Deskovitz Mark A, Weed Nathan C, McLaughlan Joseph K, Williams John E
Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA.
Rehabilitation Institute of Michigan, Detroit, MI, USA
Assessment. 2016 Apr;23(2):250-61. doi: 10.1177/1073191115584970. Epub 2015 May 5.
The reliability of six Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second edition (MMPI-2) computer-based test interpretation (CBTI) programs was evaluated across a set of 20 commonly appearing MMPI-2 profile codetypes in clinical settings. Evaluation of CBTI reliability comprised examination of (a) interrater reliability, the degree to which raters arrive at similar inferences based on the same CBTI profile and (b) interprogram reliability, the level of agreement across different CBTI systems. Profile inferences drawn by four raters were operationalized using q-sort methodology. Results revealed no significant differences overall with regard to interrater and interprogram reliability. Some specific CBTI/profile combinations (e.g., the CBTI by Automated Assessment Associates on a within normal limits profile) and specific profiles (e.g., the 4/9 profile displayed greater interprogram reliability than the 2/4 profile) were interpreted with variable consensus (α range = .21-.95). In practice, users should consider that certain MMPI-2 profiles are interpreted more or less consensually and that some CBTIs show variable reliability depending on the profile.
