Millon T
J Pers Assess. 1985 Aug;49(4):379-91. doi: 10.1207/s15327752jpa4904_5.
Although the arguments that Widiger, Williams, Spitzer and Frances muster in their appraisal of MCMI-DSM-III relationships appear compelling, the study employed to furnish empirical support for their thesis may be seriously flawed and the item content approach they propose as a validation model is judged logically and psychometrically deficient. A rejoinder with supportive data are presented to demonstrate both the substantive parallels and the clinical concordance that exist between MCMI and DSM-III criteria. On the basis of theory development and ongoing research, a new MCMI-II assessment instrument will be forthcoming. A brief summary of this updated inventory's rationale and empirical grounding is provided.
尽管维迪格、威廉姆斯、斯皮策和弗朗西斯在评估米隆临床多轴量表（MCMI）与《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》第三版（DSM-III）的关系时所提出的论据似乎很有说服力，但用于为其论点提供实证支持的研究可能存在严重缺陷，而且他们提议作为验证模型的项目内容方法在逻辑和心理测量学上被判定存在不足。本文给出了带有支持性数据的回应，以证明MCMI与DSM-III标准之间存在的实质性相似之处和临床一致性。基于理论发展和正在进行的研究，一种新的MCMI-II评估工具即将问世。本文提供了这份更新量表的基本原理和实证依据的简要概述。
