Use of a Short Form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory with Alcoholics

115 Pages·2016·2.73 MB·English

by  Patrick E. Shields

Loyola University Chicago
Loyola eCommons
Master's Theses Theses and Dissertations
1975
Use of a Short Form of the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory with Alcoholics
Patrick E. Shields
Loyola University Chicago
Recommended Citation
Shields, Patrick E., "Use of a Short Form of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory with Alcoholics" (1975).Master's Theses.
Paper 2883.
http://ecommons.luc.edu/luc_theses/2883
This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Theses and Dissertations at Loyola eCommons. It has been accepted for inclusion in
Master's Theses by an authorized administrator of Loyola eCommons. For more information, please [email protected].
This work is licensed under aCreative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.
Copyright © 1975 Patrick E. Shields
USE OF A SHORT FORM OF THE MINNESOTA
MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY
WITH ALCOHOLICS
By
Patrick E. Shields
A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School
of Loyola University of Chicago in Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree of
Master of Arts
December
1974
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The assistance and interest of Dr. Frank J. Kobler
and Dr. Roderick W. Pugh of Loyola University of Chicago
is sincerely appreciated.
The author is indebted to Miss Phyllis K. Snyder,
Director of the Chicago Alcoholic Treatment Center,
Mr. Julian Abraham, other staff members, and the patients
of the Chicago Alcoholic Treatment Center for their coop
eration with the author throughout the research project.
The author wishes to thank Dr. Frank Slaymaker,
Mr. Ronald Szoc, and Dr. Stu~rt Meshbaum for help with
the statistical analysis.
Special thanks go to my wife, Deborah, for her
support throughout the project.
ii
LIFE
Patrick E. Shields was born in Minneapolis, Minne
sota on February 9, 1948.
He graduated from Hill High School. St. Paul, Minn-
esota in May, 1966. He attended Nazareth Hall preparatory
seminary for two years and received the Associate of Arts
degree in 1968. He graduated magna cum laude from the
College of St. Thomas in May, 1970. He is currently en-
rolled in the Doctoral Program in Clinical Psychology at
Loyola University of Chicago.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. ii
LIFE. iii
LIST OF TABLES. vi
CONTENTS OF APPENDICES. viii
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION. 1
II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE. 4
Short Form Intelligence Test Research. 4
Short Forms of the MMPI. 5
Methodological Issues. 6
Predicting Full Scale Scores from
Short Form Scores. 7
Choice of Short Form Items • 8
Establishing Correspondence of Forms • 9
Practical Validity 13
Systematic Sources of Error. 15
The Mini-Mult. 15
III. METHOD. 34
Subjects • 34
Materials. 35
Procedure. • 37
. . . .
IV. RESULTS 39
v.
DISCUSSION. 74
. .
VI. SUMMARY ~~ 76
REFERENCES. 78
APPENDIX A. 87
APPENDIX B. 89
APPENDIX c. 91
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
Page
APPENDIX D. 93
APPENDIX E. 98
APPENDIX.F. . 100
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
Mini-Mult and MMPI, Group 1. 42
2. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI1 and MMPI2, Group 3 • 43
3. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPil and MMPI2, Group 1 • 44
4. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI and MMPI , Group 2 . 45
1 2
5. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
Mini-Mult and MMPI , Group 2 • 47
2
6. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI and Mini-Mult, Group 2 • 48
1
7. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI and Mini-Mult, Group 3 • 49
2
8. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI and Mini-Mult, Group 3 • 50
1
9. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
Mini-Mult and MMPr , Group 2 • 52
2
10. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
Mini-Mult, Group 1, and MMPI , Group 2 • 53
1
11. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI , Group 2 and MMPI , Group 3. 54
1 1
12. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
Mini-Mult, Group 1 and MMPI , Group 3. 55
1
13. Means and Standard Deviations Compared for
MMPI , Group 1 and MMPI , Group 2. 57
2 2
14. Correlations Compared for MMPI - Mini-Mult,
2
Group 3 and Mini-Mult - MMPI , Group 1 58
1
vi
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
Table Page
15. Correlations Compared for Mini-Mult ~ MMPI ,
2
Group 2 and Mini-Mult - MMPI , Group 1. 59
1
16. Correlations Compared for MMPI - Mini-Mult,
2
Group 3 and MMPI - Mini-Mult, Group 2. • . 61
1
17. Correlations Compared for MMPI - MMPI ,
1 2
Group 1 and MMPil - MMPI2, Group 3. 62
18. External Correlations Reported in Five
Studies . 64
19. Profile Highpoint Agreement for MMPI - MMPI ,
1 2
Group 1, and MMPI - Mini-Mult - MMPI , Group 1 67
2 1
20. Profile Highpoint Agreement for MMPI - MMPI ,
1 2
Group 3 and Mini-Mult - MMPI , Group 1. 68
1
21. Profile Highpoint Agreement for MMPI - Mini-
2
Mult, Group 3 and Mini-Mult - MMPI , Group 1. 69
1
22. Correspondence Between MMPI , Group 1 and
1
Mini-Mult Contained Within It 71
23. Mini-Mult Test - Retest C~mparisons • 72
vii
p
CONTENTS OF APPENDICES
Appendix Page
.
A. MMPI2 and Mini-Mult Mean Scores, Group 3 87
.
B. Mini-Mult and MMPI Mean Scores, Group 1 89
1
c. Volunteer Information Sheet. 91
D. Mini-Mult. 93
E. Kincannon's Conversion Table for the
Prediction of Standard Scale Raw Scores
From the Mini-Mult Raw Scores. 98
F. Internal Comparisons . . 100
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
The value of diagnostic testing has been questioned
by a number of people in recent years. Rosenwald (1963)
observes a trend to deprecate the role of testing. Some
have suggested disposing of testing because it is a product
of the medical model and fosters the "illness" conception
of emotional problems (Szasz, 1961). Another criticism
stems from the fact that the amount of knowledge gained
from testing is not justified by the expense in terms of
money and valuable professional time necessary for a thor
ough diagnostic evaluation, or is not relevant to treat
ment (Hunt, 1971, p. 7).
One remedy for the cost-benefit imbalance has been
to reduce the amount of time necessary for diagnostic eval
uation by reducing the length of standard instruments.
This reduction in testing time seems to be the main moti
vator behind the development of short-form (SF) tests. In
some reports, this aim must be considered obvious, for no
statement of purpose of the SF is given (Levy, 1968).
Other reasons for an SF are given by Kincannon
(1968). In clinical situations, patients are frequently
unable or unwilling to complete either the individual or
1