Mmpi 3 Sample Interpretive Report

®
SAMPLE REPORT
Case Description: Mr. J. – Outpatient, Community Mental Health Center

Interpretive Report
Mr. J. is a 44-year-old divorced man assessed at intake for services at a community mental health center following
a brief stay at a crisis stabilization unit. Mr. J. was taken to the stabilization unit by law enforcement personnel after
a serious suicide attempt involving vehicular carbon monoxide poisoning. He had been involved in very contentious
divorce- and child custody-related proceedings for two years prior to this attempt. In addition to having a conflictual
relationship with his ex-wife, Mr. J. was estranged from his two teenage children, and he had minimal sources of social
support. His only prior contact with a mental health professional involved a child custody evaluation conducted two
years prior to the current assessment. Mr. J.’s ex-wife was granted full custody minus planned bi-weekly visitations
with Mr. J.
The worker who conducted Mr. J’s intake interview described him as depressed, despondent, tearful, and withdrawn.
He was characterized as speaking in a monotone and giving laconic responses to questions he was asked. He was
fully oriented and showed no signs of thought disturbance. No significant history of acting out behavior was elicited.
Mr. J. acknowledged continuing suicidal ideation but denied current intent. He was diagnosed with a Major Depressive
Disorder, Severe with Melancholic Features and accepted for treatment in an intensive outpatient program.
Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-3 reports, but are provided here as background information. The following
report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based scoring and reporting application, using Mr. J.’s responses to
the MMPI-3. Additional MMPI-3 sample reports, product offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at
PearsonAssessments.com/MMPI-3.
© 2020 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. Pearson, Q-global, and Q Local are trademarks, in the US and/or
other countries, of Pearson plc. MMPI is a registered trademark of the Regents of the University of Minnesota. CLINA24805-A EL 6/20
Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings
MMPI®-3
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory®-3
Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD
ID Number: Mr. J
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Not reported
Years of Education: Not reported
Date Assessed: 08/01/2020
Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under license from the University
of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from the MMPI-3 test booklet. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation. Copyright © 2020
by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Technical Manual. Copyright © 2020
by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota Press.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and MMPI are registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson is a trademark
in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or its affiliate(s).
This report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets. Qualified licensees may excerpt portions of this output report, limited to the
minimum text necessary to accurately describe their significant core conclusions, for incorporation into a written evaluation of the examinee, in
accordance with their profession's citation standards, if any. No adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may be made of
this report without prior written permission from the University of Minnesota Press.
[ 1.0 / RE1 / QG1 ]

MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 2
MMPI-3 Validity Scales
120 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
110 ---
100
---
90
80
---
70
60
T
50
--- --- ---

40
--- ---
---
---
30
---
---
20
CRIN VRIN TRIN F Fp Fs FBS RBS L K
Raw Score: 2 1 14 8 1 1 9 8 0 2
T Score: 39 39 54 T 66 50 47 51 58 36 38
Response %: 93 93 94 89 100 100 97 96 93 100
Cannot Say (Raw): 13
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
CRIN Combined Response Inconsistency F Infrequent Responses L Uncommon Virtues

VRIN Variable Response Inconsistency Fp Infrequent Psychopathology Responses K Adjustment Validity
TRIN True Response Inconsistency Fs Infrequent Somatic Responses
FBS Symptom Validity Scale
RBS Response Bias Scale
08/01/2020, Page 3
MMPI-3 Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

120
110
100 --- ---

---
--- ---
90 --- ---
--- --- ---
80 ---
70
60
50
40 ---
--- --- --- --- ---
--- ---
--- --- ---
30
20
EID THD BXD RCd RC1 RC2 RC4 RC6 RC7 RC8 RC9
Raw Score: 34 2 4 17 2 10 6 1 10 1 1
T Score: 80 49 44 80 46 75 55 50 55 44 36
Response %: 95 100 100 100 100 93 100 93 100 100 100
EID Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction RCd Demoralization RC6 Ideas of Persecution

THD Thought Dysfunction RC1 Somatic Complaints RC7 Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
BXD Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction RC2 Low Positive Emotions RC8 Aberrant Experiences
RC4 Antisocial Behavior RC9 Hypomanic Activation
08/01/2020, Page 4
MMPI-3 Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction and Internalizing Scales
Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing
120
110 ---
100 ---
--- ---
90
---
---
80 ---
--- --- --- ---
--- ---
---
70
60
50
--- --- ---
40 --- ---
--- --- --- --- --- --- ---
---
---
30
20
MLS NUC EAT COG SUI HLP SFD NFC STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF
Raw Score: 5 0 0 1 3 7 7 9 5 6 3 7 3 2
T Score: 59 38 44 46 72 86 78 77 68 65 49 59 51 63
Response %: 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 88 100 92 100
MLS Malaise SUI Suicidal/Death Ideation WRY Worry

