Testing in Clinical and Counseling Psychology - Describing a Personality Test File In this assignment, you will examine and interpret a hypothetical examinee's scores on both the MMPI2 and the 16PF. Your task will be to integrate and describe findings from both tests in the context of information about the examinee. Learning to competently administer, score and interpret personality tests such as the MMPI2 and 16PF requires months (if not years) of supervised training at the graduate level. This assignment is not designed to teach you how to interpret these structured tests; completion of this assignment will not make you more qualified to administer, score and/or interpret actual MMPI or 16PF test profiles. Rather, the purpose of this assignment is to familiarize you with very basic concepts and procedures underlying the use of structured personality tests. Directions Review the following case background and personality test profiles of Lindy M. Brief Case Background Lindy M. is a 20-year-old college student at a large university. She does well academically and holds a 3.65 grade point average. However, Lindy's mid-term grades this semester consisted of two Cs, three Ds, and one F. She and her boyfriend of two years ended their relationship several months ago; since the break-up, Lindy has had difficulty concentrating on her classes. Lindy reports that her relationships with her mother and younger sister are very good, but that her relationship with her father is somewhat strained. In particular, Lindy's father feels that Lindy spends too much money and does not work hard enough in school. Lindy disagrees with her father's assessment. Sometimes she feels very angry at her father, but does not know how to share her feelings with him in a way he will understand or accept. Lindy hopes to graduate with a business major and later pursue an MBA. 16PF Factor Standard Ten (STEN) Score A 2 B 7 C 4 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 Validity Scale T Score L 55 K 68 E 3 F 1 G 9 H 7 I 3 L 9 M 7 N 2 O 9 Q1 2 Q2 8 Q3 10 Q4 F 55 Clinical Scale T Score 1 62 2 72 3 45 4 40 5 42 6 58 7 65 8 60 9 55 0 32 6 Complete the following activities and enter your responses on the answer sheet provided. 1. Use the information presented in your textbook to identify the outstanding characteristics of Lindy's MMPI2 profile. 2. Use the information presented in your textbook toidentify the outstanding characteristics of Lindy's 16PF profile. 3. Write a short (23 paragraph) personality description of Lindy that integrates information from both tests and the case background. A SAMPLE INTERPRETATION OF THE MMPI-2 This is a chronic pain case where the individual sustained a severe back injury when a heavy object dropped on his back. A spinal stimulator was implanted to help with ongoing pain but has supplied only some relief necessitating continued pain medication. Please note that in this case there is no debate or dispute regarding the existence of the pain condition or its origin. The following illustrates the hypothesis testing approach to MMPI-2 interpretation. This approach is based upon knowledge of the inter-relationships among scales and utilises some scales to generate hypotheses and other associated scales to confirm or reject them. You may want to contrast this interpretation with the types of statements that would be generated for this individuals codetype ( a 3-1 or if you prefer a 3-1-2 codetype). The critical point in making such a comparison is that the hypothesis testing approach uses all the individuals self-reports as reflected in scale elevations to derive the interpretation, while the codetype analysis relies primarily on only 2 (or 3) scales and purported empirical correlates. The Subject Data Screen Recall that in a MMPI-2 analysis there is a relatively strict order of validity evaluation that is designed to determine whether or not the MMPI-2 should be interpreted. This order reflects the role of the particular scales each of which addresses a particular aspect of \"validity\". The second constant reminder is that the MMPI-2 is about SELF-REPORT. As such the test itself cannot actually address the VALIDITY (as in truth) of the statements made. It is a good idea to remind yourself often that you are analysing responses to questions that are likely to reflect how the client wishes to be perceived on the test. The degree to which these self-perceptions are consistent with other sources of information (such as social status, employability, history of maladaptive behaviours, etc.) is realistically the only way to address these types of issues. Note that knowing that an individuals self-report is extreme or at odds with their history is, in a way, even more valuable than a finding of supported self-perceptions. But enough waffle, on to the analyses! In examining the validity scales we first consider the number of omitted or double-scored items. A difference between the MMPI and the MMPI-2 lies in the number of response options: for the MMPI subjects are given three choices True, False, and Cannot Say; on the MMPI-2 subjects are asked to answer all questions True or False. For this reason, the cannot say scale (?) on the MMPI-2 can be viewed as a measure of compliance or cooperation with the testing. SC2 (Sample Case 2) omitted only one item on the test (221. I dream frequently about things that are best kept to myself ). As a rule of thumb the number of omitted items should generally be no more than 5 (with an absolute cut of no more than 30). So we can infer at this point that SC2 cooperated with