THE DIAGNOSTIC SUITABILITY OF GOLDBERG'S …/67531/metadc663038/m2/1/high... · THE DIAGNOSTIC...

THE DIAGNOSTIC SUITABILITY OF GOLDBERG'S

'RULE FOR THE MINI-MULT

THESIS

Presented to the Graduate Council of the

North Texas State University in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements

For the Degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

By

Dan Haynes Roberts, B. S.

Denton, Texas

December, 1975

379

N1

ABSTRACT

Roberts, Dan H., The Diagnostic Suitability of Goldberg's

Rule for the Mini-Mult. Master of Science (Clinical

Psychology), December, 1975, 47 pp., 6 tables, references,

45 titles.

This study was undertaken to determine whether the

Mini-Mult is able to function as well as the MMPI for a

limited clinical purpose, the discrimination of psychosis

and neurosis by Goldberg's rule. The smaller size of the

Mini-Mult (71 items) allows conservation of time .and energy

by subjects and professionals. Thirty male residents of

the Austin State Hospital completed two standard MMPIs and

one oral Mini-Mult. A fourth set of scores was obtained

by extracting Mini-Mult from the first MMPI. Correlations

and tests of significance were computed for raw scores and

Goldberg's index scores. Results indicate no significant

differences in the discrimination of psychosis and neurosis

between the MMPI and the Mini-Mult.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PageLIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Statement of the ProblemPurpose of the StudyReview of the LiteratureRationale

II. METHODS.... .... .... ......... 24

III. RESULTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

IV. DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

APPENDIX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

REFERENCES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Dates of Current Hospital Admissions,Dates of Testing, Number of PriorAdmissions to a Psychiatric Hos-pital and Ages of Subjects.*. . .

2. Means and Standard Deviations of theScale Scores for the Two Admi-nistrations of the Two Forms.

3. Students' t Vatues and Significanceof Differences Between Meansof Comparable Scales for Combi-nations of Two Administrationsof Two Test Forms.........*..

4. Correlations Between ComparableScales for all Combinationsof the Two Administrations ofthe Two Forms........ .0.....

5. Percentages of Agreement BetweenCombinations of the Two Admini-strations of the Two Test Forms .

6. Correlations of Goldberg's Psychotic-Neurotic Index Scores for Com-binations of the Two Admini-strations of the Two Test Forms .

26

35

. . .. 36

. . . . . 37

38

39

7. Means and Standard Deviations ofGoldberg's Index Scores for theTwo Administrations of the Two Forms.

8. Scores on Goldberg's Index for the TwoAdministrations of the Two Forms.

9. High Point Scales on the Four Tests. .

10. Two-Point Codes on the Four Tests.....

11. Raw Scores on Scale L on the Four Tests.

40

46

48

49

50

iv

Page

LIST OF TABLES--Continued

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

on Scale

F

K

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

on the Four Tests.

on the Four Tests.

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

on the Four Tests*

V

Table

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Raw

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Scores

Page

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Statement of the Problem

In light of the widespread acceptance of the Minnesota

Multiphasic Personality Inventory as a measure of various

personality variables for people in many diverse settings,

it is surprising that until several years ago there was

no abbreviated form of the MMPI from which the standard

scale scores could be reliably predicted. There is a great

deal of clinical and research value in such an instrument.

Often in clinical settings, it is difficult to persuade

subjects to complete either the individual or group form

of the MMPI. The length of the standard inventory makes

it tedious for subjects to fill out, and some are unwilling

or unable to devote the time and concentration that is

required. In similar circumstances, many of the same

people would agree to answer a shorter set of questions

taken from statements on the longer standard MMPI. At times,

there may be a need for rapid evaluation and communication

of results, such as for consultation purposes or speedy

classification of patients in a hospital or clinic. In

addition to applied uses, a short version of the MMPI would

expedite and simplify personality research. A short form

1

2

could make it much easier to recruit subjects who may be

unwilling to devote the time necessary to complete the long

form. An abbreviated test could also reduce expenses and

increase efficiency in both clinical and research settings

by decreasing the amount of time spent in scoring and

interpretation on the part of professional personnel.

Kincannon (1968) developed the first short form of

the MMPI which accurately predicted the standard scale

scores. This version does not include clinical scales

5 and 0. All other basic scales are included on Kincannon's

Mini-Mult. Evidence from studies which will be discussed

in the following pages has shown that the clinical utility

of the short version is limited in scope. Research indi-

cates that the Mini-Mult enjoys variable success, depending

on the population it is used with, and the amount of

clinical information one attempts to extract from the scores.

Therefore, by using the Mini-Mult on an optimal

population for a limited purpose of general diagnostic

classification, it may be possible to delineate a specific,

valid, clinical use for the Mini-Mult.

Several advantages of the short form have already

been mentioned. If the Mini-Mult is able to provide

reasonably accurate discrimination between psychotics and

neurotics, mental health officials could begin appropriate

intervention without waiting for more complicated and time

consuming assessment procedures to be completed. The oral

3

form of the Mini-Mult will allow testing of illiterate

subjects. It may also reduce the necessity for lengthy

observation periods before treatment is initiated.

B. Purpose of the Study

Methods of psychological and psychiatric intervention

may be influenced by psychological assessment of the

problems to be dealt with. Assessment may take the form

of interviews, behavioral observations, evaluation of

psychological tests, examination of historical data pro-

vided by significant others, or professionals or agencies

consulted by the individual in the past. It may involve

a combination of two or more of these. Intervention can

also be influenced by the results of histological, sero-

logical, or neurological tests. Inferences drawn from

various assessment techniques may be interpreted on

three levels, depending on the individual clinician's

theoretical bias, and on the questions he wishes to

answer with assessment procedures.

On the lowest level, the information about the client

is directly related to the decisions to be made. An

example would be the inference made by a college official

after looking at a potential student's entrance test score.

A decision to accept or reject the candidate is based

on the score. The inference drawn must be either that

the candidate is qualified, or that he is not. On the

4

second level, inferences may be descriptive generalizations

and/or hypothetical constructs concerning the client. The

third level inferences are similar to those at level two,

varying only in complexity. In other words, assessment

procedures are more involved in an attempt to learn as

much about the client as possible. The goal is to develop

a clear, complete representation of the client, and his

behavior patterns.

Intervention techniques may include chemotherapy,

milieu therapy, electro-convulsive therapy, and psycho-

therapies based on various theoretical viewpoints of

abnormal behavior. Behavior modification techniques are

also widely used. Various levels of intervention include

personal, family, small group, organization, and community.

The specific type of therapy may depend on the nature of

the problem and on the therapist's decision to treat the

symptoms observed, or the underlying causes. This decision

is affected by the therapist's bias and is limited by

his specific areas of competency. Therapeutic goals may

be restricted by available facilities and/or priorities

held by different agencies. A client's treatment can

also depend on his financial and emotional resources, as

well as his intellectual abilities, educational background,

and cultural milieu.

In a state hospital setting, intervention procedures

usually depend mainly on the initial diagnosis. If a

5

patient has a record of previous hospitalization, that may

affect the decisions made about him. Initial decisions in

such settings include consideration of: hospitalzation vs.

non-hospitalization, use of anti-psychotic drugs vs. other

or no drugs, use of ECT vs. no ECT, and whether patient is

suicidal or non-suicidal, etc.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate a method of

assessment which may be used to classify people for

psychological or psychiatric purposes. The assessment

procedure under investigation is a mathematical inter-

pretation of MMPI scores which allows the tester to make

a lower level inference about the test subject. By applying

a simple additive formula, one is able to discriminate a

psychotic person from a neurotic person, on the basis of

scale scores combined in a linear fashion. This linear

combination of scores is known as Goldberg's index. A

subject whose index falls above a certain cutoff score

is classified as psychotic. If the index is below the

cutoff score, the subject is classified as neurotic.

C. Review of the Literature

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory,

of MMPI, has long been used to make decisions in problems

of differential diagnosis in various settings. Meehl

(1946) proposed a set of rules for making such decisions,

which were based on configural properties of MMPI profiles.

