Search

The Restructured Clinical (RC; Tellegen et al., 2003) scales were developed to improve measurement of the core constructs of the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 2001) Clinical scales by removing "demoralization," hypothesized to affect these scales adversely. Using 25 samples with MMPI-2 responses from 78,159 subjects across diverse clinical settings, we found that each RC scale was highly correlated with a Supplementary, Content, or Personality Psychopathology 5 (PSY-5; Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995) scale: higher, in fact, than the correlation between the RC scale and its parent scale. Furthermore, for over half the RC scales (i.e., RC1, RC3, RC7, RC8, and RCd), the correlations were strong enough to conclude that the RC scales replicate MMPI-2 scales with rich empirical foundations; the remaining RC scales were not redundant. Next, we examined reliability estimates using alpha coefficients and interitem correlations and did not reveal superior reliability for most of the RC scales over existing MMPI-2 scales.

I review the development of the new set of MMPI-2 scales, the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales (Tellegen et al., 2003). I identify several conceptual and methodological flaws in the construction of these scales, and I discuss the influence of a central shortcoming, the use of an atypical and depressively biased marker for unwanted ("first-factor") variance and its consequences for the RC Scales. I criticize the monograph introducing and describing the development of these scales for multiple important omissions. I provide examples of RC Scales in which relevant variances were overextracted or underextracted in the process of their construction. I introduce and apply the concept of "construct drift" to the RC Scales corresponding to the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) Clinical Scales, Psychasthenia and Hypomania. I conclude that the RC Scales are highly redundant with and function as routinely scored Content scales and that their designation as Clinical Scales is at best tenuous. I present two more appropriate, unbiased markers for the first factor along with the description of several nonintrusive strategies for increasing the independence of the Clinical Scales without compromising their syndromal fidelity.

The topic of deception in personality assessment is discussed along a number of dimensions relevant to clinical practice. The dimensions described are consistency versus accuracy of item endorsement, simulation versus dissimulation, genetic versus specific deception, crude versus sophisticated deception, intentional versus nonintentional deception, self-deception versus impression management, and selectivity versus inclusiveness, as these may be encountered using the revised version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. The emphasis is placed on deceptive strategies as operations as distinct from the traditional categories of response style such as social desirability. Directions for future research are indicated.

An impressionistic list of methodological considerations that may be of consequence in Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)-Rorschach studies is presented. These include the potential effects of the multidimensionality of the basic clinical MMPI scales in comparison studies, issues of deception and response style in such studies, and the rote of theory in guiding the selection of variables in the search for MMPI-Rorschach correspondences. The recently established necessity of controls for the total number of Rorschach responses provides the basis for suggestions for further controls in MMPI-Rorschach studies, including those for level of distress and for the minimization/exaggeration of psychopathology. An effort is made to contrast these two instruments in terms borrowed from information theory as a way of illuminating their complementary aspects, and suggesting means by which each may contribute to an enhanced understanding of the other.