CONFIDENTIAL PSY640 Week Four Psychological Assessment Report Patient's Name: Ms. S. Date of Evaluation: 10/01/2020 Date of Birth: 01/01/1991 Age: 29 years Education: 12 years Occupation: Student Current Medications: None Handedness: Right Evaluation Completed by: Dr. K., Licensed Psychologist Evaluation Time: 1 hour diagnostic interview (90791); 7 hours test administration, scoring, interpretation, and report (96118 x 7) REASON FOR REFERRAL: Ms. S. was referred by Dr. R.N. for concerns about attentional functioning. HISTORY OF CURRENT SYMPTOMS: The symptom description and history were obtained from an interview with Ms. S. and a review of her available medical records. Ms. S. reported a longstanding history of anxiety and depression since high school but stated her symptoms have worsened over the past year; she eventually sought treatment. She reported her anxiety continues to be moderate but is slightly improved, and her depression symptoms have improved significantly with medication. However, she stated she has also experienced problems in attention and concentration in the past several years, and these have not improved despite the noted improvements in her mood symptoms. She reported being referred for a psychiatric evaluation while in the U.S. Army due to her reports to her supervisor that she was experiencing symptoms of acute stress after hearing a gunshot that led to her discovering one of her platoon mates had committed suicide. Summary of Previous Investigations and Findings: No previous neurological or neuropsychological evaluations. PAST MEDICAL, NEUROLOGICAL, PSYCHIATRIC, SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: (Inclusive review of symptoms and disorders; only positive features listed) Medical history is significant for reconstructive surgery for a bile duct cyst in 2014 (involving multiple surgeries), activity induced asthma, and irregular menstruation (currently treated with medication). Previous psychiatric history is reported above. Ms. S. stated she does not drink alcohol and has never used tobacco or recreational drugs. Ms. S. stated that she gained over 200 pounds after her discharge from the Army and has attempted to obtain a referral from her physician for bariatric surgery; however, reportedly, her physician has not been willing to recommend her. BIRTH, DEVELOPMENTAL, OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY: (Review of perinatal factors, early childhood development and milestones, academic history and achievement, employment). Ms. S. denied any problems with her birth or development. She stated math skills were always a relative weakness for her in school, but she was never diagnosed with a learning disability or attention deficit hyperactivity disorde ...

1. CONFIDENTIAL
PSY640 Week Four Psychological Assessment Report
Patient's Name: Ms. S.
Date of Evaluation: 10/01/2020
Date of Birth: 01/01/1991
Age: 29 years
Education: 12 years
Occupation: Student
Current Medications: None
Handedness: Right
Evaluation Completed by: Dr. K., Licensed Psychologist
Evaluation Time: 1 hour diagnostic interview (90791); 7 hours
test administration, scoring,
interpretation, and report (96118 x 7)
REASON FOR REFERRAL: Ms. S. was referred by Dr. R.N. for
concerns about attentional functioning.
HISTORY OF CURRENT SYMPTOMS: The symptom
description and history were obtained from an
interview with Ms. S. and a review of her available medical
records.

2. Ms. S. reported a longstanding history of anxiety and depression
since high school but stated her
symptoms have worsened over the past year; she eventually
sought treatment. She reported her anxiety
continues to be moderate but is slightly improved, and her
depression symptoms have improved
significantly with medication. However, she stated she has also
experienced problems in attention and
concentration in the past several years, and these have not
improved despite the noted improvements in
her mood symptoms. She reported being referred for a
psychiatric evaluation while in the U.S. Army due
to her reports to her supervisor that she was experiencing
symptoms of acute stress after hearing a
gunshot that led to her discovering one of her platoon mates had
committed suicide.
Summary of Previous Investigations and Findings: No previous
neurological or neuropsychological
evaluations.
PAST MEDICAL, NEUROLOGICAL, PSYCHIATRIC,
SUBSTANCE USE HISTORY: (Inclusive review of
symptoms and disorders; only positive features listed) Medical
history is significant for reconstructive
surgery for a bile duct cyst in 2014 (involving multiple
surgeries), activity induced asthma, and irregular
menstruation (currently treated with medication). Previous
psychiatric history is reported above. Ms. S.
stated she does not drink alcohol and has never used tobacco or
recreational drugs. Ms. S. stated that
she gained over 200 pounds after her discharge from the Army
and has attempted to obtain a referral