NUC Neurological Complaints HLP Helplessness/Hopelessness CMP Compulsivity
EAT Eating Concerns SFD Self-Doubt ARX Anxiety-Related Experiences
COG Cognitive Complaints NFC Inefficacy ANP Anger Proneness
STR Stress BRF Behavior-Restricting Fears
08/01/2020, Page 5
MMPI-3 Externalizing and Interpersonal Scales
Externalizing Interpersonal
120
110
100
90
--- --- ---
80 --- --- --- --- --- ---
---
---
70 ---
60
50
40 --- --- --- ---

--- --- ---
--- ---
--- ---
30
---
20
FML JCP SUB IMP ACT AGG CYN SFI DOM DSF SAV SHY
Raw Score: 5 1 4 1 1 1 9 1 1 4 5 6
T Score: 59 48 58 45 41 49 55 37 34 58 55 69
Response %: 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 89 57 78 100
FML Family Problems ACT Activation SFI Self-Importance

JCP Juvenile Conduct Problems AGG Aggression DOM Dominance
SUB Substance Abuse CYN Cynicism DSF Disaffiliativeness
IMP Impulsivity SAV Social Avoidance
SHY Shyness
08/01/2020, Page 6
MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales
120
110
100 ---
90
--- --- ---
80 ---
70
60
50
40
---
--- ---
---
30
---
20
AGGR PSYC DISC NEGE INTR
Raw Score: 1 1 5 12 8
T Score: 31 47 50 68 60
Response %: 93 100 100 93 86
AGGR Aggressiveness
PSYC Psychoticism
DISC Disconstraint
NEGE Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism
INTR Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
08/01/2020, Page 7
MMPI-3 T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)

PROTOCOL VALIDITY
Content Non-Responsiveness 13 39 39 54 T
CNS CRIN VRIN TRIN
Over-Reporting 66* 50 47 51 58
F Fp Fs FBS RBS
Under-Reporting 36 38
L K
SUBSTANTIVE SCALES
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 46 59 38 44 46
RC1 MLS NUC EAT COG
Emotional Dysfunction 80 80 72 86 78 77
EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC
75 60*
RC2 INTR
55 68 65 49* 59 51 63 68
RC7 STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF NEGE
Thought Dysfunction 49 50
THD RC6
44
RC8
47
PSYC
Behavioral Dysfunction 44 55 59* 48 58

BXD RC4 FML JCP SUB
36 45 41 49 55
RC9 IMP ACT AGG CYN
50
DISC
Interpersonal Functioning 37 34* 31 58* 55* 69

SFI DOM AGGR DSF SAV SHY
*The test taker provided scorable responses to less than 90% of the items scored on this scale. See the relevant profile page for the specific
percentage.
Scale scores shown in bold font are interpreted in the report.
Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation following the recommended structure for MMPI-3 interpretation in Chapter 5 of the
MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline in Table 5-1.
08/01/2020, Page 8
This interpretive report is intended for use by a professional qualified to interpret the MMPI-3.
The information it contains should be considered in the context of the test taker's background, the
circumstances of the assessment, and other available information.
The report includes extensive annotation, which appears as superscripts following each statement in the
narrative, keyed to Endnotes with accompanying Research References, which appear in the final two
sections of the report. Additional information about the annotation features is provided in the headnotes to
these sections and in the MMPI-3 User's Guide for the Score and Clinical Interpretive Reports.
SYNOPSIS
Scores on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales raise concerns about the possible impact of unscorable responses on the
validity of this protocol. With that caution noted, scores on the Substantive Scales indicate emotional, behavioral,
and interpersonal dysfunction. Emotional-internalizing findings include suicidal ideation, demoralization, lack of
positive emotions, helplessness and hopelessness, self-doubt, perceived inefficacy, negative emotionality, stress,
and worry. Behavioral-externalizing problems relate to lack of energy and engagement. Interpersonal difficulties
include lack of self-esteem and social anxiety.
PROTOCOL VALIDITY
Content Non-Responsiveness
Unscorable Responses
The test taker answered less than 90% of the items on the following scales. The resulting scores may therefore
be artificially lowered. In particular, the absence of elevation on these scales is not interpretable1. A list of all items
for which the test taker provided unscorable responses appears under the heading "Item-Level Information."
Infrequent Responses (F): 89%
Compulsivity (CMP): 88%
Family Problems (FML): 80%
Dominance (DOM): 89%
Disaffiliativeness (DSF): 57%
Social Avoidance (SAV): 78%
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR): 86%
Inconsistent Responding
The test taker responded to the items in a consistent manner, indicating that he responded relevantly.
Over-Reporting
The test taker may have over-reported general psychological dysfunction. The extent of possible over-reporting
cannot be precisely determined because of 4 unscorable responses on the 35-item Infrequent Responses (F)
scale. The following table shows what the T scores for F would be if the unscorable items had been answered in
the keyed direction.
08/01/2020, Page 9
Scale: F
T score based on scorable responses: 66
Cutoff for over-reporting concern: 75
If answered in the keyed direction The T score would be
1 69
2 72
3 75
4 78
See Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for guidance on interpreting
elevated scores on F.
Under-Reporting
There are no indications of under-reporting in this protocol.
SUBSTANTIVE SCALE INTERPRETATION

