Addressing challenges to MMPI-2-RF-based testimony: questions and answers

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. 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. Potential challenges to MMPI-2-RF-based testimony are identified in this article and discussed in question and answer format. 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. The answers to these questions apply more broadly to testimony in depositions, pre-trial hearings, and at trial. 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. 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. 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.