Ben-Porath Y S, Tellegen A
Department of Psychology, Kent State University, OH 44242-0001, USA.
J Pers Assess. 1995 Aug;65(1):52-8. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6501_4.
Humphrey and Dahlstrom (1995) presented a study on the comparability of MMPI/MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) profiles in which they concluded that "the bases for clinical interpretation derived from the MMPI and MMPI-2 profiles were sufficiently at variance to require different conclusions" [sic] (p. 2). In this brief critique, we identify procedural and data-analytical deficiencies that invalidate Humphrey and Dahlstrom's argument. Their blanket recommendation based on this argument, namely, that clinicians routinely plot both MMPI and MMPI-2 profiles, is unwarranted.
汉弗莱和达尔斯特伦（1995年）发表了一项关于明尼苏达多相人格测验（MMPI）/明尼苏达多相人格测验第二版（MMPI-2）（布彻、达尔斯特伦、格雷厄姆、泰勒根和凯默，1989年）剖面图可比性的研究，他们在该研究中得出结论称，“从MMPI和MMPI-2剖面图得出的临床解释依据差异足够大，需要得出不同的结论” [原文如此]（第2页）。在这篇简短的评论中，我们指出了程序和数据分析方面的缺陷，这些缺陷使汉弗莱和达尔斯特伦的论点无效。基于这一论点，他们提出的笼统建议，即临床医生常规绘制MMPI和MMPI-2剖面图，是没有根据的。
