MMPI

[Virgil]

I have to take a MMPI test for a job.

is it a valid test. I understand it to be mostly bunk. please correct me if I'm wrong.

also, if it is bunk how can I beat it. I don't want to lose a cool job because of some test saying stuff that may not be scientifically accurate.

Thanks

Virgil

[bpesta22]

It's probably the best test ever constructed.

In terms of number of published studies that look at it's validity. I think it's well over 16000+

The beauty of the MMPI is you cant fake it.

In fact, it detects faking and has 4 different lie scales on it--

The only way to beat it would be to memorize the 512 or so true false statments, know what the right answer is, and know to which of the 12 or so scales the answer falls under.

My best advice is to answer completely honestly.

If you start messing around (e.g., try to make your self look good) you'l likely get burnt.

If I had more time, I'd tell you how the test was constructed. It's fascinating and clever.

One hint: The true/ false questions you will answer have absolutely NO face validity (you cant look at a question and say "ah, that's a measure of neurosis, but this other one is measuring psychosis). The content of the question is absolutely irrelevant to what the question measures.

They basically score you on how well your responses correlate with the responses of people in various mental populations.

For example. If -- for whatever reason-- a high percentage of psychotics say true to: I like baseball more than soccer. And, if you say true to that sentence, you'll likely be labelled a psychotic.

Obviously, one match like the example above wouldn't do it. But if 50 questions that correlate with how the certified psychotic responds are given, and, if you answer 40 of them the way psychotics do, well, the test will diagnose you as psychotic.

BTW, are you in America and taking this test for a job?

If so, it's illegal to give it before they have made you a job offer (as a testament to how good this test is, even though it's a paper and pencil true/false test, the courts consider it a medical exam.

And, under the ADA, a medical exam can only be given AFTER the employer has made a job offer to the employee).

Hope this helps!

[Mercutio]

What he said, basically.

There are a lot of really bad psychological tests, so I can understand your hesitancy, but this is not one of them.

edited to add....on the other hand, this is certainly not the purpose for which the test is intended. The best measure, used incorrectly, is a bad measure.

[Virgil]

Thanks for the info.

It a conditional job offer...


condition you pass the med, psych, and my favorite, polygraph #1 and and polygraph #2.

[jj]

Originally posted by bpesta22
The beauty of the MMPI is you cant fake it.

In fact, it detects faking and has 4 different lie scales on it--

The only way to beat it would be to memorize the 512 or so true false statments, know what the right answer is, and know to which of the 12 or so scales the answer falls under.

My best advice is to answer completely honestly.


Well, that's generally a good approach, but in my experience, at least 30 years ago, the "norms" assumed deism, and one of the "lie" scales went over the top if you didn't answer affirmatively to ideas like "is there a god".

I am told that the norms have changed. I don't know.

In general, it is quite a bit less hokey than most "psychological" tests, but it did at least used to seem to assume "social norms" that come from somewhere near Shaker Heights.

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by Virgil
Thanks for the info.

It a conditional job offer...


condition you pass the med, psych, and my favorite, polygraph #1 and and polygraph #2.

Errr, what about the federal polygraph protection act?

Or are you going for a government job / law enforcement, transportation or a drug company is the employer?

If not, that's illegal too.

At any rate, good luck!

B

JJ: Interesting about the atheism thing. I didn't know that.

I know they've renormed it recently and took out some of the weirdest of the weird questions (if i were a horse, I would like to be whipped ...used to be a question on the old version).

My strong guess is they took out all questions related to religion and sexual behavior too.

There have been a few law suits about the MMPI and other personality tests used in personnel selection.

The suits centered around invasion of privacy, as some of the question focus on sexual behavior and religious preference.

So, i'd assume they'd take these questions out to avoid future suits.

Virgil:

I dont think they're trying to predict how well you'll do on the job with the MMPI. My guess is you took some type of cognitive ability test early on (you wouldn't have made it to the MMPI stage if you didn't have the smarts your job required).

I think this test is more to make sure you're not gonna get on a table with an UZI and take co-employees out.

Again, good luck!

B

[epepke]

Originally posted by Mercutio
What he said, basically.

There are a lot of really bad psychological tests, so I can understand your hesitancy, but this is not one of them.

The one question I remember clearly from the MMPI is "I like to play 'drop the handkerchief.'" Please explain how this tests anything other than whether you're older or younger than 50.

What jj says is also correct. There are a lot of questions about god. Also a lot that seem to presume that homosexuality is a disease.

[Boo]

Chalk this thread up to the 'you learn something new everyday' category.

I took the MMPI 10 years ago as part of the entrance requirements to the Paramedic program. I know that they used it to weed out applicants to the program although we were never told what our results were. I have always been curious about what mine showed and what the criteria was that made someone 'unsuitable' to take the course.

Most individuals that apply to Paramedic programs have been working in EMS for about 2 years. What could the MMPI show that says you are ok to work at a lower level of training but not as a Paramedic?

