FAQ: The Minnesota Report

Question: What is the Minnesota Report?

Answer: The Minnesota Report is a computer based interpretation system for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A for psychologists. The Minnesota Report is essentially an “electronic textbook” or resource guide that provides the most likely test interpretations for a particular set of MMPI-2 or MMPI-A scores in a particular setting.

Back to Top

 

Question: Why are there different settings for the Minnesota Report? Do the reports differ for the various settings? What information is used to develop different personality interpretations?

Answer: There are several setting specific versions of the Minnesota Report for several reasons:

•  The nature and goals of a psychological evaluation differ according to the reason for referral; for example, in clinical settings clinical diagnosis and treatment potential are important considerations while these are not goals in personnel or forensic settings.

•  The client is likely to approach the assessment task very differently in each of these different settings. Thus, the assessment of protocol validity differs according to setting.

•  The typical performance on the scales and indices of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A differ somewhat by type of application. Therefore, the base rates of scores vary according to setting. More specifically, interpretations can be made for MMPI scores if the frequency of typical performance is included in the analysis. For example in correctional facilities there is a high rate of Pd scale elevations and in medical settings Hs and Hy are more prominent.

•  The reports will vary in terms of information provided, relative performance on the different indices, and research information available for each setting. In addition, different scale-behavioral correlates can be found in different settings. For example, the association between scale the Pd and Sc scales and aggressive acting out behavior are more prominent in correctional settings than in medical settings.

Back to Top

 

Question: What are the applied psychology settings in which the Minnesota Report is used?

Answer: There are four major interpretive systems:

1) MMPI-2 The Minnesota Report: Adult Clinical System-Revised, 4th Edition Revised 2005

The Minnesota Report has been an effective, efficient diagnostic and treatment planning tool for over 20 years. It has recently been updated to a 4th edition. The Adult Clinical System provides clinicians with assessment information for a variety of mental health settings.

This comprehensive interpretive report series provides clinicians with the information for efficient diagnostic confirmation and effective treatment planning for the following mental health settings:

• Outpatient Mental Health
• Inpatient Mental Health
• General Medical
• Chronic Pain
• Correctional
• College Counseling
• Alcohol and Drug Treatment

Cardinal features

• Profile frequency and profile stability narrative sections give setting-specific comparative data, helping to place the client's profile in the right perspective for treatment planning.
• A detailed summary of likely behavioral correlates are provided.
• Response percentages for each scale help the clinician understand the impact of item omissions for a more accurate interpretation.
• The comprehensive interpretive report series includes base rate information 40,000 mental health cases.
• Critical item response percentages help put client endorsements in the appropriate context.

Report Format

The reports are tailored for seven different mental health settings with the following narrative sections to help clinicians better understand, compare, and evaluate an individual's profile:

• Profile Validity
• Symptomatic Patterns
• Profile Frequency
• Profile Stability
• Interpersonal Relations
• Diagnostic Considerations
• Treatment Considerations

The MMPI-2 Adult Clinical System reports also include the following:

• Validity Pattern Profile (graph)
• Clinical and Supplementary Scales
• Profile (graph)
• Content Scales Profile (graph)
• Critical Items
• Omitted Items
• Item Responses

2) The MMPI-2 Personnel Report contains two separate reports:

•  The MMPI-2 Minnesota Personnel Report (3rd Edition)

The following MMPI-2 scales are included in the report:

In addition, the report compares the profile data to data from occupation-specific research samples and provides occupation-specific mean profiles. The occupations that are considered in the interpretation are:

The narrative report contains the following sections: Profile Validity, Personal Adjustment, Interpersonal Relations, Profile Frequency, Contemporary Personnel Base Rate Information, Profile Stability, Possible Employment Problems, Content Themes, and Work Dysfunction Items.

•  The Minnesota Report: Revised Personnel System, 3rd Edition Adjustment Rating Report

In addition to providing the clinical and content scale profiles, other scored variables and the WRK items, the Adjustment Rating report provides a rating of the applicant on five important work-related dimensions:

Openness to Evaluation
Social Facility
Addiction Potential
Stress Tolerance
Overall Adjustment

Incorporates the following MMPI-2 scales:

3) The MMPI-2 Minnesota Forensic Report

The Minnesota Report: Reports for Forensic Settings
The forensic report includes the following MMPI-2 scales:

Lists of omitted items and Gass Head Injury items (Personal Injury Neurological setting only) are also provided.