3. from her physician for bariatric surgery; however, reportedly,
her physician has not been willing to
recommend her.
BIRTH, DEVELOPMENTAL, OCCUPATIONAL HISTORY:
(Review of perinatal factors, early childhood
development and milestones, academic history and achieveme nt,
employment). Ms. S. denied any
problems with her birth or development. She stated math skills
were always a relative weakness for her in
school, but she was never diagnosed with a learning disability
or attention deficit hyperactivity disorder
(ADHD). She completed high school and started college
immediately after high school but quit after one
year due to a lack of focus and financial strain. Subsequently,
she enlisted in the army and received an
honorable discharge after 9 months due to being psychologically
incapable of performing her assigned
duties. She worked full time as an inside salesperson until 2018,
when she began working as a fitness
instructor. She is currently working part time and has been
taking classes at a local college; she stated
she plans to enroll at a university full time in the fall semester
for a bachelor’s degree in social work. She
has received accommodations (e.g., additional time for
examinations, taking tests in a distraction free
environment, etc.) at a local school this semester due to her
diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder.
FAMILY HISTORY: (First degree relatives; only pertinent
features reported). No significant family history
reported.

4. PSYCHOSOCIAL HISTORY AND CURRENT ADAPTATION:
(Current living situation, social
relationships, activities of daily living) Ms. S. is married and
lives with her husband. She has no children.
She remains fully independent in all activities of daily living.
She stated her hobbies tend to focus on
CONFIDENTIAL
Patient’s Name: Ms. S.
Date of Evaluation: 07/01/2020
Page: 2
physically demanding activities such as running or working out.
She also stated she enjoys riding her
horse and has a large network of social support.
CURRENT EXAMINATION: Review of records; Clinical
Interview; Cognitive Assessment: Wechsler Adult
Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS-IV); Achievement Assessment:
Nelson-Denny Reading Test (Form G), Wide
Range Achievement Test-5 (WRAT-5); Information Processing:
Lexical Fluency, Semantic Fluency, Digit
Span, Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test, Trail Making Test,
California Verbal Learning Test-II (CVLT-II),
Stroop Color Word Test, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test;
Personality Assessment: Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–3(MMPI-3); Mood: Beck Depression

5. Inventory (BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory
(BAI)
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATIONS:
Ms. S. arrived on time for her appointment and was
unaccompanied. She was casually dressed, neatly
groomed, and her social skills were appropriate. She was fully
cooperative throughout the evaluation.
Frustration tolerance and task persistence during testing were
preserved. There were no behavioral
indications of a depression, and a full range of affect was
demonstrated. However, Ms. S. appeared
highly anxious at the onset of the evaluation and throughout the
testing on specific measures (e.g.,
mental arithmetic) that she perceived as difficult for her. Her
anxiety negatively impacted her
performance on some measures.
The results of this evaluation are considered reliable and valid
for interpretation.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS:
Raw test scores and standard scores for all measures are listed
at the end of the report.
1. Cognitive Ability: Ms. S.’s cognitive functioning is
within at least the average range based on her
performance on the majority of subtests in both verbal and non-

6. verbal (performance) areas on the W AIS-
IV. A mild relative weakness was noted on several subtests
where she performed in the low average
range, but this was most likely secondary to anxiety and
therefore her cognitive ability scores are likely an
underestimation of her true level of functioning.
2. Achievement: W ith the exception of math computation,
which was an area of significant
weakness for her, Ms. S. performed in the expected range on
other tests of achievement including
reading, spelling, and sentence comprehension. On the Nelson
Denny Timed Reading Test, she
demonstrated a slight but significant benefit from extended time
administration (i.e., the total score
improved from 37
th
to 47
th
percentile). However, her performance on the reading
comprehension
subtest in both conditions was still below expectation based on
her educational level and was
likely compromised by her anxiety causing reduced attention.
3. Information Processing:
a. Attention: Ms. S.’s scores on measures of simple attention
and working memory were
variable, but generally within at least the average range. Her
performance was reduced on the arithmetic

