The reliability of six Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Second edition (MMPI-2) computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) programs was evaluated across a set of 20 commonly appearing MMPI-2 profile codetypes in clinical settings. Evaluation of CBTI reliability comprised examination of (a) interrater reliability, the degree to which raters arrive at similar inferences based on the same CBTI profile and (b) interprogram reliability, the level of agreement across different CBTI systems. Profile inferences drawn by four raters were operationalized using q-sort methodology. Results revealed no significant differences overall with regard to interrater and interprogram reliability. Some specific CBTI/profile combinations (e.g., the CBTI by Automated Assessment Associates on a within normal limits profile) and specific profiles (e.g., the 4/9 profile displayed greater interprogram reliability than the 2/4 profile) were interpreted with variable consensus (α range = .21-.95). In practice, users should consider that certain MMPI-2 profiles are interpreted more or less consensually and that some CBTIs show variable reliability depending on the profile.
BallJ. D.ArcherR. P.ImhoffE. A. (1994). Time requirements of psychological testing: A survey of practitioners. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 239-249.
4.
BlockW. (1956). A comparison of forced and unforced Q-sorting procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 16, 481-493.
5.
ButcherJ. N. (1993). User’s guide for the Minnesota report: Adult clinical system-revised (4th ed.) [Computer Software Manual]. Minneapolis: The Regents of the University of Minnesota.
6.
ButcherJ. N.GrahamJ. R.Ben-PorathY. S.TellegenA.DahlstromW. G.KaemmerB. (2001). MMPI-2: Manual for administration scoring and interpretation (Rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
7.
ButcherJ. N.PerryJ. N.AtlisM. M. (2000). Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18.
8.
ButcherJ. N.WilliamsC. L. (2000). Essentials of MMPI-2 and MMPI-A Interpretation (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
9.
ConoleyC. W.PlakeB. S.KemmererB. E. (1991). Issues in computer-based test interpretation systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 7, 97-101.
10.
CrumptonC. A. (1975). An evaluation and comparison of three automated MMPI interpretive reports (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas). Dissertation Abstracts International, 35, 6090.
11.
DawesR. M. (1994). House of cards. New York, NY: Free Press.
12.
DeskovitzM. A. (2003). The interpretive reliability of two common MMPI-2 codetypes. (Unpublished master’s thesis). Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI.
13.
EydeL. D.KowalD. M.FishburneF. J.Jr. (1991). The validity of computer-based test interpretations of the MMPI. In GutkinT. B.WiseS. L. (Eds.), The computer and the decision-making process (pp. 75-123). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FriedmanA. F.LewakR.NicholsD. S.WebbJ. T. (2001). Psychological assessment with the MMPI-2. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
15.
GarbH. N. (2000). Computers will become increasingly important for psychological assessment: Not that there’s anything wrong with that!Psychological Assessment, 12, 31-39.
16.
GrahamJ. R. (2011a). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
17.
GrahamJ. R. (2011b). MMPI-2: Assessing personality and psychopathology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
18.
GrahamJ. R.Ben-PorathY. S.McNultyJ. L. (1999). MMPI-2: Correlates for outpatient community mental health settings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
19.
GreeneR. L. (2000). The MMPI-2/MMPI: An interpretive manual (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
HalbowerC. C. (1955). A comparison of actuarial versus clinical prediction to classes discriminated by the MMPI (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota, MN.
22.
HanK.WeedN. C.CalhounR. F.ButcherJ. N. (1995). Psychometric characteristics of the MMPI-2 Cook-Medley Hostility Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 567-585.
23.
HarringtonA. (1999). The relative validity of computer-based interpretations of the MMPI-2 (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Mississippi). Dissertation Abstracts International, 60, 6364.
24.
HathawayS. R.McKinleyJ. C.MMPI Restandardization Committee. (1989). MMPI-2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
25.
LewandowskiD.GrahamJ. (1972). Empirical correlates of frequently occurring two-point MMPI code types: A replicated study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 467-472.
26.
LittleK. B.SchneidmanE. S. (1959). The relative contribution of four kinds of data to accuracy in personality assessment. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 23, 483-492.
27.
MarshallE. D. (2001). Aggregated relative validity of MMPI-2 profiles of African American and Caucasian college students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Mississippi, Oxford.
28.
MatarazzoJ. D. (1986). Computerized clinical psychological test interpretations. American Psychologist, 41, 14-21.
29.
McMinnM. R.EllensB. M.SorefE. (1999). Ethical perspectives and practice behaviors involving computer-based test interpretation. Assessment, 9, 71-77.
30.
McNealT. P. (1997). Examining the validity of computer based test interpretation with interpretive q-sorts (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Mississippi, Oxford.
31.
McNealT. P. (1999). The longitudinal impact of personality assessment on understanding clients during the course of psychotherapy (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Mississippi, Oxford.
32.
MeehlP. E. (1956). Wanted—A good cookbook. American Psychologist, 11, 263-272.
33.
MoosR. H. (1962). Effects of training on students test interpretations. Journal of Projective Techniques and Personality Assessment, 26, 310-317.
34.
MorelandK. L. (1983). Diagnostic validity of the MMPI and two short forms. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47, 492-493.
35.
MorelandK. L. (1985). Validation of computer-based test interpretations: Problems and prospects. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 816-825.
36.
OsborneJ. W. (Ed.). (2008). Best practices in quantitative methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
37.
OzerD. J. (1993). The Q-sort method and the study of personality development. In FunderD. C.ParkeR. D.Tomlinson-KeaseyC.WidamanK. (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and development (pp. 147-168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
38.
PantH.McCabeB. J.DeskovitzM. A.WeedN. C.WilliamsJ. E. (2014). Diagnostic reliability of MMPI-2 computer-based test interpretations. Psychological Assessment, 26(3), 916-924.
RobinsonB. C. (2004). The reliability and internal structure of the Mississippi interpretive Q-sort (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Mississippi, Oxford.
45.
StrassbergD. S.CooperL. M. (1997). MMPI/MMPI-2 Adult Interpretive Report (Version 6.0P) [Computer Software]. Salt Lake City, UT: Automated Assessment Associates.
46.
WeedN. C. (1997). Using the interpretive Q-sort technique to teach MMPI interpretation (Unpublished manuscript). University of Mississippi, Oxford.
WilliamsJ. E. (2002). The relative validity of eight computer-based interpretations for the MMPI-2 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Mississippi, Oxford.
49.
WilliamsJ. E.WeedN. C. (2004a). Relative user ratings of MMPI-2 computer-based test interpretations. Assessment, 11, 316-329.
50.
WilliamsJ. E.WeedN. C. (2004b). Review of computer-based test interpretation software for the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83, 78-83.
