Psychological Testing: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Erin L. George, MFT
Erin L. George, MFT
Medical editor

Ad Disclosure: Some of our recommendations, including BetterHelp, are also affiliates, and as such we may receive compensation from them if you choose to purchase products or services through the links provided

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is one of the most frequently used personality tests in mental health. Trained professionals use the test to assist in identifying personality structure and psychopathology, which is an overall picture of a person’s mental illness challenges.

What Is MMPI?


The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) is a widely used psychological assessment tool. It consists of self-report questions designed to evaluate psychopathology, with an overall picture of a person's mental illness and personality. Clinicians typically use it to gain insights into a person’s mental health, personality type, and potential mental health disorders.[47] 

In clinical settings, the MMPI is used to aid in diagnosing psychological disorders and creating treatment plans. Erin L. George, MA-MFT, explains that "having a full picture of a client's psychopathology at the time of diagnosis can help choose which therapeutic modality to use to best treat the client. Where, for example, cognitive behavioral therapy would help change behaviors that may come with clinical depression, dialectical behavioral therapy might be a better choice for someone with borderline personality disorder." Meanwhile, in legal settings, it may be used in forensic evaluations, and in occupational settings, the MMPI is utilized for employee selection and placement. However, the MMPI is only one tool that mental health providers use when making a diagnosis.

MMPI Test’s Role in Diagnosing Psychological Conditions

Therapists are Standing By to Treat Your Depression, Anxiety or Other Mental Health Needs

Explore Your Options Today


The MMPI test plays a critical role in diagnosing mental health conditions by providing psychologists with valuable insights into a person’s psychological functioning.

It involves a comprehensive set of self-report questions that allow clinicians to evaluate various dimensions related to mental health. The MMPI test can help diagnose conditions such as:[47]

  • Personality disorders
  • Schizophrenia
  • Anxiety
  • Depression

The MMPI test is able to identify specific patterns of responses that can indicate various mental health conditions. Assessors then use these patterns, along with diagnostic criteria, to make informed diagnoses.

Historical Development

The evolution from the original MMPI test to the MMPI-3 represents a series of refinements and updates to enhance the test’s reliability and validity.

The MMPI-2, which was introduced in 1989, addressed certain limitations of the original MMPI and incorporated updated norms and clinical scales. Subsequently, the MMPI-2-RF, which was published in 2008, streamlined the test, reducing the number of questions by over 200.

The MMPI-3 test, which was published in 2020, builds upon these advancements by incorporating new items, updating norms, and refining scales to ensure the test’s continued relevance and accuracy.

Significant changes in the MMPI-3, which have been motivated by ongoing research and clinical feedback, include new content, revised existing items, and a focus on addressing cultural bias to ensure the test’s applicability across diverse populations. Erin L. George, MA-MFT, says, "It's important to examine cultural bias, family of origin beliefs and histories, and other unique experiences because what might be considered 'normal' to one person could be out of the norm to someone else, culminating in a completely different emotional or behavioral response based simply on a world view lens." 


The original MMPI was developed in 1939 (Groth Marnat, Handbook of Psychological Assessment, 2009) using an empirical keying approach, which means that the clinical scales were derived by selecting items that were endorsed by patients known to have been diagnosed with certain pathologies.[2][3][4][5][6] The difference between this approach and other test development strategies used around that time was that it was atheoretical (not based on any particular theory), so the initial test was not aligned with the prevailing psychodynamic theories of that time. The atheoretical approach to MMPI development ostensibly enabled the test to capture aspects of human psychopathology that were recognizable and meaningful despite changes in clinical theories. However, because the MMPI scales were created based on a group with known psychopathologies, the scales themselves are not atheoretical by way of using the participants' clinical diagnoses to determine the scales' contents.


