Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for FREE ACCESS to this landmark database

Click here for more information on The Virtual Advisor
Assessment
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Weed, N. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Williams, J. E.
Right arrow Articles by Weed, N. C.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

Relative User Ratings of MMPI-2 Computer-Based Test Interpretations

John E. Williams

University of Northern Iowa, john.williams{at}uni.edu

Nathan C. Weed

Central Michigan University

There are eight commercially available computer-based test interpretations (CBTIs) for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2), of which few have been empirically evaluated. Prospective users of these programs have little scientific data to guide choice of a program. This study compared ratings of these eight CBTIs. Test users were randomly assigned to rate either a single authentic CBTI report on one of their clients or a single CBTI report generated from a modal MMPI-2 profile for their clinical setting. In all, 257 authentic and modal CBTI reports were rated by 41 clinicians on 10 dimensions. Each of the authentic reports received substantially higher ratings than the modal reports, with ratings of perceived accuracy and opinion confirmation best differentiating between authentic and modal reports. Automated Assessment Associates’ report received the highest overall ratings; reports published by Western Psychological Services, Pearson Assessments, and the Caldwell Report were also distinguished on one or more ratings dimensions.

Key Words: MMPI-2 • CBTI • computer • interpretation • Barnum

Assessment, Vol. 11, No. 4, 316-329 (2004)
DOI: 10.1177/1073191104269865
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?