Clinical symptoms, personality characteristics, and behavioral tendencies of the test taker are described in this
section and organized according to an empirically guided framework. (Please see Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3
Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for details.) Statements containing the word "reports" are
based on the item content of MMPI-3 scales, whereas statements that include the word "likely" are based on
empirical correlates of scale scores. Specific sources for each statement can be viewed with the annotation
features of this report.
The following interpretation needs to be considered in light of cautions noted about the possible impact
of unscorable responses on the validity of this protocol.
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction
There are no indications of somatic or cognitive dysfunction in this protocol.
Emotional Dysfunction
The test taker reports a history of suicidal/death ideation and/or past suicide attempts2. He likely is at risk for
self-harm3, is preoccupied with suicide and death4, and is at risk for current suicidal ideation and attempts5.
His responses indicate considerable emotional distress that is likely to be perceived as a crisis6. More
specifically, he reports experiencing significant demoralization, feeling overwhelmed, and being extremely
unhappy, sad, and dissatisfied with his life7. He very likely complains about significant depression8 and
experiences sadness and despair9. In particular, he reports having lost hope and believing he cannot change and
overcome his problems and is incapable of reaching his life goals10. He very likely feels hopeless, overwhelmed,
and that life is a strain11, believes he cannot be helped11 and gets a raw deal from life12, and lacks motivation for
change13. He also reports lacking confidence, feeling worthless, and believing he is a burden to others14. He very
likely experiences self-doubt, feels insecure and inferior, and is self-disparaging and intropunitive15. In addition, he
reports being very indecisive and inefficacious, believing he is incapable of making decisions and dealing
effectively with crisis situations, and even having difficulties dealing with small, inconsequential matters16. He very
likely experiences subjective incompetence and shame17 and lacks perseverance and self-reliance18.
The test taker reports a lack of positive emotional experiences and a lack of interest19. He likely is pessimistic20
and presents with anhedonia21.
He reports experiencing an elevated level of negative emotionality22 and indeed likely experiences various
negative emotions23. More specifically, he reports an above average level of stress24. He likely complains about
08/01/2020, Page 10
stress25 and feels incapable of controlling his anxiety level25. He also reports excessive worry, including worries
about misfortune and finances, as well as preoccupation with disappointments26. He indeed likely worries
excessively27 and ruminates28.
Thought Dysfunction
There are no indications of disordered thinking in this protocol.
Behavioral Dysfunction
There are no indications of maladaptive externalizing behavior in this protocol. The test taker reports a low
energy level29 and indeed likely has a low energy level30 and is disengaged from his normal activities30.
Interpersonal Functioning Scales

The test taker describes himself as lacking in positive qualities31.
He reports being shy, easily embarrassed, and uncomfortable around others32. He is likely to be socially
introverted33 and inhibited34, anxious and nervous in social situations35, and viewed by others as socially awkward36.
DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides recommendations for psychodiagnostic assessment based on the test taker's MMPI-3
results. It is recommended that he be evaluated for the following, bearing in mind possible threats to protocol
validity noted earlier in this report:
Emotional-Internalizing Disorders
- Major depression and other anhedonia-related disorders37
- Features of personality disorders involving negative emotionality such as Dependent38
- Generalized anxiety disorder25
- Disorders involving excessive worry39
Interpersonal Disorders
- Social anxiety disorder (social phobia)40
TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides inferential treatment-related recommendations based on the test taker's MMPI-3 scores.
The following recommendations need to be considered in light of cautions noted earlier about possible
threats to protocol validity.
Areas for Further Evaluation