6

His effort was one of the first attempts to set explicit

rules for making specific diagnostic decisions. In this

study he evaluated the MMPI for use in differential

diagnosis of psychosis, psychoneurosis, and "conduct

disorder." He found that a set of rules could be used

to arrive at a diagnosis with greater success than a

simple examination of high point scales would allow. More

recently, Meehl and Dahlstrom (1960) developed a more

effective set of rules for discriminating psychotic from

neurotic profiles. Profiles which could not be classified

as psychotic or neurotic were designated as "indeterminate."

Henrichs (1964) attempted to derive a rule to extend the

applicability of the Meehl and Dahlstrom results. He was

unable to come up with rules which allowed a hit rate

exceeding 50% for the new classification of "character

disorder." The new classification could not be made with

the same degree of accuracy possible with the rules for

diagnosis for the other general categories. Although the

hit rate is high, it has little clinical promise.

Schmidt (1945) found that by analyzing MMPI profiles,

differential diagnoses for major clinical classifications

could be made with statistical significance. The major

diagnostic groups in this study were inadequate personality,

sexual psychopathy, mild psychoneurosis, severe psycho-

neurosis, and psychosis. Hovey (1949) compared three

psychoneurotic groups on the basis of profiles. He

7

discovered that the dissociative-conversion group produced

a relatively consistent pattern, while patterns produced

by anxiety and somatization groups were less consistent.

Guthrie (1950) discovered that a high degree of diagnostic

accuracy could be achieved by examination of code types.

He used six profile patterns reported by Gough (1946)

and Schmidt (1945). The diagnostic groups were anxiety

state, inadequate personality, psychopathic personality,

paranoia, depression, and mania.

Leverenz (1943) found significant agreement between

diagnoses made from MMPI profile patterns and psychiatric

diagnoses made without the benefit of MMPI results. He

obtained the highest agreement on the following groups:

psychoneurosis, hypochondriacal type, depression, and

psychosis. The investigation was made to evaluate the

usefulness of the MMPI in a hospital setting. Modlin (1947)

conducted a study along similar lines to examine the

utility of the MMPI in clinical practice. He concluded

that the test is a valuable psychometric tool in clinical

psychiatric practice, but that test interpretation should

be made in terms of the total clinical picture to prevent

avoidable errors.

The studies above are representative of the research

dealing with the diagnostic capabilities of the MMPI.

In general, previous research has shown the MMPI to be

a worthy aid in making differential diagnoses. It is

not a substitute for the clinician, however.

8

Beside diagnostics, the MMPI has been put to a great

number of uses. Peterson (1954) investigated its ability

to predict hospitalization of psychiatric outpatients.

He concluded that the MMPI could make correct predictions

approximately two-thirds of the time. Farberow (1950)

used the MMPI to study personality patterns among hos-

pitalized suicidal patients. The inventory has also been

used to study personality characteristics of other groups

including college students (Goodstein, 1945b; Bier, 1948),

nurses (Weisgerber, 1954; Hovey, 1953), non-psychiatric

medical patients (Weiner, 1948; Anderson and Hanvik,

1950; Ganter, 1951; Hanvik, 1951; and many others). The

MMPI, it seems, can be viewed as a double-edged sword in

the hands of ,a psychometrist, serving both clinical and

research needs.

There are several possible arguments against the

development of an abbreviated MMPI. One is that a short

form is generally considered to be less reliable than the

longer form of a test which is also likely to have greater

validity. This view is demonstrated in the Spearman-Brown

formula. However, this formula is effective for tests

in which all items are assumed to be more or less equivalent.

In his discussion of this topic, Kincannon (1968) cites

at least twelve references which report on the variances

of different MMPI scales. He concludes that the various

scales of the MMPI are very heterogeneous. Since items

9

are assumed to be equivalent, any deletions from a long

test would be considered to be random. This does not have

to be the case.

Kincannon (1968) followed this line of reasoning

in the development of the Mini-Mult, a 71 item abbreviation

of the MMPI. He derived the inventory by clustering items

in each scale. The clusters were based on data obtained

by Comrey (Kincannon, 1968). Clusters were groups of

items, each having a phi coefficient of .30 or above with

the other items in the group. Next, several items were

taken from each cluster. Usually, these items were the

ones scored on the greatest number of scales. In this way,

the item pool was reduced first to 288 and finally to 71

items. Scales duplicated on the Mini-Mult include all

the validity and clinical scales except Mf and Si.

Kincannon ran two comparisons of the MMPI and the

Mini-Mult, which was extracted from the MMPI results,

on two groups of subjects. One was a group of psychiatric

inpatients at a general hospital. The other was a group of

patients at a community mental health center. In each

case, the average correlation between raw scale scores

was .87. Next, he investigated the functioning of the

Mini-Mult as he intended it to be used in a clinical

situation. First a standard MMPI was administered to each

of 30 male and 30 female patients in a psychiatric hospital.

On the following day, half the subjects completed a retest

10

of the standard MMPI, while the other half completed the

Mini-Mult. Then on the third day, this procedure was

reversed, and finally, each patient had finished two standard

MMPI's and a Mini-Mult. Kincannon obtained scores on each

of these tests and extracted Mini-Mult scores from the

first standard MMPI results.

Analysis of the results suggests that the Mini-Mult

underestimates extreme elevations of scales F and Ma.

Kincannon correlated scale scores from each test with

those from each of the other tests. He also compared

MMPI scale scores with reliability estimates made with

the Spearman-Brown to discover if the Mini-Mult compared

favorably with the formula estimates of its predictive

ability. For every scale, he found that the reliability

of the Mini-Mult was superior to that predicted by the

Spearman-Brown formula. He found a mean error of 14%

in prediction of MMPI scale scores from the Mini-Mult,

which was half the average error predicted by the formula.

In response to arguments that such correlations

between short and long forms actually underestimate

errors in classification made by short forms of various

tests (Kramer and Francis, 1965; Mumpower, 1964; Silverstein,

1965), Kincannon made comparisons of the decisions based

on scores from the two forms. Such decisions are commonly

made by examining code types or profiles of the results.

Kincannon made two investigations to determine the degree

11

of correspondence of code types between the two forms.

Again, the results indicated that the Mini-Mult was a good

predictor with only a 14% loss in correspondence to results

found with test-retest administrations of the standard

MMPI.

Kincannon concluded that the Mini-Mult was a useful

substitute for the MMPI in psychiatric hospital settings.

In an attempt to cross validate his findings, Lacks (1970)

administered the MMPI to a group of psychiatric inpatients.

She extracted Mini-Mult scores from the MMPI data and

correlated the scaled scores, finding results similar to

those reported by Kincannon. She also compared the two

forms on the basis of decisions made by examining clinical

code types reported by Haertzen and Hill (1959), and found

no significant differences.

Armentrout and Rouzer (1970) found a high correspondence

between scales for both forms in a study of delinquent

adolescents. Comparisons of high point codes between the

two forms indicated that the Mini-Mult is not a good

diagnostic tool for this type of population. Their

findings were comparable to those of Henrichs (1964),

who attempted to develop rules for spotting character

disorders. Subjects with character disorders and delinquents

have similar profiles. If the results of Armentrout and

Rouzer are examined with this in mind, it can be assumed

that their results do not directly challenge the

12

comparability of the MMPI and the Mini-Mult since Henrichs

showed the weakness of the MMPI itself as a diagnostic

aid with this type of population.

Armentrout (1970) compared scores obtained by

college students in a correlational study of the two forms,

with results similar to those discovered by Armentrout and

Rouzer (1970). Correlations of scales were significant,

but no equivalent to those found by Kincannon (1968).

Harford, et al. (1972) discovered significant

correlations between scales on the two forms for a group

of psychiatric outpatients. They extracted the Mini-Mult

from the standard MMPI, as did Lacks (1970). Comparison

of code types (Haertzen and Hill, 1959) on the two forms,

resulted in a 50% match. Application of rules for

discrimination of psychotic from neurotic profiles

(Meehl and Dahlstrom, 1960),resulted in a 35% match on

the long and short forms. These findings suggest that the

Mini-Mult is a less accurate predictor of the MMPI for

an outpatient group than it appeared to be for Kincannon' s

inpatient sample. These conclusions are consistent with

those drawn by Armentrout and Rouzer (1970). Harford,

et al. suggest that difference among the findings of

various Mini-Mult researchers may be a function of the

degree or severity of the disorders found in the populations

sampled. To investigate this possibility, they divided

their sample into more and less severe groups, using F

13

scale scores as a measure of severity. A comparison

of the two forms in terms of clinical code types, resulted

in a significantly higher number of matches in the more

severe group.