The first major revision of the MMPI was the MMPI-2, which was standardized on a new national sample of adults in the United States and released in 1989.[7] It is appropriate for use with adults 18 and over. Subsequent revisions of certain test elements have been published, and a wide variety of subscales was also introduced over many years to help clinicians interpret the results of the original clinical scales, which had been found to contain a general factor that made interpretation of scores on the clinical scales difficult. The current MMPI-2 has 567 items, all in true-or-false format, and usually takes between 1 and 2 hours to complete, depending on reading level. There is an infrequently used abbreviated form of the test that consists of the MMPI-2's first 370 items.[8] The shorter version has been mainly used in circumstances that have not allowed the full version to be completed (e.g., illness or time pressure). Still, the scores available on the shorter version are not as extensive as those available in the 567-item version.


A version of the test designed for adolescents, the MMPI-A, was released in 1992.[9] The MMPI-A has 478 items, with a short form of 350 items. The shorter form was intended to improve accuracy and increase the ability of the test to target specific areas. The content of the questions and/or the targeted area is also different on the adolescent version of the test compared to the adult version.


A new and psychometrically improved version of the MMPI-2 has recently been developed employing rigorous statistical methods that were used to develop the RC Scales in 2003.[10] The new MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) has now been released by Pearson Assessments. The MMPI-2-RF produces scores on a theoretically grounded, hierarchically structured set of scales, including the RC Scales. The modern methods used to develop the MMPI-2-RF were not available at the time the MMPI was originally developed. The MMPI-2-RF builds on the foundation of the RC Scales, which have been extensively researched since their publication in 2003. Publications on the MMPI-2-RC Scales include book chapters and multiple published articles in peer-reviewed journals and address the use of the scales in a wide range of settings.[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] The MMPI-2-RF scales rest on the assumption that psychopathology is a homogenous condition that is addictive.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30]

Test Administration

- Describe the process, including conditions for administration and scoring methods.

- Emphasize the importance of professional administration.

Current Scale Composition

Clinical Scales

  • Scale 1 (aka the Hypochondriasis Scale): Measures a person's perception and preoccupation with their health and health issues
  • Scale 2 (aka the Depression Scale): Measures a person's depressive symptoms level
  • Scale 3 (aka the Hysteria Scale): Measures the emotionality of a person
  • Scale 4 (aka the Psychopathic Deviate Scale): Measures a person's need for control or their rebellion against control
  • Scale 5 (aka the Femininity/Masculinity Scale): Measures a stereotype of a person and how they compare, such as the Marlboro man for men or June Cleaver or Donna Reed for women
  • Scale 6 (aka the Paranoia Scale): Measures a person's inability to trust.
  • Scale 7 (aka the Psychasthenia Scale): Measures a person's anxiety levels and tendencies
  • Scale 8 (aka the Schizophrenia Scale): Measures a person's unusual/odd cognitive, perceptual, and emotional experiences
  • Scale 9 (aka the Mania Scale): Measures a person's energy
  • Scale 0 (aka the Social Introversion Scale): Measures whether people enjoy and are comfortable being around other people

The original clinical scales were designed to measure common diagnoses of the era.

Number Abbreviation Description What is measured No. of items
1 Hs Hypochondriasis Concern with bodily symptoms 32
2 D Depression Depressive Symptoms 57
3 Hy Hysteria Awareness of problems and vulnerabilities 60
4 Pd Psychopathic Deviate Conflict, struggle, anger, respect for society's rules 50
5 MF Masculinity/Femininity Stereotypical masculine or feminine interests/behaviors 56
6 Pa Paranoia Level of trust, suspiciousness, sensitivity 40
7 Pt Psychasthenia Worry, Anxiety, tension, doubts, obsessiveness 48
8 Sc Schizophrenia Odd thinking and social alienation 78
9 Ma Hypomania Level of excitability 46
0 Si Social Introversion People orientation 69

Code types are a combination of the one, two, or three (and according to a few authors, even four) highest-scoring clinical scales (ex. 4, 8, 2, = 482). Codetypes are interpreted as a single, wider-ranged elevation rather than interpreting each scale individually.