- Risk for suicide should be assessed immediately41.
- Need for antidepressant medication42.
Psychotherapy Process Issues

- Serious emotional difficulties may motivate him for treatment43.
- Indecisiveness may interfere with establishing treatment goals and progress in treatment44.
08/01/2020, Page 11
Possible Targets for Treatment

- Demoralization as an initial target45
- Loss of hope and feelings of despair as early targets for intervention46
- Low self-esteem and other manifestations of self-doubt47
- Anhedonia48
- Developing stress management skills49
- Excessive worry and rumination39
- Anxiety in social situations40
ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION
Unscorable Responses
Following is a list of items to which the test taker did not provide scorable responses. Unanswered or double
answered (both True and False) items are unscorable. The scale(s) on which the items appear are in parentheses
following the item content.
37. Item content omitted. (CRIN, VRIN, SAV, INTR)
52. Item content omitted. (CMP)
67. Item content omitted. (CRIN, TRIN, F, DSF)
145. Item content omitted. (CRIN, TRIN, F, FML)
175. Item content omitted. (CRIN, VRIN, DSF)
193. Item content omitted. (FBS)
197. Item content omitted. (DOM, AGGR)
222. Item content omitted. (EID, RC2, SAV, INTR)
268. Item content omitted. (RBS, L)
280. Item content omitted. (F, FML)
291. Item content omitted. (CRIN, VRIN, DSF)
293. Item content omitted. (CRIN, VRIN, EID, ANP, NEGE)
310. Item content omitted. (F, RC6)
Critical Responses
Seven MMPI-3 scales—Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI), Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety-Related
Experiences (ARX), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and
Aggression (AGG)—have been designated by the test authors as having critical item content that may require
immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a
critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65 or higher. However, any item answered in the keyed
direction on SUI is listed. The percentage of the MMPI-3 normative sample that answered each item in the keyed
direction is provided in parentheses following the item content.
Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI, T Score = 72)

38. Item content omitted. (True, 22.2%)
Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP, T Score = 86)

08/01/2020, Page 12
282. Item content omitted. (False, 22.0%)

User-Designated Item-Level Information

The following item-level information is based on the report user's selection of additional scales, and/or of lower
cutoffs for the critical scales from the previous section. Items answered by the test taker in the keyed direction
(True or False) on a selected scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is at the user-designated cutoff
score or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-3 normative sample that answered each item in the keyed direction
is provided in parentheses following the item content.
Demoralization (RCd, T Score = 80)

Low Positive Emotions (RC2, T Score = 75)

Self-Doubt (SFD, T Score = 78)

08/01/2020, Page 13
Inefficacy (NFC, T Score = 77)

Stress (STR, T Score = 68)

Worry (WRY, T Score = 65)

Shyness (SHY, T Score = 69)

Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (NEGE, T Score = 68)