In addition, this report series is customized for six forensic settings. Each of the reports provides an objective narrative assessment of your client's responses and compares the profile data to data from setting-specific research samples. Frequency of MMPI-2 patterns in large samples of forensic cases provide base rate comparisons. The settings are:

The narrative includes the following sections: Profile Validity, Symptomatic Patterns, Profile Frequency, Profile Stability, Interpersonal Relations, Mental Health Considerations, and Setting-Specific Considerations.

4) The MMPI-A Clinical Interpretive Report

This Report was developed by: James N. Butcher and Carolyn Williams

The Minnesota Report: Adolescent System Interpretive Report. This report provides a comprehensive psychological picture of the adolescent. It presents the following MMPI-A scales:

In addition, the report provides an objective narrative assessment of the adolescent's responses and compares the profile data to data from other samples. The settings that are considered in the interpretation are:

The narrative report contains the following sections: Validity Considerations, Symptomatic Behavior, Interpersonal Relations, Behavioral Stability, Diagnostic Considerations, and Treatment Considerations.

Back to Top

 

Question: Is there an educational or reading level requirement that a client should have for the Minnesota Report to be an appropriate interpretive evaluation?

Answer: The reading level requirement for the MMPI-2 (sixth grade) applies equally well with the Minnesota Report.

However, the Minnesota Report includes some narrative statements that are triggered by education level. Thus, clients at a lower level of education will likely obtain a somewhat different narrative report than those at higher levels of education.

Back to Top

 

Question: Are there different norms used for the different settings?

Answer: There are different norms used for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. The normative sample of the MMPI-2 consists of 2,600 individuals, age 18 or older, who were selected as a representative sample of Americans.

The three Minnesota Reports for adults (Adult Clinical System, Forensic, and Personnel Reports use the same normative sample. However, in some settings (Personnel) data on specific personnel applications are also provided. In all settings, there are specific frequency data provided to aid in the interpretation of the report by providing an empirical perspective with which to compare profiles.

The MMPI-A norms that are used for adolescents were obtained on a national sample of adolescents between 14-18 years of age. There were 805 boys and 815 girls from 8 regions of the United States.

Back to Top

 

Question: Do any of the Minnesota Reports contain non-gendered norms?

Answer: The Non-gendered T scores appear in the Revised Personnel System, 3rd Edition Reports and the Reports for Forensic Settings. It is possible to suppress the non-gendered T scores in printing these reports. For further information see:

Ben-Porath, Y. S. and Forbey, J. D. (2003). Non-gendered Norms for the MMPI-2 . Minneapolis , MN.: University of Minnesota Press.

Back to Top

 

Question: Has the Minnesota Report been shown to be valid in research?

Answer: The Minnesota Report Adult Clinical System has been used widely since its publication in 1982. Moreland and Onstad (1985) have shown that the report accurately depicted client's personality characteristics and clinical problems. These researchers had clinicians rate Minnesota Report narratives with control reports finding that the client reports were rated more accurate than the control reports. In a more comprehensive comparative study, Eyde et al. (1987, 1991) and Fishburne et al. (1988) reported on an extensive evaluation of seven computer-based MMPI reports. The MMPI answer sheets for six patients three of whom were black and three white, were submitted to seven commercial computerized reporting services. The computer-based reports were then compared for accuracy. The reports were separated into their component statements and coded, the statements from the various reports were intermixed, and clinicians familiar with the cases were asked to rate the accuracy of the statements. The Minnesota Report was consistently found to be the most accurate of the seven MMPI clinical reports compared in the study. In an other study of the capability of the Minnesota Report at detecting malingered test protocols, Shores and Carstairs, (1998) found that the Minnesota Report printouts successfully detected fake-bad protocols 100% of the time and fake-good profiles 94% of the time. The effectiveness of the Minnesota Clinical Report has also been evaluated in international clinical applications. Butcher, Berah, et al (1998) evaluated the utility of the Minnesota Report in Australia , Norway , France , and the United States . Clients in diverse mental health settings were computer evaluated with the MMPI-2 (translated versions were used in Norway and France ) and the answer sheets were scored and interpreted by the Minnesota Report. The clinicians were provided a printout of their client's protocol and asked to rate the accuracy the various components of the report at depicting the problems of the patient. The clinicians participating in the study were asked to rate the information provided by each MMPI-2 narrative using the following descriptors: Insufficient, Some, Adequate, More than Adequate, and Extensive. The reports were thought be highly accurate.