Gaylon and Wilson (1971) compared MMPI and extracted

Mini-Mult scores of a sample of children in a child

guidance clinic. They found high correlations between

scales, but profile comparisons resulted in classification

errors one-third of the time. They suggest that the

Mini-Mult may be of some value as a screening instrument

in some settings. Adequate caution in interpreting results

would have to be exercised; however, since misclassifi-

cation would be an ever-present pitfall.

Newton (1971) checked the Mini-Mult in a study of

hospitalized male alcoholic patients. He found smaller

correlations between scales than Kincannon (1968) did.

His results also confirmed a conclusion drawn by Kincannon

in his study. They both found that when the same forms

or both forms are administered within a short period of

time, the results on the second protocol portray subjects

in a more socially desirable light.

Hartman and Robertson (1972) studied a sample of

patients in a community mental health agency. They

administered the MMPI and the Mini-Mult on an alternating

basis, and a Mini-Mult was also extracted from the

standard MMPI. They found significant correlations

14

among all scales on all three tests. However, they learned

that the Mini-Mults understimated scales F, Ma, and Pa

significantly, When the MMPI was compared with the

Mini-Mult in terms of profile code types, it was dis-

covered that for general diagnostic categories (e.g.,

psychotic, neurotic, personality disorder, essentially

normal) the two forms agreed in 77% of the male cases

and in 50% of the female cases, for a combined agreement

of 63%. Hartman and Robertson speculate that this

degree of correspondence is not high because decisions

about matches are based on the highest scale of each code

type. If "correspondence" is defined as elevations of

the same scales on both profiles, there may be more

agreement than these data reveal, since similar profiles

do not always have the same high point. Essentially,

the Mini-Mult seems to be almost as effective as a

MMPI substitute in a community mental health agency as

in a psychiatric hospital.

Palmer (1973) studied a sample of 30 male and 30

female psychiatric inpatients at the Toledo State Hospital.

They were selected without regard to any independent

evaluation of their psychiatric diagnoses. Each subject

was administered the MMPI and then the Mini-Mult on

consecutive days. Order of administration was random,

with half the subjects taking the MMPI first. The order

was reversed for the other group. Palmer used the written

15

statement form of the Mini-Mult. He learned that neither

order of administration nor sex of the subject had

significant effects on the findings. Scale correlations

were all significant at the .01 level except the F

scale. Palmer evaluated diagnostic reliabiilty by

comparing 3-point codes (Lichtenstein and Bryan, 1966)

on the two tests. Agreement between the code types was

extremely low. He also determined that the median

percent of agreement between the Ss' responses to

homologous items on the two tests was 83%, with a range

from 59% to 98%. Palmer concludes that the data do not

support the use of the Mini-Mult for state hospital

patients. Although scale correlations were significant

between the tests, their magnitudes were rather low.

The Mini-Mult failed to provide the same diagnoses that

the MMPI did when processed with 3-point code types.

Palmer suggests that the subjects' inconsistent response

patterns may reflect unreliability of the population

being studied instead of an unreliable instrument.

There is a plethora of techniques which have been

developed for arriving at a diagnosis from the MMPI

profile. Goldberg (1965) compared nearly all these

techniques or diagnostic signs in an effort to determine

how accurately they predicted a diagnosis of psychotic

versus neurotic from the MMPI. After examining his results,

Goldberg selected the five scales which had the highest

16

beta weights in a linear regression equation. Then he

combined them in a simple non-weighted linear composite

of scores. The new index (CL + Pa + Sc - Hy - Pt) had

a validity coefficient greater than any of the previous

diagnostic signs used to discriminate psychosis from

neurosis. Goldberg drew his data from the 1959 MMPI

study of Paul Meehl where there was an unspecified amount

of criterion contamination in the sample group. Subjects

were 861 male psychiatric patients.

Goldberg (1969) cites several other ways of attempting

to solve this diagnostic problem. These include the

perceptron algorithm (Rosenblatt, 1958), density estimation

procedures (Hoffman, 1968), and Bayesian algorithms, none

of which result in validity coefficient exceeding the

validity obtained with the simple linear combination.

He also reviews the work done with moderator variables

for the linear combination.

Ghiselli (1956, 1960, 1963) and Saunders (1956)

identified moderator variables which appeared to enhance

prediction when applied to certain diagnostic signs.

The best single scale moderator was the K scale score.

Prediction was improved for low K scale scores. The best

multiscale moderator was found to be a linear combination

of six scales (D + Pd + Sc - F - Hs - Pa). Low scores

on this variable improved prediction when applied to

certain diagnostic signs. Overall, however, prediction

was improved insignificantly.

17

In another investigation similar to Goldberg's (1965),

using large samples and relatively clear criteria, Stilson

and Astrup (1966) reported that improved predictions

found through the use of non-linear procedures are lost

in cross validation.

In an effort to highlight the value of diagnoses made

by statistical methods, Goldberg (1968) cites 10 studies

which indicate that the amount of professional training and

experience of a human judge or diagnostician has no

bearing on his diagnostic accuracy. In addition, he

cites a number of similar investigations which suggest

that the amount of information available to the diagnos-

tician is unrelated to the accuracy of his resulting in-

ferences.

It seems that clinical judgments tend to be unreliable

in terms of consensus and convergent reliability.

Convergent reliability is the reliability of different

judges using different sources of data on the same patient.

Clinical judgments appear to be minimally related to the

experience and amount of data available to the judge.

Goldberg also concludes that clinical judgments are

rather low in validity on an absolute basis.

Goldberg (1965) compared the validity of 29 clinical

psychologists with the validity of the linear model to

find out whether human judges were more accurate in

discriminating psychosis from neurosis on the basis of

18

MMPI profiles alone. His results were consistent with

those mentioned above. The model was more accurate than

the judges themselves.

Goldberg (1972) cites other research with similar

findings in related fields. In all the cases he discusses,

a linear statistical model has proven to be superior

to man. He concludes that no research in print has

proven man to be a better predictor of various criteria

than a simple linear statistical model. The job of

psychometricians in the area of psychodiagnostics has been

to find a statistical method which most nearly represents

the cognitive processes engaged in by the clinician.

Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index has proven to be equal

or superior to both human judges and configural models

as a discriminator between psychotic and neurotic MMPI

profiles in virtually every case.

In another study, Goldberg (1972) attempted to classify

group rather than individual profiles by utilization of

several linear indexes. Goldberg used group MMPI profiles

from over 200 groups including various normal, psychiatric,

and sociopathic classifications. The sex of individual

group members was male, female, or mixed, depending on

which group they belonged to. Goldberg introduced linear

models similar to his psychotic-neurotic index for dis-

crimination between "normal" and "deviant" profiles, as well

as between "psychiatric" and "sociopathic" profiles.

19

The criteria used to judge the success of these indexes

were the diagnoses applied to the group profiles by

Goldberg's collaborators, who developed them from samples

of homogenous individual profiles. Analysis of results

demonstrated that application of the psychotic-neurotic

index to group profiles was accurate in 93% of the cases.

Extreme accuracy found with this and other linear models

led Goldberg to conclude that scales and equations con-

structed on individual profile data may be very potent when

applied to group profiles. It appears that basic processes

unique to various generally classified groups tend to be

magnified when group profiles are analyzed.

Hartman and Robertson (1972) suggested possible

reasons for difficulties in obtaining adequate diagnostic

agreement between the MMPI and the Mini-Mult, when

configural models are used. Gynther, Altman, and Sletten

(1963) have identified a set of two-point code types and

designated the correlates which are significantly related

to them. One feature of two-point code types is that they

do not depend on a third scale, which is less likely to

remain constant on different profiles produced by the same

subject. In other words, two MMPI profiles of the same

person are more likely to agree (even by chance) on a

tentative diagnosis or personality description. Gynther,

et al., have found that reciprocal two-point code types,

such as 2-1/1-2, have the same correlates in almost all

cases.

