Related Experiment Video

Updated: Aug 10, 2026

Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity
08:40

Isokinetic Robotic Device to Improve Test-Retest and Inter-Rater Reliability for Stretch Reflex Measurements in Stroke Patients with Spasticity

Published on: June 12, 2019

An evaluation of an MMPI response consistency measure

F W Jones, C Neuringer, T W Patterson

    Journal of Personality Assessment
    |August 1, 1976
    PubMed

    Insights

    Response inconsistency is not a reliable indicator for invalidating Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) protocols. While brain-damaged patients showed slightly higher inconsistency, standard MMPI validity scales are more effective for protocol invalidation.

    Area of Science:

    • Psychological assessment
    • Neuropsychology
    • Psychopathology

    Background:

    • Assessing the validity of psychological test protocols is crucial for accurate diagnosis.
    • Response inconsistency has been proposed as a potential indicator for invalidating MMPI protocols.
    • Previous research has explored various methods for detecting invalid MMPI responses.

    Purpose of the Study:

    • To investigate response inconsistency as a potential index for invalidating Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) protocols.
    • To compare response inconsistency between brain-damaged and non-brain-damaged patient groups across different diagnostic categories.
    • To examine the correlation between response inconsistency and established MMPI validity scales.

    Main Methods:

    • Measured response inconsistency using 14 pairs of identical items in 8 groups (n=22 each): brain-damaged/non-brain-damaged schizophrenic, alcoholic, neurotic, and normal patients.
    • Correlated individual response inconsistency scores with standard MMPI validity measures (?), L, F, and K scales.
    • Analyzed response consistency scores across all patient groups.

    Main Results:

    • All groups exhibited high overall response consistency.
    • Brain-damaged patients demonstrated significantly higher response inconsistency compared to non-brain-damaged patients, irrespective of psychiatric diagnosis.
    • Correlations between response inconsistency and MMPI validity scales were statistically significant but low in magnitude.

    Conclusions:

    • Response inconsistency is not a sufficiently sensitive or specific measure for invalidating MMPI protocols.
    • Established MMPI validity scales (e.g., ?, L, F, K) remain the primary and most effective means for assessing protocol validity.
    • Future research may explore refined methods for detecting response consistency issues in specific patient populations.

    More Related Videos

    Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits08:27

    Applying an eMASS Customization Program as a Research Tool to Evaluate Consumer Benefits

    Published on: September 27, 2019

    Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics (BM-PROMA)10:58

    Multimedia Battery for Assessment of Cognitive and Basic Skills in Mathematics (BM-PROMA)

    Published on: August 28, 2021

    Related Concept Videos

    Reliability and Validity01:29

    Reliability and Validity

    Reliability and validity are two important considerations that must be made with any type of data collection. Reliability refers to the ability to consistently produce a given result. In the context of psychological research, this would mean that any instruments or tools used to collect data do so in consistent, reproducible ways.
    Multiple Comparison Tests01:13

    Multiple Comparison Tests

    Multiple comparison test, abbreviated as MCT, is a post hoc analysis generally performed after comparing multiple samples with one or more tests. An MCT will help identify a significantly different sample among multiple samples or a factor among multiple factors.
    It would be easy to compare two samples using a significance alpha level of 0.05. In other words, there is only one sample pair to be compared. However, it would be difficult to identify a significantly different sample if the number...
    Measures of Intelligence01:29

    Measures of Intelligence

    Psychologists measure intelligence by using standardized tests that produce a score known as the intelligence quotient or IQ. To understand IQ tests, it's important to recognize the key principles behind their construction: validity, reliability, and standardization.
    Validity refers to how well a test measures what it claims to measure. An intelligence test should accurately assess intelligence rather than another characteristic, like anxiety. Criterion validity is one way to evaluate this; it...
    Self-Report Tests of Personality01:22

    Self-Report Tests of Personality

    Self-report inventories are objective personality assessments that use multiple-choice items or numbered scales, typically ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). They are often called Likert scales after Rensis Likert. These inventories are widely used due to their ease of administration and cost-effectiveness. One of the most prominent examples is the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), initially developed in the 1940s to assess abnormal personality traits.
    Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance01:20

    Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance

    Kendall's Coefficient of Concordance (W), also known as Kendall's W, is a non-parametric statistical measure used to assess the agreement or concordance between multiple raters or judges when they rank a set of items. It is often used when you have ordinal data (ranks) and you want to see if there is consistency or consensus among the raters. It is widely applied in research areas such as psychology, medicine, and social sciences, where multiple judges are asked to rank or rate subjects or...
    Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model01:29

    Self-Evaluation Maintenance Model

    The Self-Evaluation Maintenance (SEM) model offers a psychological framework to understand how individuals’ self-esteem is influenced by the achievements of others, particularly those with whom they share close personal bonds. The SEM model operates when personal rather than social identity guides individuals. Central to this model is the notion that individuals have an inherent desire to preserve a favorable self-image, which is continuously shaped by interpersonal comparisons and...