BTW, My favorite question was 'Do you like to arrange flowers?':D



Boo

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by epepke


The one question I remember clearly from the MMPI is "I like to play 'drop the handkerchief.'" Please explain how this tests anything other than whether you're older or younger than 50.

What jj says is also correct. There are a lot of questions about god. Also a lot that seem to presume that homosexuality is a disease.

Homosexuality was actually considered a mental disorder til around 1970.

The MMPI even had a scale on it that attempted to id gays.

Interestingly, the reference group they used to norm the scales were combat soldiers on the one end and female flight attendants on the other!

I believe the test was originally developed in the 1940's. Every person applying to the university of Minn. had to take the test (so the authors could collect normative data).

Overtime, some questions get dated (e.g., drop the hankerchief) which no doubt decreases the reliability of the test. However, fairly recently, they redid all the questions / renornmed it.

So, if you take it today, I doubt you'll have the same problems.

The logic behind the test is called empirical keying. Just because I think it's clever / fascinating, here's how it works:

If you want a test that ID's crazy people, then the first thing you need to do is get a bunch of crazy people.

So, say we have 500 certified crazies in a room (a panel of experts interviewed each one; and all agree they are crazy).

Next, we ask them a bunch of questions. We dont really care about the content of the questions, were only interested in how they reply.

Example:

I like arranging flowers?

I liked to play duck duck goose?

My Mother was pretty?

Suppose when we score the data we get for question 1:

true.....227
false....273

for question 2:

true.....76
false....424

for question 3:
true....270
false...230

Question 2-- for whatever reason-- is good for identifying crazy people! (assuming when we ask these same questions to "normal" people as a control, we don't get the lopsided response we got above).

So, we pull question 2 out and stick it in our "crazy" scale.

Now suppose you take the test for a job, and answer false to "i liked to play duck duck goose" Does it mean you're crazy?

Maybe. There wouldn't be just one question in the "crazy" scale but 50.
All 50 of these questions would be selected because they produced data like question 2 above.

Now, if you answer lots of these questions they way crazy people did, the test will conclude you too are crazy.

Does it work? I know there have been several studies done that compare a computer printed MMPI diagnosis to an expert clinical psychologist's diagnosis.

Never been a study done where the expert human beats the MMPI at accurately diagnosing a person (note, the MMPI beats the expert, and is indeed valid, but it's still no where near 100% accurate-- it just works better than chance, and better than human experts, at identifying mental illness).

The logic behind how they do the lie scales is even more clever / fascinating, but this is long enough

B

[roger]

I know little about the test. However, going to groups.google.com and searching on MMPI sure gave me the willies. For example, this thread (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=PSYCGRAD%2592092022391479%40ACADVM1.UOTTAW A.CA&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMMPI%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN), where it is disclosed that scale 5 was based on incarcerated gay men, and the scale is used on both males and females because they couldn't get anything to work on females.

ya.

I'm also very bothered by the 'wow, it really gives accurate descriptions', for example here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=PSYCGRAD%2592092022391479%40ACADVM1.UOTTAW A.CA&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMMPI%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN). As we know, believing that a description is relevant makes you evaluate it as relevant. There was a psycologist talking about this on NPR the other day in relation to tests like this. He related how if you give the same astrology reading to a group of people, but 1/3 of them you just give them the reading w/o gathering any information, 1/3 of them you give the reading after getting their birthday, and 1/3 you give the reading after getting birthday and year, the former rank it lowest, and the latter rank it highest.

The test is described as empical and atheortic. By this they mean they started with thousands of questions, tested people with known personalites (for example, the incarcerated gay men), and toss out questions that show no correlation, and keep the questions that show correlation. So, _assuming_ the methodology was correct, answering 'yes' or 'no' to 'do you believe in God' must have had some correlation to some mental illness. It's quite conceivable that the answer is only important when other questions were answered another way.

And of course, despite all the claims of it being emperical and objective, you need a very well trained clinician to interpret it "correctly" - taking into account all that the clinician already knows about the patient, including education, socioeconomic position, etc.

so, :con2:

It scares me that it is being used to evaluate 'potential' behavior.

[xouper]

Boo: BTW, My favorite question was 'Do you like to arrange flowers?':D I don't even know how to answer a question like that. I have only done it maybe once or twice in my entire life, and I hardly think that is sufficent to determine if I like it. I didn't dislike it. Am I supposed to imagine if I'd like it? Are they asking if I would like it enough to do it all day long as a regular job? I probably wouldn't. Would I enjoy it as a hobby? Perhaps, but maybe not as much as I like other hobbies. So I don't even know how to answer a question like that. I would have to answer "I don't know." Do the instructions explain how to answer when faced with such problems of interpretation?