20

Hoffman and Butcher (1975) used two-point code types

(Gynther, Altman, and Sletten, 1973), as well as high scale

points, high F scales (T > 100), and other configural

codes in a study of the clinical limitations of three

abbreviated versions of the MMPI, including the Mini-

Mult. They found a wide range of hit rates for psychodiag-

nosis. Each version predicted with different hit rates

for each MMPI configural pattern. No short form consistently

predicted MMPI diagnoses for all code types better than

the other forms. Each form worked better than the others

for several configuration patterns. None of the three short

forms were found to predict configural patterns well enough

to be used in a broad clinical situation. These authors

point out that the MMPI is a psychological tool with a

tremendous number of practical uses. They also suggest

that if clinical goals are limited, certain instruments

which are valid for limited purposes may be valuable.

Hoffman and Butcher go on to cite a recent article

(Overall, Butcher, and Hunter, 1975) in which the authors

report a high degree of success with a discriminant function

(unspecified) which seems to accurately differentiate

broad diagnostic categories, when applied to Dean's (1973)

168 item version of the MMPI.

D. Rationale

In the preceding sections of this chapter, the

foundations for the present study have been described.

This investigation will attempt to determine the feasibility

of applying Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index to scores

obtained on the Mini-Mult, an abbreviated version of the

MMPI, for comparable diagnostic classification of patients

in a state psychiatric hospital. A high degree of agreement

between Goldberg-MMPI diagnoses and Goldberg-Mini-Mult

(oral) diagnoses would illustrate the diagnostic capability

of the Mini-Mult, when processed with Goldberg's index.

It is hypothesized that the Mini-Mult can be used to

discriminate psychosis from neurosis as well as does the

MMPI.

One reason that Goldberg's rule may be particularly

effective in this study involves the specific scales it

employs. Scales that the Mini-Mult appears to consistently

underestimate are not used to compute Goldberg's index.

In conjuction with the Goldberg comparison, correlations

between scales for each form of the test will be determined

to find out how well the Mini-Mult is able to predict the

standard scale scores. Profile high points will also be

compared, as well as two-point codes identified by Gynther,

et al. (1973). Obviously, the success of all these methods

21

22

of comparison will depend, to some degree, on the corre-

lation coefficients found between scales on the tests.

The two-point codes will be used because this method of

comparison eliminates, for nearly all practical purposes,

the drawbacks to configural comparisons which Hartman and

Robertson (1972) recognized.

The techniques used in this study were chosen for

their demonstrated superiority over some of those used

in previous investigations of the Mini-Mult. The psychi-

atric population was chosen because previous studies have

shown that correlations between MMPI and Mini-Mult scales

are consistently higher for populations with more severe

mental disorders. An important point to keep in mind is

that the main point of this research is the determination

of the applicability of Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index

to the Mini-Mult. Also of interest, but of lesser im-

portance, is a close look at the increased diagnostic

accuracy (if any), or agreement between the MMPI and

Mini-Mult, provided by the use of two-point, rather than

three-point, code types for configural comparisons.

It is hypothesized that scale to scale correlations

will be highest in correlations of the first MMPI with the

internal Mini-Mult, which will be extracted from the first

MMPI, and of the two MMPI's. Kincannon (1968) found these

results. Since the extracted Mini-Mult and the second

MMPI can be considered primary estimates of reliability,

23

correlations between the first MMPI and the oral Mini-Mult

should be lower than the correlations mentioned above.

This relationship should also hold for high-point and two-

point code comparisons. It is further hypothesized that

there will be no significant difference between MMPI and

oral Mini-Mult classification decisions made by application

of Goldberg's psychotic-neurotic index. It is hypothesized

that the two-point codes will provide a higher degree of

diagnostic agreement between the MMPI and the Mini-Mult

than has been found with three-point code types.

It is important to realize that this is a limited

investigation of the clinical utility of the Mini-Mult. It

should not be construed as an inquiry into the full-scale

clinical capability of the Mini-Mult.

CHAPTER II

METHODS SECTION

A. Instruments

In order to examine the effectiveness of Goldberg's

psychotic-neurotic index, two personality inventories

were employed: The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory (MMPI, Form R) and the Mini-Mult (oral question

form).

The MMPI is a lengthy self-report inventory which

is used to identify a number of outstanding personality

characteristics. It consists of 566 statement items, of

which approximately seven-tenths are ordinarily scored in

clinical situations. Items are answered "true" or "false"

on a separate answer sheet. Objectivity is an important

feature of this instrument. It may be scored by machine

or by the use of printed answer keys. The reliability and

validity of the MMPI for a number of populations have been

well documented by Welsh and Dahlstrom (1956).

The Mini-Mult, an abbreviated form of the MMPI,

which includes the validity and basic clinical scales,

except scales 5 and 0, has been described in Chapter I of

this text. The oral question version of the Mini-Mult

was used here. The 71 question items are read aloud to

24

25

each subject by the examiner. Subjects respond vocally to

indicate affirmative or negative answers. The examiner

records all responses. The Mini-Mult has an objective

scoring system. Each response is noted and tallied according

to the scale or scales it happens to represent. Then

varous constants developed by Kincannon (1968) are applied

to each scale score so that Mini-Mult scores are comparable

to ordinary MMPI scores. Various measures of reliability

and validity for the Mini-Mult are documented in Chapter

I of this paper.

B. Subjects

Subjects involved in this study were 30 male residents

at the Austin State Hospital in Austin, Texas. The subject

pool includes men from two geographic locations in Texas:

Travis and Harris Counties. Males were selected as sub-

jects for the investigation since Goldberg (1965) derived

his index for neurotic-psychotic discrimination from data

collected on male patients. Patients range in age from 20

to 58, and meet the criterion of literacy, which is necessary

for administration of the Form R MMPI.

Several other requirements limited the sampling

process in this case. Hospital administration personnel

allowed patients of four institutional units to serve as

the population for this study. Approximately three-fourths

of the potential members of the sample group were excluded.

26

r ro i 11.0 I'll, m wk o wr*,%m N r--Cw NL qN NN N N <m em LON

N r-i -l N rs p r-i 4q o q o

0.H

-

0

-ri

4J

Cd

-H4-

H

-p

0

PH

ro

ro-a)

4d

4-

4J

CN LO LO r*-

I I I II rI I Ir-HHHH4 -ir-

H

*4En.

HH

0

H

U)

14

m

P

CIC4hOOOI I I I i i I I

NN N

-I -I r-I I I N NNo I r- H r-i HOHHOOC'i i \HHH Or- r- HH

En r-I CN M -11 Ln o wCHmH Hr-HHN m HtLOr- r- r-I r-q r- r-4 r-q

(N NJI I I I

r- r-i r- r-HHHHi -ir-

N N N

- (NJ 00 O Mm 0I I I I I I I ICOHNir Lt )C C )H-HH- H- rI

H

r-

0H

Ix

0

H

E44

0H

C-)H

H

l

0H

En

H

En>U)

4C/U

D

0

z

H

0

z

0

0-H

U)

P4

'oQ)

4-)

0--

ciA

C

-1

4-H

H

0

-H-I

Q)

-H

--

d

I I I I I

NN N N Nr-1i r-i r-I r-i

e V V r-H

NNN'i QI I I I

0-N' -iO

I I I I I I I I00 00 lqr RZrLo LO LOO) r-ir- H r-i r-I Hr-r-I I I I I I I I

N CN CNNN N CN Nr-I r- H H r-i r- HHr- r-i r-r-i

N LN N N 14

& N N r-i r-i 0 0 N 0

r-i CN LO( N r-I

I Ir-i CNNl r-q

H LO 0 r-HHHNN r-- H 0 Lrr- r- r-i - r - i r- H Hr-I

Nco 0mHm r- N m DLn 0r*cOm0 C)r-I r-i r-iN N N N N N N N N N m

27

r-

-H

0

E-1

ON i eN qq< o mm0:3 m oso C> oql' 4q LOi N m N N 194 N N N N m

Y)mil U) CN r- N r-I r- o N qv'C) N C

HH':3C V0Cqr

NNNNNNN

Uw

0

(NH-i

0

r-i

a)U

0

(D-J

ro

0

4-)

04

.

-cd

'A

0

44

28

Some were unable to sustain the concentration necessary

to complete the standard Form R MMPI. Others were rejected

because of medical disabilities. Some were uncooperative.

The men in this sample represent the entire portion of the

total male population which could be enlisted with the

assistance of the hospital staff, while also meeting the

subject criteria. The subjects have been hospitalized for

periods ranging from a few days to almost 20 years.

