combined)

12

Forensic, Pre-Trial Criminal

VRIN-r TRIN-r F-r Fp-r Fs FBS-r RBS L-r K-r

Mean - Men 54 52 75 59 64 60 63 55 46

Standard Dev 10 10 28 15 20 16 19 12 11

Mean - Women 54 50 69 56 66 65 62 54 46

Standard Dev 10 10 23 15 22 16 17 11 11

MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


Men (n=551) Women (n=223)

T

Forensic Pre-Trial Criminal

EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

Mean - Men 59 62 61 60 60 58 56 64 66 56 60 52

Standard Dev 15 18 12 14 15 14 12 13 18 14 16 11

Mean - Women 61 56 54 61 63 58 52 59 59 56 56 48

Standard Dev 14 15 11 14 15 14 11 12 16 13 14 10

MMPI-2-RF Higher-Order (HOD) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

13


MLS GIC HPC NUC COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STW AXY ANP BRF MSF

Mean - Men 59 57 56 61 60 63 55 57 55 56 60 54 53 48

Standard Dev 14 16 13 16 16 24 14 13 12 12 17 13 12 9

Mean - Women 63 62 61 61 59 57 53 59 57 58 62 53 55 55

Standard Dev 13 18 14 15 16 19 13 13 13 12 17 12 13 10

MMPI-2-RF Somatic and Cognitive Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



Somatic Internalizing


JCP SUB AGG ACT FML IPP SAV SHY DSF AES MEC

Mean - Men 62 62 55 52 54 49 54 51 55 45 57

Standard Dev 14 15 13 13 14 11 12 11 14 10 10

Mean - Women 55 57 50 52 55 52 54 52 52 49 44

Standard Dev 12 13 11 13 14 11 12 11 11 11 7

MMPI-2-RF Externalizing, Interpersonal, and Interest Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



Externalizing Interpersonal Interest

14


AGGR-r PSYC-r DISC-r NEGE-r INTR-r

Mean - Men 53 61 60 58 55

Standard Dev 11 18 11 13 12

Mean - Women 47 54 51 59 54


MMPI-2-RF Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



Prison Inmates


Mean - Men 52 51 59 55 54 48 51 57 47

Standard Dev 11 10 17 13 13 11 12 11 10

Mean - Women 54 51 62 56 59 55 55 58 46

Standard Dev 11 11 19 13 16 13 14 11 10


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


Men (n=34933) Women (n=7353)

T

T

15

Prison Inmate


Mean - Men 50 55 63 52 53 49 58 65 59 50 54 53

Standard Dev 11 13 12 10 11 10 11 12 14 11 12 11

Mean - Women 54 56 58 55 59 51 57 61 58 54 55 51

Standard Dev 11 13 11 11 13 11 11 12 13 12 12 11


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


Men (n=34935) Women (n=7354)


Prison Inmate


Mean - Men 53 51 51 53 51 51 50 50 51 51 53 51 53 48

Standard Dev 9 11 11 12 12 13 11 10 10 10 13 11 11 8

Mean - Women 56 55 57 57 53 51 50 52 53 52 56 52 57 56

Standard Dev 11 14 13 13 13 13 11 11 11 11 14 11 13 10


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


Men (n=34935) Women (n=7354)


16

Prison Inmate


Mean - Men 65 62 53 50 50 45 49 48 51 46 61

Standard Dev 13 15 12 11 11 8 10 10 11 9 9

Mean - Women 60 59 51 52 52 48 51 50 51 49 46

Standard Dev 12 14 11 12 12 9 10 10 11 10 8


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


Men (n=34935) Women (n=7354)


Prison Inmate


Mean - Men 57 54 63 52 48


Mean - Women 52 55 54 55 50



20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120


Men (n=34935) Women (n=7354)

17

Forensic, Disability Claimants


Mean - Men 52 51 78 57 70 75 74 56 43

Standard Dev 9 10 22 13 21 14 19 11 10

Mean - Women 51 51 73 55 69 79 73 57 45

Standard Dev 9 10 21 12 22 14 18 11 10


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



T

T

Forensic Disability Claimant


Mean - Men 65 58 56 65 74 66 53 55 60 58 59 51

Standard Dev 13 14 12 12 13 14 11 12 14 14 13 11

Mean - Women 64 56 46 64 75 64 49 49 56 58 57 46

Standard Dev 13 12 10 12 13 13 11 11 13 14 12 9


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120




18



Mean - Men 75 67 68 73 70 61 62 60 57 58 66 58 54 47

Standard Dev 10 17 11 14 15 21 15 12 12 12 19 13 13 8

Mean - Women 75 67 71 71 68 57 58 60 57 58 66 55 57 53

Standard Dev 9 18 11 14 15 19 14 12 13 12 18 12 14 10


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120






Mean - Men 58 50 55 49 52 47 57 52 56 41 57

Standard Dev 13 10 12 11 11 9 12 10 15 8 9

Mean - Women 50 46 49 50 54 51 55 51 53 46 44

Standard Dev 11 8 10 11 12 10 12 10 13 9 7


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120




19



Mean - Men 54 57 55 61 61


Mean - Women 48 56 45 60 59



20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



Forensic, Child Custody Litigants


Mean - Men 43 52 47 45 46 50 47 56 59

Standard Dev 8 7 9 6 8 8 9 12 9

Mean - Women 45 52 49 46 48 56 49 55 58

Standard Dev 8 7 10 6 11 11 9 12 9


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



F

F

20

EID T HD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC3 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9

