Hryckowian M J, Gynther M D
Auburn University.
J Clin Psychol. 1989 Sep;45(5):778-81. doi: 10.1002/1097-4679(198909)45:5<778::aid-jclp2270450513>3.0.co;2-q.
This research was designed to clarify several issues surrounding the assessment of MMPI item subtlety. Experiment 1 asked 30 college undergraduates to define hysteria and paranoia. Results showed that 17% of the descriptions given for hysteria agreed with professional definitions, while 58% of the descriptions given for paranoia were accurate. Experiment 2 had 60 other college students rate Hy and Pa items on a subtle-obvious dimension with half the subjects receiving short definitions of the construct and half long definitions. Results showed that the additional descriptors had little effect on the classification of items as subtle, neutral or obvious regardless of scale. Correlation between these ratings derived from the scale-specific format and those obtained from a general psychopathology point of view were in the .70's for both Hy and Pa. The less familiar Hy items were significantly differentiated from Christian et al.'s (1978) ratings while the more familiar Pa items were not. How subtlety should be defined depends on the questions being asked.
本研究旨在阐明围绕明尼苏达多相人格问卷（MMPI）项目微妙性评估的几个问题。实验1要求30名大学本科生定义癔症和偏执狂。结果显示，对癔症给出的描述中有17%与专业定义相符，而对偏执狂给出的描述中有58%是准确的。实验2让另外60名大学生在微妙-明显维度上对癔症（Hy）和偏执狂（Pa）项目进行评分，一半受试者收到该结构的简短定义，另一半收到长定义。结果显示，无论量表如何，额外的描述符对项目分类为微妙、中性或明显的影响很小。从特定量表格式得出的这些评分与从一般精神病理学角度获得的评分之间的相关性，Hy和Pa量表均在0.70左右。不太熟悉的Hy项目与克里斯蒂安等人（1978年）的评分有显著差异，而较熟悉的Pa项目则没有。微妙性应如何定义取决于所提出的问题。