Twenty-four of the 30 subjects have records of between

one and seven instances of hospitalization prior to

the present one. Six subjects were in a psychiatric

hospital for the first time, with no record of previous

admissions. The sample group is comprised of a set of

mixed neurotics and psychotics according to hospital

diagnoses based on observation, interview, and case history

data.

C. Procedure

First, all subjects completed a standard Form R MMPI.

On the following day, half took an oral Mini-Mult, while

the others completed- a second MMPI. On the third day, the

procedure was reversed. Each subject had completed two

Form R MMPI's and an oral Mini-Mult, at this point. The

oral form was used in this study since that was the

version used in Kincannon's original study.

29

Patients were informed that they were participating

in research which may benefit future hospital patients

by changing some (nonspecific) admission procedures.

Administration of the MMPI is not an ordinary admission

procedure at this hospital. After the three forms of the

scale had been administered and scored, all validity and

clinical scale raw scores, excluding scales 5 and 0, were

correlated between each form, and with raw scale scores

obtained from an internal Mini-Mult extracted from the

first administration of the MMPI. Correlations will be

reported as Pearson Product Moment correlation coefficients.

This statistical analysis will result in six sets of cor-

relations: MMPI1 - MMPI2 ; MMPI1 - oral Mini-Mult; MMPI2 -

oral Mini-Mult; MMPI1 - internal Mini-Mult; MMPI2 -

internal Mini-Mult; and oral Mini-Mult - internal Mini-Mult.

Student's t tests will be made to point out any significant

differences between mean scale scores.

Then, t tests will be run to determine whether there

are significant differences between percentages of diagnostic

agreement. Correlations were also calculated (on the

continuous scores, Goldberg's index) between the varous

combinations of test forms. Tests of significance were

made to determine the significance of these correlation

coefficients.

The next step will be to compare high-point scales and

two-point codes across all tests, and to compute percentages

of agreement among tests for both of these diagnostic

methods.

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

From the three test administrations, four sets of

scores were obtained, including the internal Mini-Mult

extracted from the first administration of the standard

MMPI. These were the first standard administration (Ml),

the second standard administration (M2), the independently

administered oral Mini-Mult (0), and the internal Mini-

Mult (E). All Mini-Mult scores have been converted into

the appropriate standard scale scores for analysis of

results.

Table 2 summarizes the means and standard deviations

of the scale scores for both administrations of each

form of the test. In almost every case, the standard

deviations of the Mini-Mults were smaller than those of

the standard MMPI's. The restriction in variablity was most

marked for scales F, 6, 8, and 9, suggesting that the

Mini-Mult underestimates extreme elevations on those

scales.

The t tests for the various combinations of data sets

showed statistically significant differences between the

means for scales L, F, 3, 6, 7 and 8 on the M E comparison.

Significant differences were also found (Table 3) between

30

31

means for scales L, F, K, 6, 7, and 9 on the M1 0 comparison.

In fact, significant differences were found for several

scales (L, F, K, 6, 7, and 8 being most frequent) for

all comparisons with the sole exception of M1M2 . Even

though correlations between comparable scales were sig-

nificant in nearly all comparisons (Table 4), these

differences between means of comparable scales were found.

Also, while nearly all of the scale to scale correlations

were significant, many were fairly low. Almost all of

these correlations were lower than those found by Kincannon

(1968) in his original research with the Mini-Mult. They

were higher though, than similar correlation coefficients

reported by Newton (1971), Armentrout (1970), and Armentrout

and Rouzer (1970).

The point of this study is to focus more on the

decisions- made by interpretation of the tests, than to

question the scale to scale correlations. Of course, this

is affected by the comparability of the -scales, but the

interest of this investigation is to evaluate the outcomes

provided by use of each test. Table 5 illustrates the

percentages of diagnostic agreement between various com-

binations of the two administrations of the two test forms.

The use of Goldberg's index provides scores which are

classified as psychotic or neurotic for each test protocol.

Accordingly, Table 5 shows how much agreement was found

between test forms for these classifications. Percentages

32

of diagnostic agreement were computed, also for high points

and two-point codes. Goldberg's index was highly successful

as a method of diagnosis in most cases. Goldberg's index

classified 29 M, protocols as psychotic and one as neurotic.

It classified 29 oral Mini-Mult protocols as psychotic

and one as neurotic.' Goldberg's index classified 28 M2

protocols as psychotic and two as neurotic, while it

lableled 18 of the extracted Mini-Mult protocols psychotic

and 12 neurotic. The two administrations of the MMPI

agreed on a general diagnosis made with Goldberg's index in

90% of the cases,While M, and E agreed on only 63% of the cases.

Other comparisons involving the internal Mini-Mult resulted

in relatively low percentages of agreement. Tests of

significance of these percentages indicate no statistically

significant differences in the diagnostic abilities

(a la Goldberg) of the MMPI, and the oral Mini-Mult.

Significant differences were found; however, in the Goldberg

diagnostic abilities of the MMPI and the extracted

Mini-Mult. These differences were present in the diagnostic

abilities of the two Mini-Mults, also. These differences

in percentages of agreement indicate that the oral Mini-

Mult is a better diagnostic predictor of the MMPI than the

extracted Mini-Mult, regardless of scale to scale corre-

lations.

Scale high-point comparisons were found to show less

agreement than was possible by the use of Goldberg's

33

index. Comparisons of the standard forms and the Mini-

Mults resulted in percentages of agreement which were

comparable to percentages found by most other investigators,

including Kincannon (1968), Armentrout and Rouzer (1970),

and Hartman and Robertson (1972). The two-point codes

were less successful than the high-point codes when

percentages of agreement were calculated. Even so, the

two-point codes provided higher agreement between the

MMPI and the oral Mini-Mult with this psychiatric sample

than Armentrout and Rouzer (1970) found when they used a

similar method of profile analysis for a group of delin-

qpents. Gynther, Altman, and Sletten (1973) identify,

along with two-point codes, a high F scale raw score

(F > 25) with a set of replicated correlates. Percentages

of agreement on this measure were as follows: M1 M2 =

30%; M10 = 10%; M1E = 13%; M2 E = 10%; M2 0 - 7%; OE = 10%.

The fact that these percentages are lower than those for

high-points and two-point codes must be carefully considered.

For example, these percentages represent agreement between

test forms on only one scale, while the high-point per-

centages represent the occurrence of agreement on any one

of several possible clinical scales.

Table 6 shows correlation coefficients found for

continuous scores on Goldberg's index for the various

combinations of the test forms. Values of p included

on the table signify that only the correlation coefficients

34

for the M1M2 , M1E, and M2 0 comparisons were statistically

significant. This table, when compared with Table 5,

reveals a possible complication involved in the dichotomy

of psychotic-neurotic that Goldberg's index provides.

For the M1 M2 combination, the percentage of agreement was

high and the correlation was significant. The same

held true for the M2 0 combination. The M1 0 combination had

an insignificant correlation with a high percentage of

agreement on Goldberg's index. This difference is probably,

not necessarily, due to sampling error. A significant

correlation coefficient with a low percentage of agreement

is found in comparing the data for the M1 E combination on

Tables 5 and 6. This is not what would be expected in

view of the dramatic differences found between the oral

Mini-Mult and the extracted internal Mini-Mult. It may be

that the relatively high scale to scale correlations for

the M1 E comparison resulted in a significant correlation

coefficient for the continuous Goldberg scores. The poor

diagnostic ability of the extracted Mini-Mult (Table 5)

seems to be a result of a drastically low mean score on

Goldberg's index (Table 7). Mean scores for the other

tests are quite a bit higher.