08/01/2020, Page 14
ENDNOTES
This section lists for each statement in the report the MMPI-3 score(s) that triggered it. In addition, each
statement is identified as a Test Response, if based on item content, a Correlate, if based on empirical correlates,
or an Inference, if based on the report authors' judgment. (This information can also be accessed on-screen by
placing the cursor on a given statement.) For correlate-based statements, research references (Ref. No.) are
provided, keyed to the consecutively numbered reference list following the endnotes.
1
Correlate: Response % < 90, Ref. 12
2
Test Response: SUI=72
3
Correlate: SUI=72, Ref. 7, 26, 31
4
Correlate: SUI=72, Ref. 4, 7, 20, 21, 30, 31, 32, 42, 45
5
Correlate: SUI=72, Ref. 4, 7, 20, 21, 31, 42, 43, 45
6
Correlate: EID=80, Ref. 7, 25, 33, 45
7
Test Response: RCd=80
8
Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46,
47, 49, 50; RC2=75, Ref. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50
9
Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 7
10
Test Response: HLP=86
11
Correlate: HLP=86, Ref. 45
12
Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 45; HLP=86, Ref. 45
13
Correlate: HLP=86, Ref. 7
14
Test Response: SFD=78
15
Correlate: SFD=78, Ref. 7, 45
16
Test Response: NFC=77
17
Correlate: NFC=77, Ref. 7
18
Correlate: NFC=77, Ref. 10
19
Test Response: RC2=75
20
Correlate: RC2=75, Ref. 15, 40, 45; HLP=86, Ref. 45
21
Correlate: RC2=75, Ref. 7, 45
22
Test Response: NEGE=68
23
Correlate: NEGE=68, Ref. 7
24
Test Response: STR=68
25
Correlate: STR=68, Ref. 7
26
Test Response: WRY=65
27
Correlate: WRY=65, Ref. 7
28
Correlate: WRY=65, Ref. 7; SFD=78, Ref. 7, 45
29
Test Response: RC9=36
30
Correlate: RC9=36, Ref. 7, 45
31
Test Response: SFI=37
32
Test Response: SHY=69
33
Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
34
Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 1, 6, 7, 45
35
Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 6, 7, 10, 19, 30
36
Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 7, 45
37
Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 7, 22, 27, 28, 35, 41, 45, 48; RC2=75, Ref. 7, 22, 27, 28, 35, 41, 45, 48
38
Correlate: NEGE=68, Ref. 3, 7, 39
39
Inference: WRY=65
40
Inference: SHY=69
41
Inference: SUI=72
42
Correlate: RC2=75, Ref. 7
43
Inference: EID=80; RCd=80; NEGE=68
44
Inference: NFC=77
45
Inference: RCd=80
08/01/2020, Page 15
46
Inference: HLP=86
47
Inference: SFD=78
48
Inference: RC2=75
49
Inference: STR=68
08/01/2020, Page 16
RESEARCH REFERENCE LIST