 

References:

Butcher, J. N., Berah, E., Ellertsen, B., Miach, P., Lim, J., Nezami, E., Pancheri, P., Derksen, J. & Almagor, M. (1998). Objective Personality Assessment: Computer-based MMPI-2 Interpretation in International Clinical Settings. In C. Belar (Ed). Comprehensive clinical psychology: Sociocultural and individual differences. New York : Elsevier. (pp 277-312)

Eyde, L., Kowal, D., & Fishburne, J. (1991). In T. B. Gutkin & S. L. Wise (Eds.), The computer and the decision-making process (pp. 75-123). Hillsdale , NJ : LEA Press.

Fishburne, J., Eyde, L., & Kowal, D. (1988). Computer-based test interpretations of the MMPI with neurologically impaired patients. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta .

Moreland, K. L., & Onstad, J. (1985, March). Validity of the Minnesota Clinical Report I. MENTAL health outpatients. Paper presented at the 20th annual symposium on recent developments in the use of the MMPI, Honolulu .

Shores, A. & Carstairs, J. R. (1998). Accuracy of the MMPI-2 computerized Minnesota Report in identifying fake-good and fake-bad response sets. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 101-106.

Williams, J. E., & Weed, N. C. (2004). Review of computer-based test interpretation software for the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83 , 78-83

Back to Top

 

Question: Can the Minnesota Report computer printout serve as a complete and independent psychological report on a client?

Answer: No, as noted on each report, the statements contained in the narrative represent a professional-to-professional consultation and do not serve as an independent or “stand alone” report. The statements represent a “best estimate” or the most likely write-up for a given profile pattern. The information provided in the Report is analogous to an “electronic or reference textbook.”

The narrative report is based on objectively derived scale indices and scale interpretations that have been developed in diverse groups of patients. The computer simply references the extensive research literature on the MMPI-2 scores and indexes, evaluates the particular pattern of scores that a client produces, and locates in the data base the most pertinent personality and symptomatic information from the research literature. This MMPI-2 interpretation can serve as a useful source of hypotheses about clients.

Back to Top

 

Question: How are Minnesota Report narratives used in clinical evaluations?

Answer: The practitioner is encouraged to review the narratives and the particular scores of the client and determine if the protocol is an appropriate match for the client. The narrative descriptions are considered to be important hypotheses to incorporate into the client's report and used in the case evaluation. In many cases, the narrative report will provide a valuable “second opinion” about the essential features of the patient in the clinical evaluation.

Back to Top

 

Question: Are the interpretations in Minnesota Reports actuarial statements?

Answer: The information contained in the interpretive reports are data-based personality descriptions. The personality symptoms and descriptions have been reported in the research literature in numerous studies.

Back to Top

 

Question: How does the Minnesota Report deal with invalid records?

Answer: The Minnesota Reports are designed to interpret only protocols that meet well established validity criteria. Invalid protocols are dealt with in two ways: Extremely elevated and clearly invalid records are not interpreted but the record is provided along with graphs that are clearly marked INVALID. Protocols that are possibly invalid (e.g. overly defensive or exaggerated) are discussed in a section in the report called VALIDITY CONSIDERATIONS. The utility of the particular evaluation is described and estimated contingent upon the level of performance on all the validity scales. The cut-offs for different settings will vary depending upon the research available.

Back to Top

 

Question: Can the Minnesota Report be used in situations where the client has been administered the test in uncontrolled settings, such as taking the MMPI-2 at home?

Answer: No. The MMPI-2 should only be completed in a controlled environment and monitored in order to assure that the client has taken the test under appropriate conditions. Therefore, the results of the Minnesota Report may be invalid in this situation.

Back to Top

 

Question: Should the patient be given a copy of his/her Minnesota Report to keep for their records?

Answer: The information contained in these reports should be used only by trained and qualified test interpreters. The information in the reports is technical and was developed to aid professional interpretation. They were not designed or intended to be provided directly to clients. The reports contain trade secrets and are not to be released in response to requests under HIPAA (or any other data disclosure law that exempts trade-secret information from release). Further, release in response to litigation discovery demands should be made only in accordance with profession's ethical guidelines and under an appropriate protective order.