LO W mm m qql owC) 4O < 0m m q L4LO r i m Co r-

oo~r-~~r' -o

* 0 5 5 0 S 0 5 S S

RI ro m 0 > ) m z m r-- B qv (Y

r-N r-i r-i N N N r-I (m) o rN

( )HCO t flHLC > -ioHO Lr- nNor-N H

OO-c'OOC & OC'W) L

cOmOON'mOOn S 0 5 0 S S 0C 0 0C 0

-io V H C &T )C-\J-HHHCN ri \1

_______________________ -.

H

r14

E-1

0

Ul)

0Hpi

z

z-

35

0

-H

-40-H

rd

4-)Ui)

-H

-H

ro

rd

0

In

0H

0

P4

0[ii

0En

r- M r-i ohm IT 4:1 mN r-r- o m "ZI m M - -

- o m q lo i oh e

L O oL LO m OO N

-- H- N r-i MNHN

.q n a - o M -i Lnr-i CN a)o Ln r..- ko m mr-i o Ln mo o

0 0 50 & 05 0 0

LC LOLO OCOO-H

m toQ0 LoCr ) 0%- 0C)00 00 00 m R 00 Coi-i 0 o n co

*0 0 0 5 * 0 0 0 0 #

.14:T M r-4 -- Ln m 0 o OLn q 1r-i r- r-i NN N M m ;r N

.- rc., C r-iN %o HHQ r-c o 0a)

0

0

4J

H

-H

r-

H4

0.H-Prd

-)U)

.-H

-4

rp

-)

0)

0

-K

IC) 4 CC)mC- m 00 0

H-HH ;I I I

Ln or,HCoCC

-H- H4 1

-K-KK

00 LO ) Y

(Y nH N

CN 4cr-i 0

r- co -o Lr-i 10

I a

-K '

I I

C-) 0 00 CL')

-I IIo *

II

toz0HH

H

0EC

04

C)

0

z

H

r k

I2

C)

H

H

H

U)

z

P:i

41

4-Qv 0-K Z

36

0 LO LO M3 m 0) LOC0000 NN'r,- o

000 'c:T CY) 00 (N

00( N IC.0 r-H0

0 0 CN on MCI, H

HOC) CC) (Y Nq11:3

mmCN@LC) 0 O 00

Lo o m m a) cq

I I I4

-K 'KOi H- CC C3 O3 H <

HO<r- H ri 0o-H- . . . . -

-H

C-'-H

0C)0

E-

0

U)z0H

E-

HE-i

H

0

H0

0(N

0r-i

:E

--- T N r-I w <

* 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r-OOOOOOOOOOH I

11111 r- I I oo

E-

v

04

L)

IH 4-P4

NoCN a

ro .

-H I

0

4 P

-H -H C

-H 4-4

rd 4

r O 43

d | )rd O H

C -H-Cd - 4

ro p r-

rc 0 14-) $4 -HC0

-H

r-i

4-)JrdOE(d a

-H. -PC

I -H a

A -H X

,.o 11

(rdo

C0

a) rd (d(d U) 4-)

> r

P- 0 -H4 ( Wr--.. 1 clC

-oU)

zE-(nHU)

(NH

ad

0

37

r-0

0HE-

H

0C)

0

P4

I-I

u4

:

0

z

0H

P4

C)

U-~l

H

0-H

C-H

E0C)

U)

0

E---irT4

0

Loz0E-1

CU)H

H

12:

0

m

H

H

. . -K -- -K- -- -O.L

m r- mm w Q w %%-to

m N C4rO-Il0C NN

- - - .0 - .r - O L L.--m

Sr - r r- 1 m t r m w t

N HCe C)Otooa

4 PZ4 r--l N M qzl' t- r%- M

Q LOco ers LC O O -K

Cd -K

H.- a. - N Im e O rN CO

r4

4-)

4-)

H

4-)Q4

ri

4P

4

)

ID4

-H

4-H-H

0)

C

to

-H

)to

C 0)

to

v -*-H

0

Va-H

-K C- H

C*0

V H

-H

-. Ic Cd

I

0-4-

0

0 -H40

44 Z

$-4 (0 r(0 4

M C4 rd O

to & <

4-4k I0O 0

OO-H -44

0 rd

-H to4 P-H E

d rd

to t:1.- O

-H 4J-

p to d

m0 z w

H -H C

4M 0

4P. 04-

H E-a

P o

Cd Ird

0 rd

0P~ -

04

0(N

0

H

(NJH-i

0)r-I

Cd

0 m~

ICN N**

H-(n)

O N N

N 0C) H

P

0

(nz0HP

F

zH

0u

E-i

E-

z

pq

z

pqpq

Ed

P4

H

0

E1

zP4

o L

a)H

In4-)

-H0

-H

m

NC?)

-)

-H0

0P0

ro0u

38

-d

-H

,0QU

? 0 0LC) (N

U)

0P)

rE-

0E-i

pq

E-1

E1

0

co-z|

0H

H

E-

z

r010

Hr

4-)

.H 4-)

-

4-)H0H'rd rd

0- 0-1

Uo -H

C -H

(d a )04-)

Cd& cdre o M-

cd CW4J -H(d m a)-H

-H ~

- rO 0$ -H

I rd4-P-dcd

4- d4-Jr o (d

P4 rd o

H Ord

-Pa)

ro1 a)0 ro

E -H||rd -

.H E

o r4

-c4-

o we

0

0

U)-HU)

rO 0

.44-4 01)4 0 (do -4

H0

4-)vI 0-Ki O

Ea

-q

00

0

W

04z

39

C40

H

uHE-0

P1

HE-j0

mU

0P-1

0

0

0H

E-1

0u

U)

0HE-

H

z

0

E-q

H

H

0

(n

0

H

H

0

r4E-104

co

pq

E-iH:3:H

E-i

E-4

rP40

o(3CN

-0

(10

0

C"

E

0-H-PC-H

0,.U

L

-4

LCr)

04

LO

124

r-

0.1

H

v

LO

04

A

Hr-V

I-

Hc-

ON

-H

0-H 11 -0z x-PH c0

0) No -HI-SM Cn4-

o x

-H 0 oi

4- - i (Cd-H

S 4-) 4Jr= U)n-H C

-H -P-P6 )

rCd

-H -HI0 C

4-0 r d

11 ro a)

po 0E o ' M

Z 4-o -H

4- H 4-

-4-)I I

IIw -H 4-

-0z

TABLE 7

MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS OF GOLDBERG'S

INDEX SCORES FOR THE TWO ADMINISTRATIONS

OF THE TWO FORMS

Test M SD

MMPI (M1 ) 85.47 26.40

MMPI (M2 ) 86.40 25.49

Oral Mini-Mult (0) 70.93 18.00

Extracted Mini-Mult (E) 53.53 18.07

40

CHAPTER III

DISCUSSION

The bulk of the evidence produced in this study

indicates that there are no statistically significant

differences between Goldberg - MMPI diagnoses and Goldberg -

Mini-Mult (0) diagnoses. This means that the oral Mini-

Mult is as efficient a discriminator of psychosis and

neurosis as is the standard MMPI, when the decision is based

on Goldberg's index scores. Goldberg's method of discri-

mination enjoyed much better success than did the Meehl and

Dahlstrom rules for psychotic-neurotic discrimination,

when Harford, et al. (1972) applied them to the Mini-Mult

comparison with the MMPI. One point to keep in mind when

considering the results discovered in this study is that

approximately 83% of the subjects were psychotic according

to hospital diagnoses. Research of this kind usually

is based on a sample group (or groups) which is more evenly

divided (i.e., 50% psychotic and 50% neurotic). This type

of representative sample was difficult to obtain from the

population being examined. Therefore, the results of this

study should be applicable for similar populations.

Generalization to different populations must be made with

extreme care.

41

42

The Mini-Mult's tendency to underestimate extreme

elevations of certain scales was not a problem in this

study. Scales F and 9 are not employed in the computation

of Goldberg's index. Apparently, the subjects in this

psychiatric sample scored high enough on scales 6 and 8 of

the Mini-Mults that any underestimates of the scores

were unimportant. Indeed, the tendency of the Mini to

underestimate scales 6 and 8 may be a result of sampling

error, since Kincannon (1968) and Lacks (1970) failed

to arrive at the same conclusion with their samples of

psychiatric patients.

It would be interesting to determine the actual

degree of general (psychotic vs. neurotic) diagnostic

accuracy allowed by the two-point codes for which Gynther,

et al. (1973) found replicated correlates. However, it

was prevented in this study by the sample size and by

the nature of the replicated correlates. In many cases,

a two-point code type is not labeled psychotic, neurotic,

or anything else. The reason is that behavioral correlates

are used rather than broad classification categories.

Some code types can clearly be labeled "psychotic" or

"neurotic" on the basis of the behavioral correlates.

Others cannot be separated so easily.

