Comparability of MMPI-3 scores from remote and in-person administrations and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMPI-3 scores.

IF 3.3 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Psychological Assessment Pub Date : 2023-11-01 DOI:10.1037/pas0001252
Andrew J Kremyar, Megan R Whitman, Jordan T Hall, Keefe J Maccarone, Maria C Cimino, William H Menton, Yossef S Ben-Porath
{"title":"Comparability of MMPI-3 scores from remote and in-person administrations and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on MMPI-3 scores.","authors":"Andrew J Kremyar,&nbsp;Megan R Whitman,&nbsp;Jordan T Hall,&nbsp;Keefe J Maccarone,&nbsp;Maria C Cimino,&nbsp;William H Menton,&nbsp;Yossef S Ben-Porath","doi":"10.1037/pas0001252","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The COVID-19 pandemic onset necessitated remote administration of psychological instruments, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Although previous evidence has demonstrated that MMPI scale scores are robust across administration modalities, the specific effects of remote administration on the psychometric properties of MMPI-3 scale scores must be investigated. Distinguishing psychometric differences due to administration modality from substantive changes in psychological symptoms due to the COVID-19 pandemic is also important. Thus, goals of the present study include evaluating the psychometric comparability of MMPI-3 scores derived from in-person and remote administration modalities and examining substantive scale scores changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a large sample of college students (<i>n</i> = 2,503), rates of protocol invalidity, mean scale scores, reliability, and criterion validity were compared across participants completing the MMPI-3 in-person (both prior to and after the onset of COVID-19) and via remote administration. Results demonstrate comparably low rates of protocol invalidity, negligible differences in reliability, and similar patterns of criterion validity for MMPI-3 scale scores across administration modalities. Results also indicate that mean MMPI-3 scale scores pre- and post-COVID-19 onset substantially differ on select scales, but that scores on remote and in-person protocols administered post-COVID-19 have negligible differences. Remote MMPI-3 scale scores also demonstrated expected patterns of correlations with external criteria, supporting the validity of remote scores. Overall, the present study demonstrates that MMPI-3 protocols administered remotely and in-person are extremely psychometrically similar, although scores have generally increased post-COVID-19 onset for reasons independent of administration modality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":20770,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Assessment","volume":"35 11","pages":"911-924"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","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/pas0001252","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 COVID-19 pandemic onset necessitated remote administration of psychological instruments, including the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Although previous evidence has demonstrated that MMPI scale scores are robust across administration modalities, the specific effects of remote administration on the psychometric properties of MMPI-3 scale scores must be investigated. Distinguishing psychometric differences due to administration modality from substantive changes in psychological symptoms due to the COVID-19 pandemic is also important. Thus, goals of the present study include evaluating the psychometric comparability of MMPI-3 scores derived from in-person and remote administration modalities and examining substantive scale scores changes associated with the COVID-19 pandemic. Using a large sample of college students (n = 2,503), rates of protocol invalidity, mean scale scores, reliability, and criterion validity were compared across participants completing the MMPI-3 in-person (both prior to and after the onset of COVID-19) and via remote administration. Results demonstrate comparably low rates of protocol invalidity, negligible differences in reliability, and similar patterns of criterion validity for MMPI-3 scale scores across administration modalities. Results also indicate that mean MMPI-3 scale scores pre- and post-COVID-19 onset substantially differ on select scales, but that scores on remote and in-person protocols administered post-COVID-19 have negligible differences. Remote MMPI-3 scale scores also demonstrated expected patterns of correlations with external criteria, supporting the validity of remote scores. Overall, the present study demonstrates that MMPI-3 protocols administered remotely and in-person are extremely psychometrically similar, although scores have generally increased post-COVID-19 onset for reasons independent of administration modality. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
远程和住院管理的MMPI-3评分的可比性以及新冠肺炎大流行对MMPI-3分数的影响。
新冠肺炎大流行的爆发需要远程管理心理工具,包括明尼苏达多相人格问卷-3(MMPI-3)。尽管先前的证据表明MMPI量表评分在各种给药方式中都是稳健的,但必须研究远程给药对MMPI-3量表评分的心理测量特性的具体影响。区分因给药方式引起的心理测量差异与因新冠肺炎大流行引起的心理症状的实质性变化也很重要。因此,本研究的目标包括评估来自住院和远程给药模式的MMPI-3评分的心理测量可比性,并检查与新冠肺炎大流行相关的实质性量表评分变化。使用大学生的大样本(n=2503),对完成MMPI-3住院治疗的参与者(新冠肺炎发病前后)和通过远程管理的方案无效率、平均量表得分、可靠性和标准有效性进行了比较。结果表明,方案无效率相对较低,可靠性差异可忽略不计,并且不同给药方式的MMPI-3量表评分的标准有效性模式相似。结果还表明,COVID-19发病前和发病后的平均MMPI-3量表评分在选择的量表上存在显著差异,但COVID-19-19后实施的远程和住院方案的评分差异可忽略不计。远程MMPI-3量表评分也显示了与外部标准的预期相关性模式,支持远程评分的有效性。总体而言,本研究表明,尽管COVID-19发病后,由于独立于给药方式的原因,评分普遍增加,但远程给药和住院给药的MMPI-3方案在心理测量方面极其相似。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Assessment
Psychological Assessment PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
5.70
自引率
5.60%
发文量
167
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
期刊最新文献
Development and validation of a method for deriving MMPI-3 scores from MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF item responses. Evaluation of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ) Unlikely Virtues Scale in the detection of underreporting. Prospectively predicting violent and aggressive incidents in prison practice with the Risk Screener Violence (RS-V): Results from a multisite prison study. Development of the Food Addiction Symptom Inventory: The first clinical interview to assess ultra-processed food addiction. Does the Bayley-4 measure the same constructs across girls and boys and infants, toddlers, and preschoolers?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1