Back to Top

 

Question: How are the MMPI-2/MMPI-A scales or variables selected for inclusion into the Minnesota Report? Why are some scales, such as the Lees-Haley Scale and the Restructured clinical Scales, that are available not included in the Report?

Answer: Scales are only included in the Reports when they have a sufficient research base and an established interpretive contribution to make.

The Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale. This measure was not included in the Minnesota Report because it tends to over predict malingering (See discussions by Arbisi & Butcher, 2004; Bury and Bagby, 2002; Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003; Rogers , 2003). The FBS scale is comprised of a large number of actual physical symptoms that appear on clinical scales such as Hs and Hy and on the content scale HEA and appears to disadvantage clients in mental health settings who have a somatic element to their clinical picture. Consequently, people with physical problems or with somatoform symptoms will likely be viewed by the FBS as “malingering.” The FBS is used mostly by defense oriented forensic psychologists because of the likelihood of finding “malingering.”

References:

Arbisi, P. A. & Butcher, J. N. (2004). Failure of the FBS to predict malingering of somatic symptoms: Response to critiques by Greve and Bianchini and Lees Haley and Fox. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. Vol 19 (3), 341-345.

Arbisi, P. A. & Butcher, J. N. (2004). Psychometric perspectives on detection of malingering of pain: The use of the MMPI-2. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 20, 383-398.

Bury, A. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2002). The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims. Psychological Assessment. Vol 14(4), 472-484.

Butcher, J. N., Arbisi, P. A., Atlis, M., & McNulty, J. (2003). The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale (FBS): Does this scale measure malingering and feigned emotional distress? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychiatry.18, 473-485.

Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (in press). The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court (3rd edition). Washington D.C. : American Psychological Association.

Rogers, R. (2003). Forensic use and abuse of psychological tests: Multiscale inventories. Journal of Psychiatric Practice, 9(4) , 316-320.

 

The Restructured Clinical Scales or RC scales

The RC Scales, created by Tellegen and reported in Tellegen et al. (2003), were designed to capture major distinctive core components of the clinical scales. It is my opinion that not enough information is available as to the relationships of the RC scales to the clinical scales, content scales, and supplemental scales to be effective in clinical interpretation at this time (see discussions by Butcher, 2005; Nichols, 2005). In addition, the RC scales have not been tested out in many settings in which the MMPI-2 is widely used such as health care, chronic pain, correctional, college counseling, etc, thus their use in these settings is unknown.

References

Butcher, J. N. (Ed.).(2005). MMPI-2: A practitioner's guide. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Butcher, J. N. (2005). MMPI-2: A beginner's guide (Second Edition). Washington DC : The American Psychological Association.

Nichols, D. S. (2005, March). The MMPI-2: Contemporary and Perennial Issues . Workshop given at the Midwinter Meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment. Chicago , Ill.

Ozonoff, S., Garcia, N., Clark, E., & Lainhart, J.E. (2005).  MMPI-2 personality profiles of high-functioning adults with Autism Spectrum Disorders.  Assessment, 12, 86-95.

Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (in press). The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court (3rd edition). Washington D.C. : American Psychological Association.

Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Graham, J.R.  (In Press).  Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a college counseling setting.  Journal of Personality Assessment.

Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Graham, J.R., Arbisi, P.A., & Bagby, R.M. (2005).  Susceptibility of the MMPI-2 Clinical, Restructured Clinical (RC), and Content Scales to overreporting and underreporting.  Assessment, 12, 79-85.

Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., & Graham, J. R. (in press). Assessing Psychopathic Personality Traits with the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment.

Sellbom & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (in press). Mapping the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales onto Normal Personality Traits: Evidence of Construct Validity. Journal of Personality Assessment.

Simms, L.J., Casillas, AAA., Clark, L.A. , Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B.I., (In Press).  Psychometric Evaluation of the Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2.  Psychological Assessment.

Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Development, Validation, and Interpretation . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.

Wallace, A., & Liljequist, L. (In Press).  A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales.  Assessment.

Back to Top

 

Question: Does the Minnesota Report use non-K corrected scores for interpretations?

Answer: The Minnesota Report uses K corrected scores for interpretation because these variables have the broadest clinical validation supporting their use. The non-K corrected scores have not been sufficiently validated at this time to warrant inclusion in the interpretive report.