The following studies are sources for empirical correlates identified in the Endnotes section of this report.
1. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Ayearst, L., Quilty, L. C., Chmielewski, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2015).
Associations between DSM-5 Section III personality traits and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory 2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scales in a psychiatric patient sample. Psychological
Assessment, 27(3), 801–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000096
2. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Pymont, C., Smid, W., De Saeger, H., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2015).
Measurement of DSM-5 Section II personality disorder constructs using the MMPI-2-RF in clinical and
forensic samples. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 786–800. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000103
3. Anderson, J. L., Wood, M. E., Tarescavage, A. M., Burchett, D., & Glassmire, D. M. (2018). The role of
dimensional personality psychopathology in a forensic inpatient psychiatric setting. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 32(4), 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_301
4. Anestis, J. C., Finn, J. A., Gottfried, E. D., Hames, J. L., Bodell, L. P., Hagan, C. R., Arnau, R. C., Anestis,
M. D., Arbisi, P. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2018). Burdonesomeness, belongingness, and capability: Assessing the
interpersonal-psychological theory of suicide with MMPI-2-RF scales. Assessment, 25(4), 415–431.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116652227
5. Arbisi, P. A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured
Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 122–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845146
6. Ayearst, L. E., Sellbom, M., Trobst, K. K., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Evaluating the interpersonal content of
the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 95(2), 187–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.730085
7. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3):
Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
8. Binford, A., & Liljequist, L. (2008). Behavioral correlates of selected MMPI-2 Clinical, Content, and
Restructured Clinical scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(6), 608–614.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388657
9. Block, A. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Marek, R. J. (2013). Psychological risk factors for poor outcome of spine
surgery and spinal cord stimulator implant: A review of the literature and their assessment with the
MMPI-2-RF. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(1), 81–107. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.721007
10. Burchett, D. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2010). The impact of over-reporting on MMPI-2-RF substantive
scale score validity. Assessment, 17(4), 497–516. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110378972
11. Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M., Gervais, R. O., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2017). The generalizability of
over-reporting across self-report measures: An investigation with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form and the Personality Assessment Inventory in a civil disability sample.
Assessment, 24(5), 555–574. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621791
12. Dragon, W. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Handel, R. W. (2012). Examining the impact of unscorable item
responses on the validity and interpretability of MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Restructured Clinical (RC) Scale scores.
Assessment, 19(1), 101–113. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111415362
13. Erbes, C. R., Polusny, M. A., Arbisi, P. A., & Koffel, E. (2012). PTSD symptoms in a cohort of National
Guard Soldiers deployed to Iraq: Evidence for nonspecific and specific components. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 142(1–3), 269–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.05.013
08/01/2020, Page 17
14. Finn, J. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2015). Dichotomous versus polytomous response options
in psychopathology assessment: Method or meaningful variance? Psychological Assessment, 27(1),
184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000044
15. Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparison of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and
Clinical Scales in a substance abuse treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4(1), 46–58.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.4.1.46
16. Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC)
Scales in a non-clinical setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(2), 136–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845161
17. Forbey, J. D., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Arbisi, P. A. (2012). The MMPI-2 computer adaptive version
(MMPI-2-CA) in a Veterans Administration medical outpatient facility. Psychological Assessment, 24(3),
628–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026509
18. Forbey, J. D., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Gartland, D. (2009). Validation of the MMPI-2 Computerized Adaptive
version (MMPI-2-CA) in a correctional intake facility. Psychological Services, 6(4), 279–292.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016195
19. Forbey, J. D., Lee, T. T. C., & Handel, R. W. (2010). Correlates of the MMPI-2-RF in a college setting.
Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 737–744. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020645
20. Glassmire, D. M, Tarescavage, A. M., Burchett, D., Martinez, J., & Gomez, A. (2016). Clinical utility of the
MMPI-2-RF SUI items and scale in a forensic inpatient setting: Association with interview self-reports and
future suicidal behavior. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1502–1509. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000220
21. Gottfried, E., Bodell, L., Carbonell, J., & Joiner, T. (2014). The clinical utility of the MMPI-2-RF
Suicidal/Death Ideation Scale. Psychological Assessment, 26(4), 1205–1211.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000017
22. Haber, J. C., & Baum, L. J. (2014). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form
(MMPI-2-RF) Scales as predictors of psychiatric diagnoses. South African Journal of Psychology, 44(4),
439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246314532788
23. Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (2008). An investigation of the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2
Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with mental health inpatients. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3),
239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701884954
24. Kamphuis, J. H., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & McNulty, J. L. (2008). Detecting comorbid Axis-II
status among inpatients using the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 24, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.3.157
25. Lanyon, R. I., & Thomas, M. L. (2013). Assessment of global psychiatric categories: The PSI/PSI-2 and
the MMPI-2-RF. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 227–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030313
26. Laurinaityte, I., Laurinavicius, A., Ustinaviciute, L., Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M. (2017). Utility of the
MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in a sample of Lithuanian male offenders. Law and Human
Behavior, 41(5), 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000254
27. Lee, T. T. C., Graham, J. R., & Arbisi, P. A. (2018). The utility of MMPI-2-RF scale scores in the
differential diagnosis of schizophrenia and major depressive disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment,
100(3), 305–312. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1300906
08/01/2020, Page 18
28. McCord, D. M., & Drerup, L. C. (2011). Relative practical utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 Restructured Clinical Scales versus the Clinical Scales in a chronic pain patient sample. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(1), 140–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.495056
29. McDevitt-Murphy, M. E., Weathers, F. W., Flood, A. M., Eakin, D. E., & Benson, T. A. (2007). The utility
