Personality Assessment
projective personality assessment
administration of unstructured or ambiguous stimuli with open-ended responses
interpretation assumed to reflect the client’s projection of unconscious thoughts/urges/experiences onto stimuli
pros:
hard to fake good or fake bad (without prior knowledge)
more freedom of response
potentially more information obtained
cons:
administration and scoring is complex and expensive
problems with standardization, reliability, validity, and utility
test information can be easily found
objective personality assessment
administration of a standard set of questions or statements with a fixed set of responses
pros:
administration and scoring simple and economical
potentially high levels of standardization, reliability, validity, and utility
cons:
response sets: tendency to respond to items in a way not reflective of true feelings
faking responses: a deliberate attempt to create a good or bad impression (“malingering”)
misinterpretation of questions, limited responses
Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory - 3 (MMPI-3)
most psychometrically sound self-report measures of personality and psychopathology
widely used to assess and predict clinical phenomena in clinical, legal, penal, work, and educational contexts
contains 335 self-descriptive true-false sentences
“I used to like to do the dances in gym class.”
“I think other people are more talkative than me.”
“Sometimes I think so fast I can’t keep up.”
“There are those out there who are out to get me.”
1st edition published in 1943 (550 items)
normative sample: almost exclusively Caucasian, working-class, rural Minnesotans with an average of 8 years of education
challenges external OR internal validity of norms
developed using a purely “empirical approach”
items included in scale only if responses differentiated between clinical and non-clinical groups (those with MDD vs no diagnosis)
development not based on theory
atheoretical approach with low content validity
2nd edition published in 1989 (567 items)
normative sample: 2900 adults from diverse geographic regions and communities across the United States
eliminated offensive items (sexist or other offensive language)
revised items using outdated language or cultural references
new items developed using a “theoretical approach”
items developed to specifically measure all subcomponents of constructs (all 9 symptoms of MDD)
approach used to increase content validity
MMPI-2 clinical scales
theoretical constructs based on definitions at the time of development (e.g., 1980s and prior)
uses many terms not commonly used in contemporary clinical psychology
don’t need to memorize the MMPI- 2 clinical scale names for the exam
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 2 – Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF)
problems with MMPI-2
structural problems with MMPI-2 Clinical Scales
similar issues we’ve discussed in this class with the DSM 5 diagnoses
comorbidity, heterogeneity
scales were not “psychometrically optimal” (Ben-Porath & Sellbom, 2023)
a restructured version (the MMPI-2-RF) used a combination of the “empirical” and “theoretical” approaches
goal: create scales that measure distinct, unique, and quantitatively supported aspects of mental health
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory – 3 (MMPI-3)
3rd version and current edition published in 2020 (335 items)
updated normative sample: over 2000 adults from diverse geographic regions and communities across the United States
norms updated to reflect population of the 21st century
new items created using a blend of the “empirical” and “theoretical” approaches from the prior two editions
various scales used in the MMPI-3 that are useful for clinicians
Validity Scale
developed to evaluate potential threats to interpretability of responses to the MMPI
As a clinician, we look at these results first to determine whether rest of results are “interpretable” (i.e., a “valid” representation of the client’s problems)
Rule of thumb: T-scores greater than or equal to 70 may indicate an invalid profile
NEED TO KNOW
F
infrequency scales
L
lie scales
excessive virtues
K
defensiveness scale
unrealistically positive
graph is useful to help visualize trends
look at t scores to interpret validity
example:
what might you conclude from these validity scales?
remember look for t scores greater than or equal to 70
when might this happen?
who might present this way?