Validity Scales

The validity scales in the MMPI-2 RF are minor revisions of those contained in the MMPI-2, which includes three basic types of validity measures: those that were designed to detect non-responding or inconsistent responding (CNS, VRIN, TRIN), those designed to detect when clients are over-reporting or exaggerating the prevalence or severity of psychological symptoms (F, Fb, Fp, FBS), and those designed to detect when test-takers are under-reporting or downplaying psychological symptoms (L, K)). A new addition to the validity scales for the MMPI-2 RF includes an over-reporting scale of somatic symptoms scale (Fs).

Abbreviation New in version Description Assesses
CNS 1 "Cannot Say" Questions not answered
L 1 Lie Client "faking good"
F 1 Infrequency Client "faking bad" (in first half of test)
K 1 Defensiveness Denial/Evasiveness
Fb 2 Back F Client "faking bad" (in last half of test)
VRIN 2 Variable Response Inconsistency answering similar/opposite question pairs inconsistently
TRIN 2 True Response Inconsistency answering questions all true/all false
F-K 2 F minus K honesty of test responses/not faking good or bad
S 2 Superlative Self-Presentation improving upon K scale, "appearing excessively good"
Fp 2 F-Psychopathology Frequency of presentation in clinical setting
Fs 2 RF Infrequent Somatic Response Overreporting of somatic symptoms

Content scales

Dozens of content scales currently exist, including the following.

Abbreviation Description
Es Ego Strength Scale
OH Over-Controlled Hostility Scale
MAC MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale
MAC-R MacAndrews Alcoholism Scale Revised
Do Dominance Scale
APS Addictions Potential Scale
AAS Addictions Acknowledgement Scale
SOD Social Discomfort Scale
A Anxiety Scale
R Repression Scale
TPA Type A Scale
MDS Marital Distress Scale

PSY-5 scales

Unlike the Content and Supplementary scales, the PSY-5 scales were not developed as a reaction to some actual or perceived shortcoming in the MMPI-2 itself. Instead, it was an attempt to connect the instrument with more general trends in personality psychology.[33] The five-factor model of human personality has gained great acceptance in non-pathological populations, and the PSY-5 scales differ from the five factors identified in non-pathological populations in that they were meant to determine the extent to which personality disorders might manifest and be recognizable in clinical populations. The five components were labeled Negative Emotionality (NEGE), Psychoticism (PSYC), Introversion (INTR), Disconstraint (DISC), and Aggressiveness (AGGR).

Scoring and Interpretation

Like many standardized tests, scores on the various scales of the MMPI-2 and the MMPI-2-RF are not representative of either percentile rank or how "well" or "poorly" someone has done on the test. Rather, the analysis looks at the relative elevation of factors compared to the various norm groups studied. Raw scores on the scales are transformed into a standardized metric known as T-scores (mean or average equals 50, standard deviation equals 10), making interpretation easier for clinicians. Test manufacturers and publishers ask test purchasers to prove they are qualified to purchase the MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF and other tests.

Ethical and Professional Considerations

The MMPI test should only be administered, scored, and interpreted by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist who has received specialized training in MMPI administration. Extensive training in psychometrics and clinical assessment is essential for accurate and ethical use. Again, professionals use the test to indicate possible mental illnesses or personality disorders, but it's not used alone in diagnosis. Ethically, for example, a professional testifying as a forensic psychologist would want to say in court that the test indicates traits of a diagnosis but that a formal diagnosis can only be made by a mental health professional seeing the client.

There are many ethical considerations when it comes to using the MMPI test, especially in sensitive contexts like employment screening, where results can have significant implications. 

Professionals administering this test must adhere to ethical guidelines, ensuring confidentiality, informed consent, and the appropriate use of the results to protect patients’ rights and well-being. Furthermore, understanding and addressing potential cultural biases is essential to maintain fairness and equity in assessment practices.

Criticism and Controversy

RC and Clinical Scales

Some questions have been raised about the RC Scales and the forthcoming release of the MMPI-2-RF, which eliminates the older clinical scales entirely in favor of the more psychometrically appealing RC scales. The replacement of the original clinical scales with the RC scales has not been met with universal approval. It has warranted enough discussion to prompt a special issue of the academic Journal of Personality Assessment (Vol 87, Issue 2, October 2006) to provide each side with a forum to voice their opinions regarding the old and new measures.