of the PAI and the MMPI-2 for discriminating PTSD, depression, and social phobia in trauma-exposed
college students. Assessment, 14(2), 181–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106295914
30. Menton, W. H., Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M., Marek, R. J., Hicks, A. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S.
(2019). Equivalence of laptop and tablet administrations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
Restructured Form. Assessment, 26(4), 661–669. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117714558
31. Miller, S. N., Bozzay, M. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Arbisi, P. A. (2019). Distinguishing levels of suicide risk
in depressed male veterans: The role of internalizing and externalizing psychopathology as measured by the
MMPI-2-RF. Assessment, 26(1), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117743787
32. Rogers, M. L., Anestis, J. C., Harrop, T. M., Schneider, M., Bender, T. W., Ringer, F. B., & Joiner, T. E.
(2017). Examination of MMPI-2-RF substantive scales as indicators of acute suicidal affective disturbance
components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(4), 424–434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1222393
33. Romero, I. E., Toorabally, N., Burchett, D., Tarescavage, A. M., & Glassmire, D. M. (2017). Mapping the
MMPI-2-RF substantive scales onto, internalizing, externalizing, and thought dysfunction dimensions in a
forensic inpatient setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(4), 351–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1223681
34. Sellbom, M., Anderson, J. L., & Bagby, R. M. (2013). Assessing DSM-5 Section III personality traits and
disorders with the MMPI-2-RF. Assessment, 20(6), 709–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113508808
35. Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Kushner, S., Quilty, L. C., & Ayearst, L. E. (2011). Diagnostic construct
validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scale scores. Assessment, 19(2), 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111428763
36. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). On the hierarchical structure of mood and anxiety
disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of temperament markers. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 117(3), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012536
37. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical
(RC) Scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(1), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_10
38. Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. W. (2006). Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured
Clinical (RC) Scales in a private practice sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86(2), 196–205.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8602_09
39. Sellbom, M., & Smith, A. (2017). Assessment of DSM-5 Section II personality disorders with the
MMPI-2-RF in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(4), 384–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1242074
40. Shkalim, E. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of the MMPI-2/MMPI-2-RF Restructured Clinical Scales in
an Israeli sample. Assessment, 22(4), 607–618. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114555884
41. Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B. N. (2005). Psychometric evaluation
of the Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2. Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 345–358.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.345
08/01/2020, Page 19
42. Stanley, I. H., Yancey, J. R., Patrick, C. J., & Joiner, T. E. (2018). A distinct configuration of MMPI-2-RF
scales RCd and RC9/ACT is associated with suicide attempt risk among suicide ideators in a psychiatric
outpatient sample. Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1249–1254. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000588
43. Tarescavage, A. M., Glassmire, D. M., & Burchett, D. (2018). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form markers of future suicidal behavior in a forensic psychiatric hospital.
Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000463
44. Tarescavage, A. M., Scheman, J., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2015). Reliability and validity of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in evaluations of chronic low back pain
patients. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 433–446. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000056
45. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
46. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, M., Arbisi, P. A., McNulty, J. L., & Graham, J. R. (2006).
Further evidence on the validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Addressing questions
raised by Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, and Jordan and Nichols. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87,(2),
148–171. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_04
47. Vachon, D. D., Sellbom, M., Ryder, A. G., Miller, J. D., & Bagby, R. M. (2009). A five-factor model
description of depressive personality disorder. Journal of Personality Disorders, 23(5), 447–465.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.5.447
48. Van der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I. M., Rossi, G. M. P., Grundel, G., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2013). The
MMPI-2-Restructured Form and the standard MMPI-2 Clinical Scales in relation to DSM-IV. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000140
49. Wolf, E. J., Miller, M. W., Orazem, R. J., Weierich, M. R., Castillo, D. T., Milford, J., Kaloupek, D. G., &
Keane, T. M. (2008). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales in the assessment of posttraumatic stress
disorder and comorbid disorders. Psychological Assessment, 20(4), 327–340.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012948
50. Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. I., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Kelly, P. H., & Rupp, W. M. (2007).
Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates.
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14(3), 197–205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-007-9073-8
End of Report
08/01/2020, Page 20
ITEM RESPONSES
1. 2 2. 1 3. 2 4. 2 5. 1 6. 2 7. 2 8. 2 9. 2 10. 1
11. 2 12. 2 13. 2 14. 1 15. 2 16. 1 17. 1 18. 2 19. 2 20. 2
21. 1 22. 1 23. 1 24. 1 25. 2 26. 1 27. 1 28. 2 29. 1 30. 1
31. 2 32. 1 33. 2 34. 2 35. 2 36. 2 37. / 38. 1 39. 2 40. 1
41. 2 42. 1 43. 2 44. 1 45. 1 46. 2 47. 2 48. 1 49. 1 50. 1
51. 2 52. / 53. 2 54. 1 55. 2 56. 1 57. 2 58. 1 59. 1 60. 2
61. 1 62. 2 63. 1 64. 1 65. 1 66. 2 67. / 68. 1 69. 1 70. 2
71. 2 72. 1 73. 2 74. 2 75. 1 76. 2 77. 2 78. 1 79. 2 80. 1
81. 2 82. 2 83. 2 84. 2 85. 1 86. 1 87. 1 88. 1 89. 1 90. 1
91. 2 92. 2 93. 1 94. 2 95. 1 96. 2 97. 1 98. 1 99. 1 100. 2
101. 2 102. 1 103. 2 104. 1 105. 2 106. 2 107. 1 108. 1 109. 2 110. 2
111. 2 112. 1 113. 1 114. 1 115. 1 116. 2 117. 1 118. 1 119. 2 120. 1
121. 1 122. 2 123. 1 124. 2 125. 1 126. 2 127. 1 128. 1 129. 2 130. 2
131. 2 132. 1 133. 2 134. 1 135. 2 136. 2 137. 2 138. 1 139. 2 140. 1
141. 1 142. 2 143. 2 144. 1 145. / 146. 2 147. 2 148. 2 149. 2 150. 2
151. 1 152. 1 153. 2 154. 1 155. 2 156. 1 157. 1 158. 1 159. 2 160. 2
161. 2 162. 1 163. 2 164. 2 165. 2 166. 2 167. 2 168. 2 169. 1 170. 2
171. 1 172. 1 173. 2 174. 2 175. / 176. 2 177. 1 178. 2 179. 2 180. 2
181. 2 182. 2 183. 1 184. 1 185. 2 186. 1 187. 1 188. 2 189. 2 190. 2
191. 2 192. 1 193. / 194. 2 195. 1 196. 1 197. / 198. 1 199. 1 200. 2
201. 1 202. 2 203. 2 204. 1 205. 2 206. 1 207. 2 208. 2 209. 2 210. 1
211. 2 212. 2 213. 1 214. 1 215. 1 216. 2 217. 2 218. 2 219. 2 220. 2
221. 1 222. / 223. 2 224. 1 225. 1 226. 1 227. 1 228. 1 229. 1 230. 2
231. 2 232. 2 233. 2 234. 2 235. 1 236. 2 237. 1 238. 1 239. 2 240. 2
241. 2 242. 2 243. 1 244. 2 245. 2 246. 2 247. 1 248. 2 249. 1 250. 2
251. 2 252. 1 253. 2 254. 2 255. 2 256. 1 257. 2 258. 2 259. 2 260. 1
261. 2 262. 2 263. 1 264. 2 265. 1 266. 2 267. 2 268. / 269. 2 270. 2
271. 2 272. 1 273. 2 274. 1 275. 2 276. 2 277. 2 278. 1 279. 2 280. /
281. 2 282. 2 283. 1 284. 2 285. 2 286. 1 287. 2 288. 1 289. 2 290. 2
291. / 292. 2 293. / 294. 2 295. 2 296. 1 297. 1 298. 1 299. 1 300. 1
301. 2 302. 2 303. 1 304. 1 305. 2 306. 2 307. 1 308. 2 309. 1 310. /
311. 2 312. 2 313. 1 314. 2 315. 1 316. 2 317. 2 318. 1 319. 2 320. 2
321. 2 322. 1 323. 2 324. 1 325. 1 326. 2 327. 2 328. 1 329. 2 330. 2
331. 1 332. 2 333. 1 334. 1 335. 1