malingering: feigning (faking) or exaggerating symptoms for external gain (compensation-seeking claims without injury)
MMPI-3 validity scales can detect purposely feigned mental health difficulties (Reeves, 2022)
some individuals making disability claims exaggerate or even fabricate mental illness
detection of feigned depression is important task in psychiatric disability claim assessments
Higher-Order Scales
three scales providing dimensional information about a broad area of psychopathology
emotional/internalizing dysfunction
difficulties with mood and affect (depression, anxiety)
thought dysfunction
problems associated with disordered thinking (delusions)
behavioral/externalizing dysfunction
problems associated with under controlled behavior (substance use; aggression)
Restructured Clinical Scales
empirically-derived scales based on dimensional theories of psychopathology
developed to provide contemporary language and understand to the MMPI-2 clinical scales
NOTE: you don’t need to memorize the RC codes and names for the exam
Specific Problems Scales
most fine-grained assessment of specific problem areas an individual may be experiencing
4 areas:
somatic/cognitive scales
ex: neurological complaints; eating concerns
internalizing scales
ex: helplessness/hopelessness; stress; anxiety-related experiences
externalizing scales
ex: family problems; substance abuse; aggression
interpersonal scales
ex: dominance; social avoidance; self-importance
if profile is valid:
start by looking at higher-order scales to see what difficulties the individual may be dealing with globally
then look to restructured clinical scales for more fine-tuned information
finally, look at specific problems scales and PSY-5 to narrow in on specific difficulties
similar to validity scales:
we can also use t-scores to interpret the clinically-related scales of the MMPI-3
rule of thumb: look at t-scores greater than or equal to 70
Personality Psychopathology Five Scales (PSY-5)
assesses 5 dimensional traits of personality associated with nonadaptive functioning and psychopathology
aggressiveness
psychoticism
disconstraint
negative emotionality/neuroticism
introversion/low positive emotionality
useful to identify pathological personality patterns that may contribute to different mental disorder (high neuroticism and depression)
interpret MMPI scores using t-scores
standardized score with an average of 50
scores are compared to the normative adult sample used to create the scale
standard deviation of 10
about 68% of people score between
a 40 and a 60
about 95% of people score between
30 and 70
t-scores ≥ 70 or 80 are of potential interest
personality disorder in DSM-5
contrast personality and clinical disorders
personality disorders
show early onset
endure throughout life
observed across situations (pervasive)
clinical disorders
onsent not necessarily early
not necessarily stable over time (ebb and flow, may go away entirely)
not necessarily stable across situations
the DSM-5 uses categorical representation of personality disorders (PDs)
3 clusters: A, B, and C
prevalence among US adults- 15%
many problems with categorical definition of PDs including:
extensive comorbidity among PDs
extreme heterogeneity among patients with same PD diagnosis
temporal instability of PDs
poor coverage of personality psychopathology
personality varies continuously, not categorically
proposed model for DSM-5
hybrid categorical-dimensional model
personality disorders defined by extreme, pathological personality traits
in conjunction with disturbances in self and interpersonal functioning
that are relatively stable and pervasive across a range of personal and social contexts
combination of both dimensional aspects of personality traits that coincide with categorical diagnosis
hybrid dimensional categorical model
appears as alternative approach for future studies in Appendix of DSM-5
retained 6 categorical diagnoses
antisocial PD
avoidant PD
boderline PD
narcissistic PD
obsessive-compulsive PD
schizotypal PD
dimensional traits
symptoms are based on experiencing personality pathology
traits assessed on the PSy-5 on the MMPI-3
negative affectivity (negative emotionality/neuroticism)
experiencing negative emotions frequently and intensely
detachment (introversion/low positive emotionality)
withdrawal from other people and social interactions
antagonism (aggressiveness)
behaviors that put person at odds with other people
disinhibition (discontraint)
engaging in behaviors impulsively, without reflecting on potential future consequences
psychoticism
unusual and bizarre experiences
hybrid dimensional-categorical model
rejected for main body- induced in appendix for further study
some argued change too substantial
some argued too little evidence supporting model validity
at the time, this was valid
today, research literature supports model
some argued too complex for practice
highly controversial and politicized process
would have been the most revised portion of the DSM-5
MMPI-3
strengths
high reliability
highly concurrent and predictive validity
ability to detect untruthful responses
limitations
very long - 335 true/false items
reading and attention requirements
emphasis on pathology/abnormality
what about normative individual differences in personality?