the testing. The next step is to determine whether SC2 has been consistent in his responding. The implication of elevations in VRIN or TRIN is that the responding has not been contingent upon the question asked. For this reason elevations on these consistency scales indicate that we can have no faith in the meaningfulness of the data. The repeated items on the MMPI (which were a direct indication of consistency) were dropped from the MMPI-2 and the new scales VRIN and TRIN are comprised of pairs of items that are highly correlated. Thus the natures of VRIN and TRIN relate to statistical probabilities, i.e. you are likely to be contradicting yourself. For this reason the cut-score used to determine an elevation on these scales (T>80) are much higher than most MMPI-2 scales . VRIN examines the hypothesis that the responding has been random, while TRIN examines the hypothesis that the non-contingent responding has favoured either a \"yea-saying\" or true-response bias, or \"naysaying\" or false-response bias. VRIN of 73 and TRIN of 64F indicate that SC2 has responded in a consistent manner. The third level of validity analysis relates to the tendency of the client to try to create a particular impression on the test and utilises primarily L, F, and K scales. The two main bias patterns are somewhat misnamed as \"Fake-Good\" and \"Fake-Bad\". These terms should never be used as interpretations, but they are there to remind us of some of the hypotheses that can be considered with reference to these scales (Personally I am sceptical about even this - but you will have to wait for the more advanced courses before you can consider that data). L, F, and K all fall within the average range and so we infer that SC2 has responded in an open and frank manner (don't mistake this statement for meaning \"honest\"). The Validity, Basic, and Content Scales At this point we can say that SC2 has cooperated with the testing, responded consistently, and in an open and frank manner. With the validity scales passed we can now go on to interpret the rest of the protocol as an accurate reflection OF HOW THIS INDIVIDUAL WANTS TO BE PERCEIVED ON THIS TEST. I use the Basic scales and subscales to generate interpretative hypotheses and rely on Content scales and subscales to help confirm or reject them. The method I will demonstrate here is a little arduous but when internalised can be achieved rapidly. I recommend taking the anal-retentive, plodding approach to ensure that you do not miss anything. This involves systematically going through the scales and examining whether or not the test data supports the hypotheses raised. Let's begin: Hs - this scale relates to physical symptoms and somatic complaints. In this case it is elevated (T = 81) suggesting that SC2 is reporting a greater than normal number of physical problems. This is supported by other scales and subscales that relate to physical symptoms (D3 - Physical Malfunctioning = 83; Hy4 - Somatic Complaints = 77, HEA - Health Concerns = 70, HEA1 - Gastrointestinal Symptoms = 70, HEA2 - Neurological Symptoms = 74, and HEA3 - General Health Concerns = 81). There appears to be considerable support for the interpretation of SC2's perception of himself as a person with physical complaints or disability - this is consistent with the facts in the case i.e. spinal injury). D - this scale relates to depressive symptoms. The elevation in this scale (T=80) raises the hypothesis of depression. One of the first clues that all may not be as it seems on this scale is that not all of the D subscales are elevated. It is not the case that they all HAVE to be elevated but since these subscales address different aspects of the depression spectrum it is often the case that they are all elevated in the presence of depression. In this case SC2 is saying that he does not have reduced motor activity levels (D2=59) and he does not brood (D5=62). He is saying, however, that he is sad (D1 - Subjective Depression=77), and feels mentally below par (D4 - Mental Dullness = 77). The scale to examine for support of a depression hypothesis is DEP. This is the high face validity Content Scale whose content is clearly related to depressed mood. Note that the DEP scale is unelevated (T=61) as are all of the DEP subscales . This indicates that while SC2 is endorsing many symptoms and attitudes that are commonly reported by individuals with depression (sadness) he is, in fact, not reporting specifically depressive symptomatology. Keep hold of this thought because ultimately we will need to reconcile this elevation in D that does not reflect depression. The Mental dullness issue is new to us and so should be added to our list of hypotheses. Hy - this scale is quite heterogenous and contains elements that relate to somatic complaints and anxiety. Hy is elevated (T=89) but this is due to only two subscale elevations (Hy3 - Lassitude-Malaise = 79; and Hy4 - Somatic Complaints = 77). The question we have to ask ourselves is whether these two elevations contribute new hypotheses or whether they are a manifestation of the existing observations we have made. The lassitude-malaise seems to be consistent with the sadness and mental dullness already encountered, and the somatic complaints have already been used as support for physical complaints. Pd - no scale or subscale elevations. There is no need to look any further than this unless at some later point we generate hypotheses that would suggest that these scales should be elevated. Mf - M - no scale elevation Pa - no scale or subscale elevations. Pt - This scale is