Effects of Computerized Administration on Scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Abstract

This study investigated the effects of administer ing a personality inventory by computer. Both the results of the initial study and a replication suggest that significant differences exist between paper-pen cil and computer administrations of the MMPI on the cannot say (?) scale and scale 6 (Paranoia). However, there appears to be no set of items that would account for these scale differences. Dif ferences on the ? scale were explained in terms of the different methods used to omit items in each condition. Differences on scale 6 were small, and the clinical significance of that difference needs to be investigated further. Implications for future re search on computer-administered personality in struments are discussed.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Biskin, B.H. The administration of personality tests by computer: some substantive and methodological issues. Unpublished manuscript, University of Minnesota, 1975.

Butcher, J. , Clavelle, P. , & Hoffman, N. Clinical limitations of MMPI short forms and a strategy for developing a tailor-made MMPI short form. Paper presented at the 82nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, New Orleans, September, 1974.

Dunn, T. , Lushene, R. , & O' Neill, H. The complete automation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and a study of its response latency (Technical Memo No. 28). Tallahassee: Florida State University, Computer-Assisted Instructional Center, 1971.

Finney, J.C. Manual for psychiatrists and psychologists: psychodiagnostic consultation service, Finney Institute for the Study of Human Behavior. Lexington, Kentucky: Finney Institute for the Study of Human Behavior, 1969.

Fowler, R. Computer interpretation of personality tests: the automated psychologist . Comprehensive Psychiatry, 1967, 6, 455-467.

Johnson, J. , & Williams, T. The use of on-line computer technology in a mental health admitting system . American Psychologist, 1975, 30, 388-390.

Kleinmuntz, B. , & McLean, R. Diagnostic interviewing by digital computer. Behavioral Science, 1968, 13, 75-80.

Lushene, R. , O'Neill, H. , & Dunn, T. Equivalent validity of a completely computerized MMPI (Technical Memo No. 48). Tallahassee: Florida State University, Computer-Assisted Instruction Center, 1972.

Morf, M. , & Krane, W. A strategy for developing automated assessment systems. Behavioral Science, 1973,18,294-306.

10.

Rome, H. , Swenson, W. , Mataya, P. , McCarthy, C. , Pearson, J. , & Keating, R. Symposium on automated techniques in personality assessment. Proceedings of the Mayo Clinic, 1962, 37, 61-82.

11.

Smith, R. Examination by computer. Behavioral Science, 1963, 8, 76-79.

12.

Weiss, D. J. (Ed.). Computerized adaptive trait measurement: problems and prospects (Research Report 75-5). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, November, 1975. (NTIS No. AD-018675)

13.

Weiss, D.J. , & Betz, N.E. Ability measurement: conventional or adaptive? (Research Report 73-1) . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Department of Psychology, 1973. (NTIS No. AD-757788)

14.

Wiggins, J.S. Content dimensions of the MMPI. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), MMPI: research developments and clinical applications . New York: McGraw-Hill , 1969.