For limited clinical applicability in a psychiatric

hospital, the oral form of the Mini-Mult appears to work

as well as the standard MMPI. Its applicability is

43

restricted to simple discrimination between psychosis and

neurosis in a population of hospitalized psychiatric

patients. Since this is such a limited purpose, and since

only six scales are involved in computation of Goldberg's

index (for the discrimination), it seems reasonable to

believe that the length of the Mini-Mult could be further

reduced. Kincannon (1968) realized that changes in

context might have a significant impact on the functioning

of the scales of the Mini-Mult when compared with the MMPI.

He cites several articles which indicate any differences in

the functioning of the Mini-Mult scales are negligible.

Therefore, it seems likely that an abbreviation of the

oral Mini-Mult, which included only those questions found

on scales L, 6, 8, 7, and 3 (scales used to compute

Goldberg's index) would work as well as both the MMPI

and the oral Mini-Mult as a diagnostic discriminator.

Such an abbreviation would accomplish the same goal while

further reducing the amount of time and effort required

for administration and scoring. The abbreviation would be

composed of 51 orally administered questions. The reduction

in size compared to the oral question form of the Mini-Mult

would be about 28%. An equal reduction of required time

for administration and scoring would also be possible.

The ability of Goldberg's index to discriminate

between psychotic and neurotic profiles seems to work as

well for the oral Mini-Mult as it does for the standard MMPI.

44

The abbreviated Mini-Mult, then, would be a selection of 51

MMPI statements (in oral question form) which could be

used to discriminate psychosis from neurosis with as much

accuracy as the MMPI itself, for populations of hospitalized

psychiatric patients.

APPENDIX

TABLES 8 - 21

#O0

-H

r-Hp

00 LO)MyH 00 LOr-I

t-0 Q m N O 0 m t-D wIC . LO0 H H Or-i HMNM r-

- r r-

ON (3. L CN 2 "p.. TT 0 r. 0 0. ) W-11 .: 0 qc 2 pa

(Y Q qll q LO qg & ~orl-LO qcr Q r- Iq N LO

l .-I O00(N N )00R LO N r-I N r-0 0 o LO 0 Lr) 0) 110 m00 0O to Q n 0r- i r-i ri - - r-i

r- 0N (Y) rLO rC-0Lr- C)N M T.0r-HHH- H- r- r-q e-I

46

N k- m m m o 0 lo m m r- qr .0Q Qm 493 m . m Itil %.0 m t D . L r-i %1.0 m m

H r

0

-H4I-)

C

-H

r;

r0

0

HP.4

OD

H

0

0

(n

HHU)

HE-

HzF-

0:3

E-

0

0

z0

LO

0U

Li)

ro

SH

0

U)

0

0

00

0

4-

-p

04>1(12

Cd

-I

P4

0-Hrd

41(1

-H

-H

rO4

-)(1)

-H

-

-H

ri

-i

-)

.0r-12

U))

rOH

00

0r-I)

00

-H4-)0

-C

I

C r-JiHHM (r- M LO M 0 t ooMNHH Ir---r-m r*.-m nmmm o mOm

M Or-oNN comm w-m M LO

r-i r- r-

o 9,L r-I.OLOOOOH

r-Ir-I- r-i

r t- Q C ..- m00wCo0 M r- @ r-I Tm 0 C r- C mLCN m C\Lor*a) 0Hr-i

r- r-i r- HHH-i r-i

% l 00O 1)H0-N m z in0o 0 co 0r-H H - r- r-N N N N N N N N N N m

47

0

4-)

H

-H-H

0-H4-)

Cd

t12

-HEH

To

0CCl

H

P4

To

-H

0u

00

H

p

r14r nV0

0

:3

0

Ul)

HH

PA

z

0

E-4

P4H

0

rz~

H

En

P4

il)

00

z0

Ul)

0

UCl)

-H

-H

H

0

C)

-H

o

Cl)

r4

ro xe4G)

-H ro

C)

ro

0 rQO0

0

0

SO

00E l) (

4-) -H0 4-)4 0() p

Q4 004toce

Cdcd1

II I

-K--p

C-)0i)

Cl)

one oN mi r- DN m r- Q0%-0 e.Om ~ k- 94I N m r-- m w o c %1to

TABLE 9

HIGH POINT SCALES ON THE FOUR TESTS

Subject Testm m20 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

882242448888828478888827294866

882284288888821328898828848896

628262341868824248868824794887

722242442263241144114924294847

Note: Abbreviated: Mi=MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration, E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Ml.

48

TABLE 10

TWO-POINT CODES ON THE FOUR TESTS

Subject Test

M 0 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

8-68-62-82-84-82-44-94-78-78-78-68-68-72-48-14-27-28-28-18-18-68-62-47-82-69-84-68-66-86-8

8-68-62-72-88-24-12-48-68-68-18-98-68-72-81-83-12-78-68-49-68-68-42-78-68-74-98-68-69-66-8

6-82-78-42-76-42-43-24-81-88-76-48-48-22-44-62-84-18-28-46-48-28-22-74-87-29-44-88-68-47-8

7-42-42-72-74-12-44-34-12-12-46-44-62-34-21-21-24-34-21-21-24-69-42-44-72-79-44-38-24-67-8

Note: Abbreviated: M =MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2 =MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration, E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1.

49

TABLE 11

RAW SCORES ON SCALE L ON THE FOUR TESTS

Subject Test

m m2 0 E

123456789,

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

463673

1112521063

10393769145426412

533683

1412220213

12491873953348133

4866

104

1010662448

1010122

12128688664246

644866

108442264

106

10286

10266446444

Note: Abbreviated: Mi=MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Mi.

50

TABLE 12

RAW SCORES ON SCALE F ON THE FOUR TESTS

Subject Test

m M2 0 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

16298

102876

1428352137115

2774

32343125119

20191122313127

18191013186

25253740194016101884

34316

26236

34203

36333229

161196

142

11119

306

2594

1164

23111616282

1111146

231114

142369

2144

162128212844

1464

28181616286

1116149

162323

Note: Abbreviated: Mi=MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Mi.

51

TABLE 13

RAW SCORES ON SCALE K ON THE FOUR TESTS

Subject Test

m0M2 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

101115171413251810646

10101414251113151004

1411131854

16

101613171915271859818

112516257

10184

2449

12181323

16

1113141717112418141311117

112013241121201178

181514187

1015

111114201411201713858

10131114241113111447

1714131887

18

Note: Abbreviated: M =MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1 .

52

TABLE 14

RAW SCORES ON SCALE 1 ON THE FOUR TESTS*

Subjects Test

0

152413192316141823309

21151822181619292413101019278

19141419

16261116291825211834122414182919182019146

281015231021111620

182111152112161321321020122012171820151214261411269

13181512

E

122215182512141923249

16152320231816252217101421279

19201819

*K=corrected scores.Note: Abbreviated: M1 =MMPI-first standard admini-

stration, M2 =MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Mi.

53

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

TABLE 15


Subject Test

m20 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

213226333025172429392031233127242537272824202730391120201543

242725343819393223342230232733232530212018302826351524191842

222926292920222218381829222216262238261829353328401616292429

223126312824162031382224282926262233312826263128401624332435

*K=corrected scores.Note: Abbreviated: M1 =MMPI-first standard admini-

stration, M2 =MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1 .

54

TABLE 16


Subj ect Test

m 2 0

173118242125202328311724212520252628333020131529391427162234

16301722382437281934162617233229262634169

321420301625152038

E

243024212919291924381922162519232432272121202522381522242424

212522252721242125381921223222272729302724162133401429222933

*K=corrected scores.

Note: Abbreviated: M1 =MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2 =MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1 .

55

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

TABLE 17


Subject Testm m2 0 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

293424273927283425362735183223282731322327252732312238243236

303524283430372725392830192636252733341818382428372833223038

273029283222213022402439242929232636312429292630382422283632

293224283625263031362833243325243036262036302930392833313632



56

TABLE 18


Subject Test

Mm E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

1922131116141310232418251314158

1424239

21251319251121242531

19219

11158

142123261526171119131124171121201220228

20222534

21128

14227

12108

22122287

147

1222101214211419171210211712

131710101210108

17171719101287

1415128

19171415211215171922

*K = corrected scores.

Note: Abbreviated: M 1 =MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2=MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Ml.