Men (n=244) 42 47 47 43 44 47 43 48 51 40 45 43

Standard Dev 9 9 9 8 8 9 8 9 11 8 8 9

Women (n=239) 46 49 43 47 49 48 43 45 53 44 46 42

Standard Dev 11 9 8 11 11 10 7 9 12 9 7 7

Custody Litigants

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120




Forensic, Child Custody Litigants


Mean - Men 48 48 46 46 44 46 44 45 42 45 47 42 45 46

Standard Dev 8 8 7 9 8 6 7 6 8 9 8 7 6 8

Mean - Women 50 52 50 49 47 46 46 47 46 49 50 43 48 50

Standard Dev 11 14 11 10 9 4 7 9 10 9 11 8 10 9


20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120




21


Men (n=244) 50 47 44 43 44 48 48 43 45 43 55

Standard Dev 10 7 8 9 8 8 8 8 5 8 9

Women (n=239) 46 46 44 45 46 51 47 46 45 47 45

Standard Dev 9 7 7 8 9 10 10 9 6 9 7

Custody Litigants

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120




AGGR-r PSYC-r D ISC-r NEGE-r INT R-r

Men (n=244) 49 45 50 43 50


Women (n=239) 46 47 43 47 48


Custody Litigants

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120



PSY-5

22


Descriptive Data for following settings: Mental Health Medical Substance Abuse Treatment Forensic Correctional Personnel Screening Non-Clinical Settings

N=~65,000 Samples described in 2nd Edition of MMPI-2-

RF User’s Guide for Reports

Has the MMPI-2-RF subjected to peer review? As of September, 2011, 125+ peer-reviewed papers

on MMPI-2-RF Most on the RC Scales

Growing body of literature on the MMPI-2-RF Validity Scales in forensic settings

23

Has the MMPI-2-RF subjected to peer review? MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale studies in forensic settings

Personal Injury/Disability Dionysus, Denney, & Halfaker (2011) Gervais, Ben-Porath & Wygant (2009) Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green (2007) Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Green (2008) Gervais, Ben-Porath, Wygant, & Sellbom (2010) Gervais, Wygant, Sellbom, & Ben-Porath (2011) Harp, Jasinski, Shandrea-Oschsner, Mason, & Berry (2011) Nelson, Sweet, & Heilbronner (2007) Rogers, Gillard, Berry, & Granacher (2011) Smart, Nelson, Sweet, Bryant, Berry, Granacher, & Heilbronner (2008) Van Dyke, Axelrod, & Schutte (2010) Wygant, Anderson, Sellbom, Rapier, Algeier, & Granacher (2011) Wygant, Ben-Porath, Arbisi, Berry, Freeman, & Heilbronner (2009) Young & Gross (2011) Young, Kerns, & Roper (2011) Youngjohn, Weshba, Stevenson, Sturgeon, & Thomas (2011)

Has the MMPI-2-RF subjected to peer review? MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale studies in forensic settings

Child Custody Sellbom & Bagby (2008)

Criminal Court Sellbom, Toomey, Wygant, Kucharski, & Duncan (2010)

Wygant, Sellbom, Gervais, Ben-Porath, Stafford, Freeman, & Heilbronner (2010)

MMPI-2-RF in Child Custody Litigants: Archer, Hagan, Mason, Handel, & Archer (2011)

MMPI-2-RF in Correctional Settings: Clegg, Fremouw, Hracek, Cole, & Schwartz (2010)

Forbey, Ben-Porath, & Gartland (2009)

24

Has the MMPI-2-RF subjected to peer review? MMPI-2-RF and Psychopathy:

Kastner, Sellbom, & Lillienfeld (In Press)

Sellbom (In Press)

Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Baum, Erez, & Gregory (2008)

Sellbom, Ben-Porath, Patrick, Wygant, Gartland, & Stafford (2011)

Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Stafford (2007)

Wygant & Sellbom (In press)

The known or potential rate of error of the MMPI-2-RF?

Data on reliability and standard error of measurement of MMPI-2-RF scale scores address this question directly

Classification accuracy statistics for validity scales

25

Are there standards controlling the MMPI-2-RF?

27

Is the MMPI-2-RF Generally Accepted? Frye Test

Survey data unavailable at this time

MMPI-2-RF being used increasingly in: Forensic (criminal and civil) evaluations

Public safety personnel screening

Medical evaluations

Mental health settings

Indications of MMPI-2-RF Acceptance

MMPI-2-RF interpretive guidelines provided in two leading textbooks:

Graham, J. R. (2011). MMPI-2: Assessing Personality and Psychopathology (5th edition). New York: Oxford University Press.

Greene, R.L. (2011). MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF: An Interpretive Manual(Third Edition). New York: Allyn & Bacon.

Listed among recommended outcome measures in Traumatic brain injury research complied by Interagency Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) Outcome measures Workgroup convened by NIH:

Wilde et al. (2010). Recommendations for the use of Common Outcome Measures in Traumatic Brain Injury Research. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91, 1650-1660.e17.

Listed as recommended measure in guide to establishing a practice on police pre-employment psychological evaluations:

Gallo, F. J., & Halgin, R. P. (2011). A Guide for Establishing a Practice in Police Preemployment Postoffer Psychological Evaluations. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0022493

28

Is the MMPI-2-RF Generally Accepted? Frye Test

In many states, case law guides judges to consider “Daubert-like” factors (i.e., scientific validity and reliability)

Option: Administer MMPI-2 and score both versions

Case Example: Mr. M

21 year old, single male

Evaluated in connection with Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity plea

Charged with aggravated assault on a police officer

Increasingly isolated and paranoid in months leading to the act

30

Further Information

Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF University of

Minnesota Press

January 2012

Further Information

Interpreting the

MMPI-2-RF University of

Minnesota Press

January 2012

Pearson: [email protected]

using the mmpi-2-rf in forensic assessments -...

Documents