7. subtest of the W AIS-IV, but this is likely related to her
significant weakness in calculations (as it was also
seen on a written calculation test), rather than a working
memory impairment. On measure of sustained
attention (Ruff 2 & 7 Selective Attention Test), her performance
in the areas of speed and accuracy were
consistent with that of an individual with ADHD at the 0.01
significance level.
b. Language: Speech was fluent and adequately articulated, and
there was no indication of any
type impairment in auditory communication or expressive
language.
c. Visuospatial abilities: No evidence of hemispatial neglect,
object agnosia, or other
visuospatial deficits.
CONFIDENTIAL
Patient’s Name: Ms. S.
Date of Evaluation: 07/01/2020
Page: 3
d. Memory: There was no evidence of a primary retentive
memory problem, but Ms. S.
demonstrated a mild impairment in initially learning an

8. attention-demanding word list. However, she
retained all of the information she had encoded after a delay,
and her overall performance was intact.
Similarly there was no indication of a retentive memory
disturbance for narrative story or figural
information on the W MS-IV.
e. Executive functions: Reasoning, planning, and response
inhibition were all generally intact.
She showed a mild impairment in problem solving on the W
CST due to loss of set errors; however, Ms. S.
was highly anxious during this test, and that was the likely
reason for her poor performance.
4. Personality and Mood: Ms. S. completed the MMPI-3
and obtained a valid profile, although her
responses on the latter part of the test suggested an exaggerated
pattern of reporting; this may be related
to her overall level of anxiety and her consequently reduced
attention span. Her responses on the basic
clinical scales indicate she is experiencing a high degree of
psychological distress at this time, including
symptoms of tension, depression, and agitation over problems in
her environment. She may have some
strained interpersonal relationships, and individuals with this
profile often feel alienated from others. Her
responses suggest she tends acknowledge few positive attributes
of herself, she has a somewhat
pessimistic outlook on life at this time and may be angry about
her personal situation, and at times she
may have a tendency to blame others for her problems. W hile
open to psychological treatment, she
should be cautious about not terminating treatment too early

9. once her current situational stress is
reduced. Ms. S.’s score on the BAI indicated subjective anxiety
in the severe range. Her score on the
BDI-II indicated mild to moderate depressive mood; however,
depressive symptoms did not meet criteria
for a depressive disorder. There was no indication that Ms. S. is
at risk of self-harm.
IMPRESSION/RECOMMENDATIONS:
The test results are consistent with impairments in sustained
attention and working memory within the
context of an overall at least average level of general
intellectual functioning, which are most likely
secondary to her diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder
(300.2).
1. Individual therapy is recommended to treat the symptoms
associated with the diagnosed anxiety disorder
as well as her mild to moderate depressed mood.
The test findings also showed a significant weakness in math
skills that would be consistent with a
diagnosis of mathematics disorder (315.1) that has likely been
present since childhood.The results of
this evaluation are consistent with Ms. S. meets criteria for a
learning disability in mathematics relative to
her peers and may benefit from the following academic
accommodations:
2. That she be given 100 percent (double time) additional time

10. to complete mathematics examinations
and other tests requiring her to perform mathematical and
statistical computations. She should also
be allowed to take these tests in a separate room to reduce the
level of distraction.
3. That she be allowed to use a calculator on standardized
testing (e.g., GRE) due to her diagnosis of
mathematics disorder.
4. That she be given extra rest breaks during prolonged
standardized testing (e.g., GRE) because of the
above-noted mathematics disorder.
In addition to the above academic specific recommendations,
the following is also recommended to
improve her functioning in day-to-day activities of daily living:
5. Although her ability to retain information once it is learned is
intact, it is likely the functional
memory problems she is experiencing are due to weaknesses in
new learning/encoding as the
result of attentional factors. Therefore, utilizing behavioral
strategies such as the following to
facilitate increased attention and recall of newly acquired
information in her daily life may be
beneficial:
• Take frequent rest breaks from tedious work.

