The MMPI-2-RF: a Brief OverviewĪ detailed account of the rationale for, methods used in, and outcome of the revision of the MMPI-2 is provided by Ben-Porath (2012). Although the standards outlined in Daubert apply to decisions regarding the admissibility of testimony in federal and now most state court proceedings, as just noted, the same or similar issues can be raised in cross-examination or deposition-taking in an effort to impact the weight a legal decision-maker, judge or jury, affords MMPI-2-RF-based testimony. The framework used to articulate and address these questions is the one outlined by the United States Supreme Court in its landmark Daubert v. The article begins with a brief overview of the revised inventory, followed by answers to a series of questions that could come up in the context of efforts to challenge MMPI-2-RF-based testimony. The questions and answers discussed in this article apply to both types of challenges. Although their goals are different, the same issues are likely to be raised by attorneys seeking to exclude MMPI-2-RF-based testimony and those seeking to mitigate its impact through cross-examination. More commonly, this will occur during pre-trial depositions, or at trial, under cross-examination vis-a-vis weight of the evidence considerations.
![mmpi 2 rf online test mmpi 2 rf online test](https://image1.slideserve.com/1848474/mmpi-2-rf1-n.jpg)
In relatively rare cases, this may involve a pre-trial effort to exclude testimony under the governing admissibility standards.
![mmpi 2 rf online test mmpi 2 rf online test](https://i1.rgstatic.net/publication/41805831_Personality_assessment_in_personnel_selection_using_the_MMPI-2_A_cross-cultural_comparison/links/09e41509f1fe284ea6000000/largepreview.png)
Answers are provided to a series of questions that are likely to come up if MMPI-2-RF-based testimony is contested. This article identifies challenges forensic psychologists may encounter with the introduction of the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2008/ 2011 Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011). Alternatively, when a psychological test is revised, it is incumbent upon forensic users of the measure to (a) become familiar with the updated instrument, including the rationale for, methods used in, and outcome of the revision (b) make an informed decision about whether to use the revised test in their forensic assessments and (c) be prepared to defend their decision. Most experts and, for that matter, most legal decision-makers are unlikely to find this solution satisfactory over the long term. Had this approach been adopted in the case of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) ( Hathaway & McKinley, 1943), forensic psychologists might still be relying on scales developed and norms collected during the late 1930s and early 1940s. One way to avoid this dilemma is to never update our instruments. An expert who uses the newer version of the test may be challenged for relying on a “new, unproven device.” On the other hand, a psychologist who uses the older version may be challenged for using an “old, antiquated instrument.” Thus, at least for a period of time, forensic users of an updated measure encounter a “damned if you do and damned if you don't” situation that may be accentuated by the adversarial nature of the legal system. Indicators of MMPI-2-RF acceptance can be cited, and criticisms of the MMPI-2-RF can be addressed with information available in the test documents and an extensive, modern, and actively growing peer-reviewed literature.Īssessment, Forensic neuropsychology, Professional issues Introductionįorensic practitioners face unique challenges when a new version of a psychological test is released. Information about the known and potential rate of error associated with MMPI-2-RF scores is available, and standard procedures for administration, scoring, and interpretation of the inventory are detailed in the test administration manual. Consideration of the MMPI-2-RF in light of the Daubert factors indicates that the instrument has been subjected to extensive empirical testing and that a substantial peer-reviewed literature is available to guide and support its use. The answers to these questions apply more broadly to testimony in depositions, pre-trial hearings, and at trial.
![mmpi 2 rf online test mmpi 2 rf online test](https://www.etp.com.py/img/tapa-mediana-1151967.jpg)
The questions guiding this discussion are based on the Daubert factors, established in 1993 by the US Supreme Court as criteria for gauging the scientific validity of proffered expert testimony. Potential challenges to MMPI-2-RF-based testimony are identified in this article and discussed in question and answer format. In the case of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF), these challenges can be addressed by becoming familiar with the rationale for and the methods used in revising the inventory, the information contained in the test manuals, and the growing peer-reviewed literature on the test. Introduction of a new version of a psychological test brings with it challenges that can be accentuated by the adversarial nature of the legal process.