Braxton Loretta E, Calhoun Patrick S, Williams John E, Boggs Christina D
Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Durham, NC 27705, USA.
J Pers Assess. 2007 Feb;88(1):5-15. doi: 10.1080/00223890709336829.
In this study, we compared protocol validity rates between the MMPI-2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989) and the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991) in a veteran population. Veterans (N=472) were administered both instruments as part of routine psychological evaluations. Profile validity was based on previously published criteria. When applying primary validity indicators, inpatients produced significantly fewer invalid PAI profiles (37%) than MMPI-2 profiles (63%). We found similar results among outpatients for which we considered 47% of MMPI-2 profiles invalid compared to only 21% of PAI profiles. When applying both primary and supplementary validity indicators, both inpatients and outpatients continued to produce fewer invalid PAI profiles than MMPI-2 profiles. We discuss factors that may be related to the differences in validity rates.
在本研究中，我们比较了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）与人格评估问卷（PAI；莫雷，1991年）在退伍军人中的测验协议有效率。退伍军人（N = 472）作为常规心理评估的一部分接受了这两种测验。剖面图有效性基于先前发表的标准。应用主要有效性指标时，住院患者产生的无效PAI剖面图（37%）明显少于MMPI - 2剖面图（63%）。在门诊患者中我们也发现了类似结果，我们认为47%的MMPI - 2剖面图无效，而只有21%的PAI剖面图无效。应用主要和补充有效性指标时，住院患者和门诊患者产生的无效PAI剖面图仍然都少于MMPI - 2剖面图。我们讨论了可能与有效率差异相关的因素。
