Butcher James N, Hamilton Cassia K, Rouse Steven V, Cumella Edward J
Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, N-218 EHH 3281, 75 East River Road, Minneapolis, 55455, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2006 Oct;87(2):186-92. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_08.
The MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) Clinical Scales have a long history in psychological assessment. Recently, Tellegen et al. (2003) conducted a series of analyses to restructure the scales to reduce what they considered to be problems that limit scale functioning. In a critique of the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales published in this issue, Nichols (2006/this issue) questions a number of aspects of the approach Tellegen et al. took including their theoretical assumptions, methods of analysis, and failures to report important information needed for scale evaluation such as relationships with existing scales. We concur with many points raised by Nichols. In our analysis of the performance of the RC3 scale, we found that it has "drifted" so far from the original Hy scale as to be a completely different measure- a scale of cynical attitudes that is already well represented in existing MMPI-2 measures. In this article, we take these concerns a step further and examine the history and construct validity of the Hy scale in evaluating the somatic expression of problems that the original authors (McKinley & Hathaway, 1944) intended. We also include new information from a medical setting, an application not represented in Tellegen et al.'s RC Scale monograph. In agreement with Rogers et al. (2006/this issue), it is our conclusion that some RC Scales do not represent the measurement domain of the original scales and should not be relied on for or used to refine traditional interpretation, particularly in medical or forensic situations (such as personal injury cases) because of their confusing and conflicting results.
明尼苏达多相人格问卷第二版（MMPI - 2；Butcher、Dahlstrom、Graham、Tellegen和Kaemmer，1989）临床量表在心理评估领域有着悠久的历史。最近，Tellegen等人（2003）进行了一系列分析，旨在对这些量表进行重新构建，以减少他们认为限制量表功能的问题。在对本期发表的重构临床（RC）量表的一篇评论中，Nichols（2006/本期）对Tellegen等人所采用方法的多个方面提出了质疑，包括他们的理论假设、分析方法，以及未能报告量表评估所需的重要信息，如与现有量表的关系。我们认同Nichols提出的许多观点。在我们对RC3量表性能的分析中，我们发现它已经从最初的癔症（Hy）量表“漂移”得如此之远，以至于成为了一种完全不同的测量工具——一种愤世嫉俗态度的量表，而这种量表在现有的MMPI - 2测量工具中已经有很好的体现。在本文中，我们将这些担忧进一步深化，审视Hy量表在评估原作者（McKinley和Hathaway，1944）所意图的问题的躯体表达方面的历史和结构效度。我们还纳入了来自医疗环境的新信息，这是Tellegen等人的RC量表专著中未涉及的应用领域。与Rogers等人（2006/本期）一致，我们的结论是，一些RC量表并不代表原始量表的测量领域，不应依赖它们来进行或用于完善传统解释，特别是在医疗或法医情境（如人身伤害案件）中，因为它们的结果令人困惑且相互矛盾。
