评估明尼苏达多相人格调查表第二版（MMPI - 2）与明尼苏达多相人格调查表（MMPI）剖面图的相似性：对达尔斯特伦和汉弗莱的回应。
Evaluating the similarity of MMPI-2 and MMPI profiles: reply to Dahlstrom and Humphrey.
作者信息
Tellegen A, Ben-Porath Y S
机构信息
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.
出版信息
J Pers Assess. 1996 Jun;66(3):640-4. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa6603_11.
We review issues that have arisen in exchanges with Dahlstrom and Humphrey (Dahlstrom & Humphrey, 1996; Humphrey & Dahlstrom, 1995) about assessing the comparability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) and the MMPI. We point out the limitations of Q correlations (without contending that D(2) is "the only legitimate function of profile comparability," as Dahlstrom and Humphrey, 1996, p. 350, claim we do), and explain why Dahlstrom and Humphrey's (1996) new Q-correlational results, correctly interpreted, are consistent with our own previous observations and conclusions. We stress again the importance of both overall profile elevation and profile "definition" in making code-type assignments. Nonrestrictive code types ignore these profile characteristics, and their use needlessly lowers MMPI-2/MMPI code-type congruences and raises the incidence of profile misinterpretations. Our recommendation of well-defined MMPI-2 code types stands.
我们回顾了在与达尔斯特伦和汉弗莱（达尔斯特伦与汉弗莱，1996；汉弗莱与达尔斯特伦，1995）交流过程中出现的一些问题，这些问题涉及对明尼苏达多相人格调查表第二版（MMPI - 2）和明尼苏达多相人格调查表（MMPI）可比性的评估。我们指出了Q相关性的局限性（并非像达尔斯特伦和汉弗莱在1996年第350页所声称的那样，认为我们主张D(2)是“剖面图可比性的唯一合理函数”），并解释了为何达尔斯特伦和汉弗莱（1996）新的Q相关结果，若正确解读，与我们之前的观察和结论是一致的。我们再次强调在进行编码类型赋值时，总体剖面图高度和剖面图“清晰度”两者的重要性。非限定性编码类型忽略了这些剖面图特征，它们的使用不必要地降低了MMPI - 2/MMPI编码类型的一致性，并增加了剖面图误判的发生率。我们对定义明确的MMPI - 2编码类型的推荐仍然有效。
Zotero 插件