With the development of the K scale as a means of detecting and correcting for defensiveness on the MMPI-2 (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946) K corrected T scores have been used in most clinical applications and research on the MMPI. Although, the K correction has added little to the discrimination of psychological problems it has continued to be used—even after the revision of the test in 1989 (Butcher, et al., 1989) because the research base on the clinical scales has largely incorporated K corrected scores. Even though several authors have suggested that researchers build a non K corrected data base in future research (Butcher & Tellegen, 1978; Butcher, Graham, & Ben-Porath, 1995) it is my view that the research on non K corrected scores has not provided a sufficient data base to replace the K corrected scales in interpretation.

References

Barthlow, D. L., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., & McNulty, J. L. (2002). The appropriateness of the MMPI-2 K correction. Assessment. Vol 9(3), 219-229.

Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.

Butcher, J. N., & Tellegen, A. (1978). MMPI research: Methodological problems and some current issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 620-628.

Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). Methodological problems and issues in MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 320-329.

Butcher, J. N. (Ed.).(2005). MMPI-2: A practitioner's guide. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.

Butcher, J. N. (2005). MMPI-2: A beginner's guide (Second Edition). Washington DC : The American Psychological Association.

Meehl, P.E., & Hathaway, S.R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30 , 525 - 564.

Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (in press). The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court (3rd edition). Washington D.C. : American Psychological Association.

 

Question: Has the Minnesota Report been translated into other languages?

Answer: Yes, the Minnesota Clinical Report has been translated into Dutch and adapted for use in the Netherlands and Belgium. For information contact:

Dr. Theo Bogels:
Postbus 38036
6503 AA Nijmegen
Netherlands

tbogels@psyline.nl or directie@eqiq.nl

Back to Top

 

Question: Who is qualified to Use the Minnesota Report?

Answer: NOTE the following information is printed on each report: The personality descriptions, inferences, and recommendations contained herein need to be verified by other sources of clinical information because individual clients may not fully match the prototype. The information in this report should most appropriately be used by a trained qualified test interpreter.

Back to Top

 

Question: Where can I find further information about the Minnesota Report?

Answer: The User's Guides for the Minnesota Report is available from Pearson-NCS Assessments.

Butcher, J. N. (2005). User's guide for the Minnesota Clinical Report.(4 th Edition). Minneapolis , MN : Pearson Assessments.

Butcher, J.N. (2002). User's guide to the Minnesota Report: Revised Personnel Report (3 rd Edition). Minneapolis , MN : National Computer Systems.

Butcher, et al. (1997). User's guide to the Minnesota Report: Forensic System. Minneapolis , MN : National Computer Systems.

Butcher, J. N. & Williams, C. L. (1992). User's guide for the Minnesota Adolescent Clinical Report . Minneapolis , MN : National Computer Systems.

 

Contact Persons, in the United States:

www.pearsonassessments.com

Order by phone: 1-800-627-7271
Order by fax: 1-800-632-9011

Questions about the Minnesota Report and Pearson Assessments may be addressed to Krista Isakson, MMPI Product Manager, Pearson Assessments: Krista.Isakson@pearson.com

Contact Persons, in Australia:

Dr. Wally Howe

Psychological Assessments Australia Pty Ltd
PO Box 27 , Jannali NSW 2226
Suite 2 , 96-100 Railway Parade, Jannali NSW 2226
ACN: 079 496 709, ABN: 83 723 585 887
Tel: (02) 9589 0011 Fax: (02) 9589 0063

wally@psychassessments.com.au

Contact Persons, in Canada:

Hazel Weldon
Multi-Health Systems Inc. (MHS)
3770 Victoria Park Ave.
Toronto , ON M2H 3M6
(416) 492.2627 Ext. 330
Fax: (416) 492-3343


https://www.mhs.com/ecom/CLNproduct.asp?Cou=CAN&AppGrpID=CLN&RptGrpID=MR2&Su

Contact Persons, in England :

stephanie.wright@mhs.com

Contact Persons, in Holland :

Dr. Theo J.P.M. Bögels
Postbus 38036
6503 AA Nijmegen
Netherlands

tbogels@psyline.nl or directie@eqiq.nl

Back to Top

 

rectie@eqiq.nl">directie@eqiq.nl

Back to Top