57

TABLE 19


Subject Test

mM2 0 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

363728363129263445472932343530243335423239383247422231433438

373925363328333733462829443435273239332132393338462635383540

343632353320282220502228252724223048342434373841522027393540

373130363222222336382121283327252631362925313042462231353041



58

TABLE 20


Subject Test

MM2 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

505631404531313355654663363742272766494454592845463039584557

545327405028434652704358503545323061502150512754492747504458

403438323821282829672154313230312862392440533244502936504539

243529303518223034322334202824272837262424281732402222453344


Note: Abbreviated: M1 =MMPI-first standard admini-stration, M2 =MMPI-second standard administration,

O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from M1 .

59

TABLE 21


Subjects Testm 2 E

123456789

101112131415161718192021222324252627282930

262415111821252529282432251527231733292530342029202830273420

242019142124172033302731301519211732272329221924242423293720

241618132019161920231727191917141626241522231922272322262623

221916152012232027262327171620201626182223281921253024222621

*K=corrected scores.Note: Abbreviated: M 1 =MMPI-first standard admini-

stration, M2 =MMPI-second standard administration,O=oral Mini-Mult-independent administration,E=extracted Mini-Mult-taken from Ml.

60

REFERENCES

Anderson, A. L., and Hanvik, L. J. The psychometric

localization of brain lesions: The differential

effect of frontal and parietal lesions on MMPI

profiles. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1959,6, 177-180.

Armentrout, J. A. Correspondence of the MMPI and Mini-

Mult in a college population. Journal of Clinical

Psychology, 1970, 26(4), 493-495.

Armentrout, J. A., and Rouzer, D. L. Utility of the

Mini-Mult with delinquents. Journal of Consulting

and Clinical Psychology, 1970, 34, 450.

Bier, W. C. A comparative study of a seminary groupand four other groups on the MMPI. Studies in

Psychology and Psychiatry of the Catholic Universityof America, 1948, 7, 1-107.

Canter, A. H. MMPI profiles in multiple sclerosis.

Journal of Consulting Psychology. 1951, 15, 253-256.

Dean, E. G. A lengthened Mini: The Midi-Mult. Journal

of Clinical Psychology, 1972, 28, 68-71.

Farberow, N. L. Personality patterns of suicidal mental

hospital patients. Genetics Psychological Monographs,1950, 42, 3-80.

Gaylon, W. F., and Wilson, W. T. Utility of the Mini-

Mult in a child guidance clinic setting. Journal of

Personality Assessment, 1971, 35(6), 569-575.

Ghiselli, E. E. The prediction of predictability. Educa-

tional and Psychological Measurement, 1960, 20, 3-8.

Ghiselli, E. E. Differentiation of individuals in termsof their predictability. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 1956, 40, 374-377.

Ghiselli, E. E. Moderating effects and differentialreliability and validity. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 1963, 47, 81-86.

61

62

Goldberg, L. R. Diagnosticians vs. diagnostic signs:The diagnosis of psychosis vs neurosis from theMMPI. Psychological Monographs, 1956, 79,(Whole No. 602).

Goldberg, L. R. The search for configural relationshipsin personality assessment: The diagnosis of psy-chosis vs. neurosis from the MMPI. MultivariateBehavioral Research, 1969, 4, 523-536.

Goldberg, L. R. Man vs. model of man: A rationale,plus some evidence, for a method of improving onclinical inferences. Psychological Bulletin, 1970,73, 422-432.

Goldberg, L. R. Simple models or simple processes? Someresearch on clinical judgments. American Psychologist,1968, 23, 483-496.

Goldberg, L. R. Some recent trends in personalityassessment. Journal of Personality Assessment,1972. 36(6), 547-560.

Goodstein, L. D. Regional differences in MMPI responsesamong male college students. Journal of ConsultingPsychology, 1954b, 1_8, 437-441.

Gough, H. G. Diagnostic patterns on the MMPI. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 1946, 2, 23-37.

Guthrie, G. M.,. Six MMPI diagnostic profile patterns.Journal of Psychology, 1950,. 30, 317-323.

Gynther, M. D., Altman, H., and Sletten, I. W. Replicatedcorrelates of MMPI two-point code types: The MissouriActuarial System. Journal of Clinical Psychology,1973, 29(3), 268-289. (Monograph)

Haertzen, C. A., and Hill, H. E. Effects of morphine andphenobarbital on differential MMPI profiles.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1959, 15, 434-437.

Hanvik, L. J. MMPI profiles in patients with low backpain. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1951, 15,350-353.

Harford, T., Lubetkin, B., and Alpert, G. Comparisonof standard MMPI and the Mini-Mult in a psychiatricoutpatient clinic. Journal of Consulting and ClinicalPsychology, 1972, 39(2), 243-245.

63

Hartman, G., and Robertson, M. the comparison of theMini-Mult and the MMPI in a community mental healthagency. Proceedings of the Annual Convention of theAPA, 1972, 7(1), 33-34.

Henrichs, T. Objective configural rules for discriminatingMMPI profiles in a psychiatric population. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20, 157-159.

Hoffman, N. G., and Butcher, J. N. Clinical limitations ofthree MMPI short forms. Journal of Consulting andClinical Psychology, 1975, 43(1), 32-39.

Hoffman, P. J. Cue-consistency and configurality in humanjudgment. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Formal Representationof Human Judgment. New York: Wiley, 1968.

Hovey, H. B. Somatization and other neurotic reactionsand MMPI profiles. Journal of Clinical Psychology,1949, 5, 153-156.

Hovey, H. B. MMPI profiles and personality characteristics.Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1953, 17,,142-146.

Kincannon, J. C. Prediction of the standard MMPI scalescores from 71 items: the Mini-Mult. Journal ofConsulting Psychology, 1965, 29, 490.

Lacks, P. B. Further investigation of the Mini-Mult.Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1970,35(1), 126-127.

Leverenz, C. W. MMPI: an evaluation of its usefulnessin the psychiatric service of a station hospital.War Medicine, 1943, 4, 618-629.

Lichtenstein, E. and Bryan, J. Short-term stability ofMMPI profiles. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1966, 30, 172-174.

Meehl, P. E. Profile analysis of the MMPI in differentialdiagnosis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1946, 30,517-524.

Meehl, G. J., and Dahlstrom, W. G. Objective configuralrules for discriminating psychotic from neuroticMMPI profiles. Journal of Consulting Psychology,1960, 24, 375-387.

Modlin, H. C. A study of the MMPI in clinical practicewith notes on the Cornell Index. American Journalof Psychiatry, 1947, 103, 758-769.

64

Mumpower, D. L. The fallacy of the short form. Journalof Clinical Psychology, 1964, 20, 111-113.

Overall, J. E., Butcher, J. N. and Hunter, S. Comparativevalidity of alternative MMPI scoring procedures.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1975,in press.

Palmer, A. B. A comparison of the MMPI and Mini-Multin a sample of state mental hospital patients.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1973, 29(4), 484-485.

Peterson, D. R. Predicting hospitalization of psychiatricoutpatients. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psy-chology, 1954, 49, 260-265.

Rosenblatt, F. The perception: A theory of statisticalseparability in cognitive systems. Buffalo: CornellAeronautical Laboratory, Inc., Report No. VG-1196-G-1,1958.

Saunders, D. R. voderator variables in prediction.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1956, 16,209-222.

Schmidt, H. 0. Test profiles as a diagnostic aid: TheMinnesota Multiphasic Inventory. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 1945, 29, 115-131.

Silverstein, A. B. "Validity" of short-form intelligencetests. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1965,29, 392-383.

Stilson, D. W., and Astrup, C. Nonlinear and additivemethods for long-term prognosis in the functionalpsychoses. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease,1966, 141, 468-473.

Weiner, D. N. Personality characteristics of selecteddisability groups. Journal of Clinical Psychology,1948, 4, 285-290.

Weisgerber, C. A. Norms for the MMPI with student nurses.Journal of Clinical Psychology, 1954, 10, 192-194.

Welsh, G. S. and Dahlstrom, W. G. Basic readings on theMMPI in psychology and medicine. Minneapolis: Univer-sity of Minnesota Press, 1956.

THE DIAGNOSTIC SUITABILITY OF GOLDBERG'S …/67531/metadc663038/m2/1/high... · THE DIAGNOSTIC...

Documents

Transcript of THE DIAGNOSTIC SUITABILITY OF GOLDBERG'S …/67531/metadc663038/m2/1/high... · THE DIAGNOSTIC...