11. CONFIDENTIAL
Patient’s Name: Ms. S.
Date of Evaluation: 07/01/2020
Page: 4
• Try to make your work environment as distraction-free as
possible, such as working in a
corner “cubicle” rather than in the middle of the room, or using
noise-cancelling
headphones when trying to focus on an attention-demanding
task.
• Use written reminders and notes to support verbal learning and
recall. If attempting to
learn something that you are reading, take written notes whil e
reading, and then review
these afterwards.
• Work on one task at a time until completed. Try to minimize
multitasking environments.
• Write down all important information and upcoming events
in one central location, such
as a daily planner or appointment book. Do not use sticky notes
or other individual pieces
of paper to keep track of things, as these are easily lost or
mixed up.

12. • Keep your personal belongings in the same place in your
home. Train yourself to put your
wallet, keys, and so forth, in this spot immediately upon
entering the house.
RN, Ph.D., ABPP-CN Board
Certified Neuropsychologist
Licensed Clinical Psychologist
cc: Dr. RN
Ms. S.
CONFIDENTIAL
Patient’s Name: Ms. S.
Date of Evaluation: 07/01/2020
Page: 5
TESTING SUMMARY:
Raw test scores

13. Normative data
Current Level*
GENERAL FUNCTIONING
WAIS-IV
Full Scale IQ -- SS = 89 Low Average-Average
Verbal Comprehension -- SS = 88 Low Average-Average
Perceptual Reasoning -- SS = 86 Low Average
Processing Speed -- SS = 92 Average
Working Memory -- SS = 86 Low Average
ATTENTION/PROCESSING SPEED
WAIS-IV Coding -- ss = 9 Average
WAIS-IV Symbol Search -- ss = 8 Average
WAIS-IV Digit Span 5 F, 6 B ss = 9 Average
WAIS-IV Arithmetic -- ss = 6 Low Average
Semantic Fluency (total) 23 words T = 66 Superior
FAS Test (average) 14 words T = 57 High Average
Trail Making Test Part A 34” T = 43 Average

14. Trail Making Test Part B 55” T = 60 High Average
Ruff 2 & 7 Total Speed -- T = 40 Low Average
Ruff 2 & 7 Total Accuracy -- T = 52 Average
Stroop Color W ord Score -- T = 50 Average
VISUOSPATIAL
WAIS-IV Block Design -- ss = 7 Low Average
WAIS-IV Visual Puzzles -- ss = 8 Average
Target Cancellation time (errors) 120” (0) Within Normal
Limits
LANGUAGE
WAIS-IV Vocabulary -- ss = 7 Low Average
WAIS-IV Information -- ss = 8 Average
MEMORY
CVLT-II
Learning Trial 1 5/16 z = -1.5 Mild Impairment
Learning Trial 5 14/16 z = 0 Average
Interference Trial 5/16 z = -1.0 Low Average
Short Delay Recall 13/16 z = 0.5 Average
Long Delay Recall 14/16 z = 0.5 Average

15. Recognition 16/16 z = 0 Average
WMS-IV
Logical Memory I 21/50 ss = 8 Average
Logical Memory II 19/50 ss = 9 Average
Visual Reproduction I 30/43 ss = 6 Low Average
Visual Reproduction II 19/43 ss = 8 Average
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
WAIS-IV Similarities -- ss = 9 Average
WAIS-IV Matrix Reasoning -- ss = 9 Average
WCST Categories (64 cards) 3/6 z = -1.4 Mild Impairment
*Based on age and/or education-matched normative data (as
available)
SS = standard score; mean = 100, standard deviation = 15
ss = scaled score; mean = 10, standard deviation = 3
T = T-score; mean = 50, standard deviation = 10
z = z-score; mean = 0, standard deviation = 1
CONFIDENTIAL
Patient’s Name: Ms. S.

16. Date of Evaluation: 07/01/2020
Page: 6
NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (Form G) - Standard Time
Administration
Scaled Score Grade Equivalent Percentile
(Grade 12, end of year norms)
Vocabulary SS = 209 GE = 13.2 55%
Reading Comprehension SS = 185 GE = 9.3 22%
TOTAL SS = 197 GE = 11.1 37%
Reading Rate SS = 193 37%
NELSON-DENNY READING TEST (Form G) - Extended Time
Administration
Scaled Score Grade Equivalent Percentile (Grade 12 norms)
Vocabulary SS = 214 GE = 13.8 62%
Reading Comprehension SS = 190 GE = 9.7 28%
TOTAL SS = 204 GE = 12.3 47%
WIDE RANGE ACHIEVEMENT TEST-5
Grade 12 Norms