Individuals in favor of retaining the older clinical scales have argued that the new RC scales measure pathology, which is markedly different from that measured by the original clinical scales.[34][35] This claim is not supported by the results of research, which has found the RC scales to be cleaner, purer versions of the original clinical scales because:

  • The interscale correlations are greatly reduced, and no items are contained in more than one RC scale.
  • Common variance spread across the older clinical scales due to a general factor common to psychopathology is parsed out and contained in a separate scale measuring demoralization (RCdem).[36][37] 

Critics of the new scales argue that the removal of this common variance makes the RC scales less ecologically valid (less like real life) because real patients tend to present complex patterns of symptoms. However, this issue is addressed by being able to view elevations on other RC scales that are less saturated with the general factor and, therefore, are also more transparent and much easier to interpret.

Critics of the RC scales assert they have deviated too far from the original clinical scales. The implication is that previous research done on the clinical scales will no longer be relevant to the interpretation of the RC scales, and the burden of proof should be on the RC scales to demonstrate they are clearly superior to the original clinical scales. 

Proponents of the RC scales assert that research has adequately addressed those issues, with results indicating that the RC scales predict pathology in their designated areas better than their concordant original clinical scales while using significantly fewer items and maintaining equal to higher internal consistency reliability and validity, and are not weaker at identifying the core elements of the original clinical scales. Unlike the original clinical scales, the RC scales are not saturated with the primary factor (demoralization, now captured in RCdem), which frequently produced diffuse elevations and made interpretation of results difficult.

The RC scales also have lower interscale correlations and, in contrast to the original clinical scales, contain no interscale item overlap.[38] A more basic criticism is that the MMPI-2 RF scales rest on the assumption that psychopathology is a homogenous condition that is addictive. Although symptoms are mainly homogenous, most psychodiagnostic conditions, such as hysteria, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and dissociative identity disorder (DID), are composed of defenses, contradictory states, and seemingly unrelated signs and symptoms that can not be measured by scales that were made to have high internal consistency.

Lees-Haley "Fake Bad" Scale

The following discussion concerns the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale; there are several other "fake bad" scales (aside from the standard F and Fb scales, which are the original "fake bad" scales) that have been in existence since 1950 that have not been subject to the same kind of controversy as the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale. These include the F-K scale[39], the Gough Dissimilation index (Ds-r)[40], and the Wiener-Harmon Subtle and Obvious Scales (S-O)[41].

In March 2008, a front-page article in the Wall Street Journal[42] exposed what it claimed to be the lack of scientific validity of the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale, which is used in courts as an argument for malingering in injury litigation. According to the article, two Florida judges barred the use of the scale after special hearings on its scientific validity.

The article reports that psychologist Paul Lees-Haley, who works mainly for defendants in personal injury cases, developed this particular "fake bad" scale. The article reports that, in 1991, Lees-Haley paid to have an article supportive of his scale published in Psychological Reports, which the Wall Street Journal described as "a small Montana-based medical journal." The scale was introduced in MMPI after a review of the literature. This review was considered flawed by its critics because at least 10 of 19 studies reviewed were done by Lees-Haley or other insurance defense psychologists. In comparison, 21 other studies critical of the test were excluded from the review.

One of the critics of the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale is retired psychologist James Butcher, who found that more than 45% of psychiatric patients he studied had Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale scores of 20 or more, which according to the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale meant they were malingering. Butcher contends that it is unlikely that so many psychiatric patients misled doctors. The article quotes Butcher concluding:

This is great for insurance companies, but not great for people.

