A Response to Odland et al.'s Misleading, Alarmist Estimates of Risk for Overpathologizing when Interpreting the MMPI-2-RF.
In a recently published article in this journal, Odland, Lammy, Perle, Martin, and Grote report Monte Carlo-simulated normative base rates of scale elevations on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Their primary conclusion--reflected in the title of their article--is that MMPI-2-RF interpretation is associated with "high risk of pathologizing healthy adults" when the 40 substantive scales of the test are simultaneously interpreted. In this paper, we describe how their conclusion follows from several faulty premises, three of which were already debunked in an earlier article and remain false despite counterarguments proposed by Odland and colleagues. We also address these authors' misinterpretation of their analyses and, furthermore, their premise that MMPI-2-RF interpretive guidelines are flawed because they "currently do not account for a basic statistical principle: Type I (or alpha) error inflation" (p. 1). This premise is irrelevant to psychological test interpretation and misaligned with neuropsychological testing literature cited in support of it. Consistent with suggestions by some of the authors they cite, we reiterate MMPI-2-RF interpretive guidelines designed to mitigate the impact of measurement error (not alpha error) by way of a scientific assessment approach that relies on integration of information derived from multiple sources.
['Tarescavage|Anthony M|AM|', 'Ben-Porath|Yossef S|YS|']
D000328:Adult D003627:Data Interpretation, Statistical D006801:Humans D008950:MMPI D001523:Mental Disorders D009483:Neuropsychological Tests
MMPI-2-RF Measurement error Integration Multiscale inventories