elevated (T=74) and relates primarily to constructs like anxiety and obsessiveness. The interesting thing here is that neither ANX (T=60) or OBS (T=59) are elevated suggesting that neither of the two common correlates apply in this individual. An examination of the individual items endorsed indicates that SC2 is preoccupied with his health concerns, his difficulties in attending and concentrating and sleep disturbance. From your point of view, of course, this is cheating - after all you don't have access to the raw score protocol. However, it does highlight that when you are uncertain as to what the client is trying to tell you on a scale you can always go and read the specific responses to enhance your understanding. This finding is supported by the Sleep Disturbance Critical Item Set on the Supplementary Scale page where he endorsed five of the six items. Sc - This is the most heterogenous scale on the MMPI-2 and often the most difficult to interpret. While the parent scale is elevated (T=69) we can see that the only subscale elevated is Sc3 - Lack of Ego Mastery, Cognitive=66). Again this is not a new hypothesis and supports the prior indications of mental dullness and difficulty in attending and concentrating. Ma - This scale relates primarily to activity levels and other behaviours associated with manic disorders. No elevations on these subscales either. Si - This scale is strictly not a clinical scale as it was developed to examine a class of behaviours rather than discriminate a particular diagnostic group - which incidentally makes it much easier to interpret. In this case SC2 is not indicating a withdrawal from social contact as a consequence of his experiences - this is a good sign. The remainder of the Content Scales and subscales are now examined for elevations: FRS is elevated (T=77) with both FRS1 - Generalised Fearfulness=71 and FRS2 - Multiple Fears=71. This is indicating that SC2 reports specific fears for a number of stimuli as well as general anxiety and concern. In my opinion this is consistent with the elevation in Pt but is probably situational rather than characterological (since ANX and other anxiety indicators were not elevated). In thinking about this, what it may be telling us is that SC2 does not perceive himself as anxious but may be experiencing a number of anxiety-related problems. All other Content scales and subscales (other than those already discussed) are elevated. The only other scales that specifically should be examined here are the substance abuse Supplementary Scales (MAC-R, AAS, APS). None of these are elevated suggesting that SC2 is not indicating that he has a problem with using drugs or alcohol. Supplementary Scales and Critical Item Sets So what do we have here: A man who has sustained a chronic back injury sufficient to merit a spinal stimulator which affords only partial relief . On the MMPI-2 he is telling us that he perceives himself to be an individual with more than the average number of physical complaints. That he is unhappy, but does not appear to be depressed. He appears to characterise his difficulties as primarily related to his physical injuries although there are indications that he is experiencing above normal levels of fear, worry, and concern. Given that he has not elevated ANX it is unlikely that he perceives himself as anxious and this should be taken into account when giving him feedback. SC2 also reports cognitive problems particularly with attention and concentration. The pain medication that he uses regularly is taken in quite high doses and is known to impair or diminish attentional capacities. In my evaluation of this case I ascribed the cognitive complaints to the effects of his pain medication, particularly due to the absence of alternative explanations (such as neurological disease or injury, or ongoing substance abuse). A recommendation could be made to his physician to consider the possibility of a lower dosage or another medication that does not affect cognition as much. It is a good idea at this point to consider some of the good things indicated in the protocol. For example, what resources does SC2 seem to have available to him. His problem, at least by his selfreport, is not complicated by drug or alcohol involvement. He does not indicate problems in his family, and does not indicate that he experiences either discomfort in or isolation from social settings. These are all pluses in considering the resources he will be able to access in treating or recovering from his injury. Finally, and this is by no means a necessary component of the analysis, it can often be useful to compare a case to others who have similar problems. In this case we have examined the correlation between SC2's profile and those of the three recognised chronic pain patterns derived through cluster analysis. In comparing the three clusters we can see that there is a high degree of similarity between Sc2's profile and that of Chronic Pain Cluster 2 (r = .862) indicating 74% of shared variance. This should not be misinterpreted as evidence that SC2 has a chronic pain disorder, but rather as supportive evidence that the types of difficulties he described are not dissimilar to others who have a similar condition. Friday, 10 March 2000 ?? 2000 by Graeme Senior, Ph.D. Senior Lecturer Department of Psychology University of Southern Queensland Toowoomba, QLD 4350 Australia Describing a Personality Test File Answer Sheet Outstanding characteristics based on the MMPI-2 Outstanding characteristics based on the 16PF Narrative personality description (2-3 paragraphs)