[bpesta22]

Originally posted by roger
I know little about the test. However, going to groups.google.com and searching on MMPI sure gave me the willies. For example, this thread (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=PSYCGRAD%2592092022391479%40ACADVM1.UOTTAW A.CA&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMMPI%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN), where it is disclosed that scale 5 was based on incarcerated gay men, and the scale is used on both males and females because they couldn't get anything to work on females.

ya.

I'm also very bothered by the 'wow, it really gives accurate descriptions', for example here (http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&threadm=PSYCGRAD%2592092022391479%40ACADVM1.UOTTAW A.CA&rnum=11&prev=/groups%3Fq%3DMMPI%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26safe%3Doff%26start%3D10%26sa%3DN). As we know, believing that a description is relevant makes you evaluate it as relevant. There was a psycologist talking about this on NPR the other day in relation to tests like this. He related how if you give the same astrology reading to a group of people, but 1/3 of them you just give them the reading w/o gathering any information, 1/3 of them you give the reading after getting their birthday, and 1/3 you give the reading after getting birthday and year, the former rank it lowest, and the latter rank it highest.

The test is described as empical and atheortic. By this they mean they started with thousands of questions, tested people with known personalites (for example, the incarcerated gay men), and toss out questions that show no correlation, and keep the questions that show correlation. So, _assuming_ the methodology was correct, answering 'yes' or 'no' to 'do you believe in God' must have had some correlation to some mental illness. It's quite conceivable that the answer is only important when other questions were answered another way.

And of course, despite all the claims of it being emperical and objective, you need a very well trained clinician to interpret it "correctly" - taking into account all that the clinician already knows about the patient, including education, socioeconomic position, etc.

so, :con2:

It scares me that it is being used to evaluate 'potential' behavior.

I think it's one source of data a clinician should use in making a diagnosis and deciding on a course of action.

It's not the best thing since sliced bread, nor does the score "nail" a person with 100% accuracy.

However, using the MMPI, you can increase the accuracy of your diagnosis.

The increase in statistically significant, and has practical utility.

Also, the content of each question on the exam is absolutely irrelevant. The test and person interpreting reads no significance into the fact that you like arranging flowers. All that matters is whether and how strongly your response patterns correlate with known clinical populations.

It's an important point-- the test is made, on purpose to be face invalid (so the impression "how can a question on flowers measure psychosis" is an entirely reasonable one, but totally irrelevant to guaging the test's criterion validity.

B

[Virgil]

I heard one question is " are you fascinated by dirt."

well, I'd have to agree (maybe strongly agree)



Well "dirt" is home to a plethora of bacteria and fungi which are the source of most of our early antibiotics.


Also, the processes of biomass decay will yield interesting targets for natural product synthesis. As well as recycling Nitrogen, ligin cleaving enzymes for the paper industry etc...


In fact dirt has been found to give off chloro and bromo carbons, a previously unknown natural source for potentally harmful greenhouse gasses.

But I have no mental disease issue with dirt.

Does MMPI take into consideration that I will have a PHD in Chemistry and a strong professional interest in general science?




Virgil

[roger]

Originally posted by bpesta22
It's an important point-- the test is made, on purpose to be face invalid (so the impression "how can a question on flowers measure psychosis" is an entirely reasonable one, but totally irrelevant to guaging the test's criterion validity.
B Sure, and that makes a lot of sense (along with all the stuff I snipped).

But, consider. There are something like 517 questions. There are 3 possible answers for each. That's 10^246 permutations. Even with 2 possible answers you have 10^155 permutations.

There is no way this test has been analysed for correctness given that many permutations. No way.

Plus, the test was designed as a test for mental illness. I will credit that it is probably pretty good at detecting depression, etc. I have grave problems with it being misused as employment screening.

Please note that I am writing this from the perspective of somebody who has done some googling, and there is considerably more doubt about my position than my wording probably reveals.

[roger]

Virgil, no single question has meaning. It may turn out, for example, that severe depressives tend to answer no to that because they can't manage interest in *anything*, and that OCD answer yes if they are afraid of germs (please note that I just made both of those up). But that doesn't mean that you would get labelled as depressive or OCD depending on how you answered the question - it's just going to add a little to one or more scales of the test.

[subgenius]

Here's one of a few MMPI parodies (very funny):

http://starburst.cbl.cees.edu/~david/mmpi-3.htm

[subgenius]

From the site above:

"Please indicate TRUE or FALSE next to each of the following statements:
[True False] When I was younger, I used to tease vegetables.
[True False] Sometimes I am unable to prevent clean thoughts from entering my mind.
[True False] The sight of blood no longer excites me.
[True False] I think beavers work too hard.
[True False] It is important to wash your hands before washing your hands.
[True False] Recently I have been getting shorter.
[True False] When I walk quickly, I can feel my legs moving.
[True False] When I was a child, I was an imaginary playmate.
[True False] I believe I smell as good as most people.
[True False] As a child, I used to wet the ceiling.
[True False] When I grow up I want to be a child.