Mmpi 3 Sample Interpretive Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mmpi 3 Sample Interpretive Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mmpi 3 Sample Interpretive Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

®

Case Description: Mr. J. – Outpatient, Community Mental Health Center

[ 1.0 / RE1 / QG1 ]

MMPI-3 Validity Scales

120 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

--- --- ---

Cannot Say (Raw): 13

CRIN Combined Response Inconsistency F Infrequent Responses L Uncommon Virtues

MMPI-3 Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales

Higher-Order Restructured Clinical

100 --- ---

Response %: 95 100 100 100 100 93 100 93 100 100 100

EID Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction RCd Demoralization RC6 Ideas of Persecution

MMPI-3 Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction and Internalizing Scales

MLS Malaise SUI Suicidal/Death Ideation WRY Worry

MMPI-3 Externalizing and Interpersonal Scales

40 --- --- --- ---

Response %: 80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 89 57 78 100

FML Family Problems ACT Activation SFI Self-Importance

MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales

Response %: 93 100 100 93 86

MMPI-3 T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)

Behavioral Dysfunction 44 55 59* 48 58

Interpersonal Functioning 37 34* 31 58* 55* 69

SUBSTANTIVE SCALE INTERPRETATION

Interpersonal Functioning Scales

Areas for Further Evaluation

Psychotherapy Process Issues

Possible Targets for Treatment

Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI, T Score = 72)

Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP, T Score = 86)

282. Item content omitted. (False, 22.0%)

User-Designated Item-Level Information

Demoralization (RCd, T Score = 80)

Low Positive Emotions (RC2, T Score = 75)

Self-Doubt (SFD, T Score = 78)

Inefficacy (NFC, T Score = 77)

Stress (STR, T Score = 68)

Worry (WRY, T Score = 65)

Shyness (SHY, T Score = 69)

Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (NEGE, T Score = 68)

RESEARCH REFERENCE LIST

45. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.