An oral versus written presentation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2.

Abstract

This study examined the statistical and clinical differences between 40 men and 40 women when administered an oral and a written version of the MMPI-2. The oral version was presented face to face in a one-on-one setting, while the written version was presented in the standard method. The presentations (written vs. oral) were administered in a counterbalanced order, with 20 subjects in the same group (e.g., males, written then oral) as to balance the practice effect. Six male graduate student examiners were used to administer the oral version, so as not to subject the examinees to a rater bias. Multivariate analysis of variance was conducted to determine statistical and clinical differences between the four groups (i.e., first presentation: male/written, male/oral, female/written and female/oral) on the 13 scales studied (i.e., three validity and ten clinical scales). The Tukey post hoc test was calculated where statistical differences were discovered in the presentations. Significant differences were found on Scale F (Infrequency), Scale-l (Hypochondriasis), Scale-2 (Depression), Scale-3 (Hysteria), Scale-4 (Psychopathic Deviate), Scale-5 (Maculinity-Femininity), Scale-6 (Paranoia), Scale-8 (Schizophrenia), Scale-9 (Hypomania) and Scale-O (Social Introversion); however, these differences were also determined to be of no clinical significance. These differences are discussed in Chapters 3 (statistical) and 4 (clinical). The results of this study tend to support previous studies on the MMPI (original version) by Dillon and Ward (1989), Kendrick and Hatzenbuehler (1982), Newmark (1971), Reese, Webb and Foulks (1968), and Wolf, Freinek and Schaffer (1964). This study demonstrated a pattern of statistical similarity in utilizing an oral version of the MMPI-2, as was true for the MMPI. It is suggested more research be conducted in this area to determine exactly what causes some of these statistical differences, even though they may not be clinically significant.