Mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf
![mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf](https://static.cambridge.org/binary/version/id/urn:cambridge.org:id:binary-alt:20191108171021-43057-mediumThumb-41591fig16_5.jpg)
Fourteen valid MMPI–2 protocols from an archival private practice sample were scored as both the MMPI–2 and the MMPI–2–RF. Ratings from both were valid predictors of therapist descriptions, and neither clearly outperformed the other in terms of incremental validity.Ībstract = "Do MMPI–2 or MMPI–2–RF profiles differ in how accurately they depict examinees? To explore this question, we examined differences in clinical descriptions of equivalent profiles from the two instruments. Descriptions from corresponding MMPI–2 and MMPI–2–RF score reports were highly intercorrelated. Examinee descriptions from the two instruments were compared in terms of their (a) similarity, operationalized by q-correlations between corresponding MMPI–2 and MMPI–2–RF ratings (b) descriptive validity, operationalized by correlations with q-sorts provided by the examinees’ therapists and (c) incremental descriptive validity, operationalized by incremental prediction of the therapist q-sorts by the MMPI–2 and MMPI–2–RF, one over the other. The resulting 28 profiles were coded separately by four raters using the Midwestern Q-Sort.
![mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf](https://www.eqiq.nl/images/juni2007.jpg)
doi:10.Do MMPI–2 or MMPI–2–RF profiles differ in how accurately they depict examinees? To explore this question, we examined differences in clinical descriptions of equivalent profiles from the two instruments. Utility of the MMPI-2-RF (restructured form) validity scales in detecting malingering in a criminal forensic setting: A known-groups design. Diagnostic construct validity of MMPI-2 restructured form (MMPI-2-RF) scale scores. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 33(3), 355-367. Effectiveness of the MMPI-2-RF validity scales for feigned mental disorders and cognitive impairment: A known-groups study. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. These findings provide strong evidence supporting the construct validity and reliability of the 51 Scales found in the MMPI-2.
MMPI 2 VS MMPI 2 RF MANUAL
The empirical data offered by the Technical Manual shows strong and distinctive correlational findings, and consistent measures of the constructs the scales target. For example, the scores on the Somatic/Cognitive Scales, Internalizing Specific Problems Scales, Externalizing Specific Problems Scales, and Interpersonal Scales amongst others were reliable based on test-retest correlations and internal consistency estimates in clinical studies. Interpreting The MMPI-2-RF included a vast amount of information about the reliability data in the MMPI-2-RF. The MMPI-2-RF scores are non-K-corrected due to overwhelming data showing that K correction does not benefit, and at times, weakens the distinction between the norm group and the individuals being tested (Porath, 2012). The representation of ethnicities is slightly skewed Caucasians are overly represented and Asians and Hispanics are underrepresented. The normative sample was composed of individuals ranging from age 18 to 80 all from different regions and communities in the United States. The mean T scores for both men and women were at or about 50, with standard deviation of 10 therefore, there was no significant clinical difference between genders. Analysis of T scores based on gendered versus nongendered norms showed no advantages or disadvantages for either gender.
![mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf mmpi-2 vs mmpi-2-rf](https://slidetodoc.com/presentation_image_h/9a5047f9f943db51a96fda5d1de792e5/image-8.jpg)
The nongendered MMPI-2-RF normative sample is made up of 1,138 men and 1,138 women from the normative sample of the MMPI-2. The MMPI-2-RF normal sample is the same used to standardize the MMPI-2 minus the emphasis on gender no new norms were collected for the MMPI-2-RF.