However, Butcher's own study has been criticized on methodological and conceptual grounds, including the likelihood that his subject pool included many malingerers, that he ignored recommended gender-related cut-offs, and that he used a less sensitive or specific MMPI-2 scale as his gold standard.[43]

Despite the reservations of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-R authors (including James Butcher) who have a degree of proprietary control over the test, an independent professional panel recommended that the Lees-Haley FBS be included in the standard Pearson scoring system.[44]

Several studies by independent neuropsychologists have since been published in respected peer-reviewed journals supporting the Lees-Haley FBS scale as highly sensitive and specific (when proper cut-offs are used) in identifying individuals who are exaggerating somatic symptoms (as opposed to psychiatric, mood, or neurological symptoms) in settings where the base-rate of malingering is typically high (litigation, pain clinics, etc.), as it was designed to do.[45] Regrettably, this criterion for evaluating the scale is circular, as it praises the test's finding of a high rate of malingering in a particular population because that population is assumed a priori to have a high rate of malingering. If the a priori assumption of a high rate of malingering in the population is false, this same observation is, in fact, a stark criticism of, rather than validation of, the scale.

Nevertheless, the Lees-Haley "fake bad" scale is now regarded by some authors as a gold standard in such populations.[46]


  1. ^ Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi, P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  2. ^ Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule(Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psychology, 10, 249-254.
  3. ^ Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1942). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): III. The measurement of symptomatic depression. Journal of Psychology, 14, 73-84.
  4. ^ McKinley, J. C, & Hathaway, S. R. (1940). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): II. A differential study of hypochondriasis. Journal of Psychology, 10,255-268.
  5. ^ McKinley, J. C, & Hathaway, S. R. (1942). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): IV. Psychasthenia. Journal of Applied Psychology, 26, 614-624.
  6. ^ McKinley, J. C, & Hathaway, S. R. (1944). A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): V. Hysteria, Hypomania, and Psychopathic Deviate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 153-174.
  7. ^ Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A, & Kaemmer, B. (1989).The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  8. ^ Butcher, J. N., Hostetler, K. (1990). Abbreviating MMPI Item Administration. What Can Be Learned From the MMPI for the MMPI—2?. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, March 1990 Vol. 2, No. 1, 12-21
  9. ^ Butcher, J.N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Archer, R.P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Kaemmer, B. (1992). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent Version(MMPI-A): Manual for administration, scoring and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  10. ^ Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi, P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  11. ^ Arbisi, P. A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 122-128.
  12. ^ Castro, Y., Gordon, K. H., Brown, J. S., Cox, J. C., & Joiner, T. E. (In Press). Examination of racial differences on the MMPI-2 Clinical and Restructured Clinical Scales in an outpatient sample. Assessment.
  13. ^ Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparison of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales in a substance abuse treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4, 46-58.
  14. ^ Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (In Press). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment.
  15. ^ Kamphuis, J.H., Arbisi, P.A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & McNulty, J.L. (In Press). Detecting Comorbid Axis-II Status Among Inpatients Using the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales. European Journal of Psychological Assessment.
  16. ^ Osberg, T. M., Haseley, E. N., & Kamas, M. M. (2008). The MMPI-2 Clinical Scales and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Comparative psychometric properties and relative diagnostic efficiency in young adults. Journal of Personality Assessment. 90, 81-92.
  17. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (In Press). Personality and Psychopathology: Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto the Five Factor Model of Personality. Journal of Personality Disorders.
  18. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 89-99.
  19. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Elevation differences between MMPI-2 Clinical and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Frequency, origins, and interpretative implications. Assessment, 13, 430-441.
  20. ^ Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 196-205.
  21. ^ Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L .A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B. I. (2005). Psychometric evaluation of the Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 17, 345-358.
  22. ^ Sellbom. M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2006). Forensic applications of the MMPI. In R. P. Archer (Ed.), Forensic uses of clinical assessment instruments. (pp. 19-55) NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  23. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Baum, L. J., Erez, E., & Gregory, C. (2008). Predictive validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a batterers' intervention program. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90. 129-135.