17. SS Level
Word Reading SS = 97 Average
Sentence Comprehension SS = 90 Average
Spelling SS = 100 Average
Math Computation SS = 56 Severe Impairment
®
SAMPLE REPORT
Case Description: Mr. J – Interpretive Report
Mr. J is a 44-year-old divorced man assessed at intake for
services at a community mental health center following
a brief stay at a crisis stabilization unit. Mr. J was taken to the
stabilization unit by law enforcement personnel after
a serious suicide attempt involving vehicular carbon monoxide
poisoning. He had been involved in very contentious
divorce- and child custody-related proceedings for two years
prior to this attempt. In addition to having a conflictual
relationship with his ex-wife, Mr. J was estranged from his two
teenage children, and he had minimal sources of social
support. His only prior contact with a mental health
professional involved a child custody evaluation conducted two
years prior to the current assessment. Mr. J’s ex-wife was
granted full custody minus planned bi-weekly visitations
with Mr. J.

18. The worker who conducted Mr. J’s intake interview described
him as depressed, despondent, tearful, and withdrawn.
He was characterized as speaking in a monotone and giving
laconic responses to questions he was asked. He was
fully oriented and showed no signs of thought disturbance. No
significant history of acting out behavior was elicited.
Mr. J acknowledged continuing suicidal ideation but denied
current intent. He was diagnosed with a Major Depressive
Disorder, Severe with Melancholic Features and accepted for
treatment in an intensive outpatient program.
Case descriptions do not accompany MMPI-3 reports, but are
provided here as background information. The following
report was generated from Q-global™, Pearson’s web-based
scoring and reporting application, using Mr. J’s responses to
the MMPI-3. Additional MMPI-3 sample reports, product
offerings, training opportunities, and resources can be found at
PearsonAssessments.com/MMPI-3.
© 2020 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliates. All rights
reserved. Pearson, Q-global, and Q Local are trademarks, in the
US and/or
other countries, of Pearson plc. MMPI is a registered trademark
of the Regents of the University of Minnesota. CLINA24805-A
EL 6/20
https://www.pearsonassessments.com/store/usassessments/en/St
ore/Professional-Assessments/Personality-%26-
Biopsychosocial/Minnesota-Multiphasic-Personality-Inventory-
3/p/P100000004.html
Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings
MMPI®-3

19. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory®-3
Yossef S. Ben-Porath, PhD, & Auke Tellegen, PhD
ID Number: Mr. J
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Not reported
Years of Education: Not reported
Date Assessed: 08/01/2020
Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. Distributed exclusively under
license from the University
of Minnesota by NCS Pearson, Inc. Portions reproduced from
the MMPI-3 test booklet. Copyright © 2020 by the Regents of
the University of
Minnesota. All rights reserved. Portions excerpted from the
MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and
Interpretation. Copyright © 2020
by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights

20. reserved. Portions excerpted from the MMPI-3 Technical
Manual. Copyright © 2020
by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights
reserved. Used by permission of the University of Minnesota
Press.
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory and MMPI are
registered trademarks of the University of Minnesota. Pearson is
a trademark
in the U.S. and/or other countries of Pearson Education, Inc., or
its affiliate(s).
This report contains copyrighted material and trade secrets.
Qualified licensees may excerpt portions of this output report,
limited to the
minimum text necessary to accurately describe their significant
core conclusions, for incorporation into a written evaluation of
the examinee, in
accordance with their profession's citation standards, if any. No
adaptations, translations, modifications, or special versions may
be made of
this report without prior written permission from the University
of Minnesota Press.
[ 1.0 / RE1 / QG1 ]
SA
MP
LE
MMPI-3 Validity Scales
20

21. 100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
KLFBSFsFpFTRINVRIN
Raw Score:
Response %:
CRIN
VRIN
TRIN
Combined Response Inconsistency
Variable Response Inconsistency
True Response Inconsistency
1
39
F
Fp

