Martin Sellbom, Tiffany A Brown, Mark H Waugh, Christopher J Hopwood
{"title":"Development and initial validation of Personality Disorder Syndrome scales for the MMPI-3.","authors":"Martin Sellbom, Tiffany A Brown, Mark H Waugh, Christopher J Hopwood","doi":"10.1037/pas0001311","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The purpose of the present study was to revise and update the MMPI-2-RF personality disorder (PD) syndrome scales for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Study 1 describes the development of the MMPI-3 PD syndrome scales in three separate samples of community participants (n = 1,591), university students (n = 1,660), and outpatient mental health patients (n = 1,537). The authors independently evaluated each of the 72 new MMPI-3 items and rated them for appropriateness for scale inclusion and used various statistical procedures for final item selection. Ultimately, all 10 scales were revised, with nine incorporating items that were new to the MMPI-3. In Study 2, we subsequently validated the new MMPI-3 PD Syndrome scales against measures of traditional PD measures, trait measures of the Alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition-5 model of personality disorders (AMPD) and the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, and specific criterion measures of externalizing, psychopathy, narcissism, emotional dysregulation, and self-harm, in two samples of university students (ns = 489 and 645). With some exceptions, the results were generally supportive of the convergent and discriminant validities of the MMPI-3 PD Syndrome scales. The Histrionic PD scale in particular was associated with questionable results and diverged most strongly from the theoretical construct it was originally meant to reflect. Further continuous validation of the scales is needed, especially in clinical samples, but the findings to date are promising. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"36 5","pages":"323-338"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Assessment","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001311","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The purpose of the present study was to revise and update the MMPI-2-RF personality disorder (PD) syndrome scales for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Study 1 describes the development of the MMPI-3 PD syndrome scales in three separate samples of community participants (n = 1,591), university students (n = 1,660), and outpatient mental health patients (n = 1,537). The authors independently evaluated each of the 72 new MMPI-3 items and rated them for appropriateness for scale inclusion and used various statistical procedures for final item selection. Ultimately, all 10 scales were revised, with nine incorporating items that were new to the MMPI-3. In Study 2, we subsequently validated the new MMPI-3 PD Syndrome scales against measures of traditional PD measures, trait measures of the Alternative Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition-5 model of personality disorders (AMPD) and the five-factor model (FFM) of personality, and specific criterion measures of externalizing, psychopathy, narcissism, emotional dysregulation, and self-harm, in two samples of university students (ns = 489 and 645). With some exceptions, the results were generally supportive of the convergent and discriminant validities of the MMPI-3 PD Syndrome scales. The Histrionic PD scale in particular was associated with questionable results and diverged most strongly from the theoretical construct it was originally meant to reflect. Further continuous validation of the scales is needed, especially in clinical samples, but the findings to date are promising. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
Psychological Assessment is concerned mainly with empirical research on measurement and evaluation relevant to the broad field of clinical psychology. Submissions are welcome in the areas of assessment processes and methods. Included are - clinical judgment and the application of decision-making models - paradigms derived from basic psychological research in cognition, personality–social psychology, and biological psychology - development, validation, and application of assessment instruments, observational methods, and interviews