  24. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., & Graham, J. R. (2005). Assessing psychopathic personality traits with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 334-343.
  25. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Stafford, K. P. (2007). A comparison of measures of psychopathic deviance in a forensic setting. Psychological Assessment, 19, 430-436.
  26. ^ Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Graham, J. R., Arbisi, P. A., & Bagby, R. M. (2005). Susceptibility of the MMPI-2 Clinical, Restructured Clinical (RC), and Content Scales to overreporting and underreporting. Assessment, 12, 79-85.
  27. ^ Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2005). Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto normal personality traits: Evidence of construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 179-187.
  28. ^ Sellbom, M., Fischler, G. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). Identifying MMPI-2 predictors of police officer integrity and misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 985-1004.
  29. ^ Stredny, R. V., Archer, R. P., & Mason, J. A. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of parental competency examinees. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 113-115.
  30. ^ Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. A., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Kelly, P. H., & Rupp, W. M. (2007). Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates. Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14, 197-205.
  31. ^ Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., McNulty, J.L., Arbisi, P.A., Graham, J.R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN2). An MMPI handbook: Vol. I. Clinical interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
  32. ^ Caldwell, A. B. (1988). MMPI supplemental scale manual. Los Angeles: Caldwell Report.
  33. ^ Harkness, A. R., McNulty, J. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2002). MMPI-2 Personality-Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scales: Gaining an overview for case conceptualization and treatment planning. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
  34. ^ Butcher, J. N., Hamilton, C. K., Rouse, S. V., & Cumella, E. J. (2006). The deconstruction of the Hy Scale of MMPI-2: Failure of RC3 in measuring somatic symptom expression. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 186-192.
  35. ^ Caldwell, A. B. (2006). Maximal measurement or meaningful measurement: The interpretive challenges of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 193-201.
  36. ^ Rogers, R., Sewell, K. W., Harrison, K. S., & Jordan, M. J. (2006). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: A paradigmatic shift in scale development. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 139-147.
  37. ^ Archer, R. P. (2006). A perspective on the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scale project. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 179-185.
  38. ^ Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, M., Arbisi, P. A., McNulty, J. L., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Further evidence on the validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Addressing questions raised by Rogers et al. and Nichols. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 148-171.
  39. ^ Gough, H. G. (1950). The F minus K dissimulation index for the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 14, 408-413.
  40. ^ Gough, H. G. (1957). California Psychological Inventory manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  41. ^ Wiener, D. N. (1948). Subtle and obvious keys for the MMPI. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 12, 164-170.
  42. ^ David Armstrong, (March 5, 2008) "Malingerer Test Roils Personal-Injury Law; 'Fake Bad Scale' Bars Real Victims, Its Critics Contend The Wall Street Journal
  43. ^ 40. Greiffenstein M.F., Fox D., Lees-Haley P. (2007) MMPI-2 in Detection of Non-credible Brain Injury Claims. In K.B. Boone (Ed.) Assessment of Feigned Cognitive Impairment: A Neuropsychological Perspective (pp. 210-235) New York: Guilford Press.
  44. ^ 41. Press Release:
  45. ^ 42. Larrabee G.J. (2005) Assessment of Malingering. Forensic Neuropsychology: A Scientific Approach. (pp115-158). New York: Oxford University Press; Greiffenstein M.L., Baker W.J., Axelrod B., Peck E. & Gervais R. (2004) The Fake Bad Scale and the MMPI-2 F-family in detection of implausible trauma claims. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 18, 573-590; Henry G.K., Heilbronner H.L., Mittenberg W., Enders C., & Stanczak S.R. (2008) Comparison of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale, Henry-Heilbronner Index, and Restructured Clinical Scale 1 in identifying noncredible symptom reporting. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22, 919-929.
  46. ^ 43. Downing S.K., Denney R.L., Spray B.L., Houston C.M., Halfaker D.A. Examining the relationship between the Reconstructed Scales and the Fake Bad Scale of the MMPI-2. (2008) The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 22, 680-688.
  47. Floyd AE, Gupta V. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. [Updated 2023 Apr 24]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan-. Available from:

See also

Additional Resources

As advocates of mental health and wellness, we take great pride in educating our readers on the various online therapy providers available. MentalHelp has partnered with several thought leaders in the mental health and wellness space, so we can help you make informed decisions on your wellness journey. MentalHelp may receive marketing compensation from these companies should you choose to use their services.

MentalHelp may receive marketing compensation from the above-listed companies should you choose to use their services.