A Comparison of Validity Rates Between Paper-and-Pencil and Computerized Testing With the MMPI-2

Abstract

Although the use of computerized testing in psychopathology assessment has increased in recent years, limited research has examined the impact of this format in terms of potential differences in test validity rates. The current study explores potential differences in the rates of valid and invalid Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI-2) protocols between computerized and paper-and-pencil administrations. Participants were 387 undergraduate students (157 men and 230 women) from a Midwestern university who completed either a computerized version or a paper-and-pencil version of the MMPI-2. Chi-square analyses revealed some important differences between administration modalities by gender. Overall, results indicated that although no differences existed in the computerized version, men were more likely to invalidate the paper-and-pencil version. Furthermore, although less likely overall to produce invalid MMPI-2 results, women were more likely to invalidate the paper-and-pencil version via random responding compared with the computerized version. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Keywords

computerized assessment MMPI-2 validity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Butcher, J.N. , Graham, J.R. , Ben-Porath, Y.S. , Tellegen, A. , Dahlstrom, W.G. , & Kaemmer B.K. ( 2001). MMPI-2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J.N. , Perry, J. , & Hahn, J. ( 2004). Computers in clinical assessment: Historical developments, present status, and future challenges. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 60, 331-345.

Camara, W.J. , Nathan, J.S. , & Puente, A.E. ( 2000) Psychological test usage: Implications in professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice , 31, 141-154.

Fingers, M.S. , & Ones, D.S. ( 1999). Psychometric equivalence of the computer and booklet forms of the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment , 11, 58-66.

Forbey, J.D. , & Ben-Porath, Y.S. (2007). Computerized adaptive personality testing: A review and illustration with the MMPI-2 computerized adaptive version . Psychological Assessment, 19, 14-24.

Graham, J.R. ( 2006). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Hays, S. , & McCullum, R.S. (2005). A comparison of the pencil-and-paper and computer administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent . Psychology in the Schools, 42, 605-613.

Russell, G.K.G. , Peace, K.A. , & Mellsop, G.W. ( 1986). The reliability of micro-computer administration of the MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 120-122.