22. Fs
FBS
RBS
Infrequent Responses
Infrequent Psychopathology Responses
Infrequent Somatic Responses
Symptom Validity Scale
Response Bias Scale
1
47
1
50
8
66
14
54
9
51
0
36
8

23. 58
120
110
Cannot Say (Raw): 13
T Score: T
T
---
---
---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

24. ---
---
---
---
---
---
L
K
Uncommon Virtues
Adjustment Validity
RBS
2
38
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are
indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
CRIN
2
39
100100 91 93 89 100 100 97 96 93
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J

25. 08/01/2020, Page 2
SA
MP
LE
MMPI-3 Higher-Order (H-O) and Restructured Clinical (RC)
Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
RC9RC8RC7RC6RC4RC2RC1RCdBXDTHDEID
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:

26. EID
THD
BXD
Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction
Thought Dysfunction
Behavioral/Externalizing Dysfunction
34
80
95
RCd
RC1
RC2
RC4
Demoralization
Somatic Complaints
Low Positive Emotions
Antisocial Behavior
RC6
RC7
RC8
RC9
Ideas of Persecution
Dysfunctional Negative Emotions
Aberrant Experiences
Hypomanic Activation
2

27. 46
100
17
80
100
4
44
100
2
49
100
10
75
93
6
55
100
1

28. 50
93
1
44
100
10
55
100
1
36
100
120
110
Higher-Order Restructured Clinical
---
---
---
---

29. ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

30. The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are
indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 3
SA
MP
LE
MMPI-3 Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction and Internalizing
Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
NFC ARXCMPSTR BRFANPWRYNUC EAT HLPCOG SFD

31. Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
MLS
NUC
EAT
COG
Malaise
Neurological Complaints
Eating Concerns
Cognitive Complaints
5
59
100
WRY
CMP
ARX
ANP
BRF
Worry
Compulsivity
Anxiety-Related Experiences
Anger Proneness
Behavior-Restricting Fears
SUI
HLP

32. SFD
NFC
STR
Suicidal/Death Ideation
Helplessness/Hopelessness
Self-Doubt
Inefficacy
Stress
3
100
1
46
100
0
44
100
0
38
100
7
86

33. 100
9
77
100
7
78
100
5
68
100
3
49
6
65
100
7
59
100

34. 2
63
100
3
51
92
Somatic/Cognitive Internalizing
120
110
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

35. ---
---
---
---
---
---
--- ---
--- ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
MLS

36. 88
72
SUI
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are
indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 4
SA
MP
LE
MMPI-3 Externalizing and Interpersonal Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40

37. 30
SFI SHYSAVACTIMPSUBJCP AGG DSFCYN DOM
Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
ACT
AGG
CYN
Activation
Aggression
Cynicism
5
59
FML
JCP
SUB
IMP
Family Problems
Juvenile Conduct Problems
Substance Abuse
Impulsivity
SFI
DOM
DSF
SAV

38. SHY
Self-Importance
Dominance
Disaffiliativeness
Social Avoidance
Shyness
1
41
1
45
4
58
1
48
1
49
1
37
9
55

39. 1
34
5
55
4
58
InterpersonalExternalizing
120
110
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---

40. ---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are
indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
FML
6

41. 69
80 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 89 57 78 100
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 5
SA
MP
LE
MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales
20
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
INTRNEGEDISCPSYCAGGR

42. Raw Score:
T Score:
Response %:
AGGR
PSYC
DISC
NEGE
INTR
Aggressiveness
Psychoticism
Disconstraint
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality
1
31
93
8
60
12
68
93
5

43. 50
100
1
47
100
120
110
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
---
86

44. The highest and lowest T scores possible on each scale are
indicated by a "---"; MMPI-3 T scores are non-gendered.
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 6
SA
MP
LE
MMPI-3 T SCORES (BY DOMAIN)
PROTOCOL VALIDITY
SUBSTANTIVE SCALES
*The test taker provided scorable responses to less than 90% of
the items scored on this scale. See the relevant profile page for
the specific
percentage.
Scale scores shown in bold font are interpreted in the report.
Note. This information is provided to facilitate interpretation
following the recommended structure for MMPI-3 interpretation
in Chapter 5 of the
MMPI-3 Manual for Administration, Scoring, and
Interpretation, which provides details in the text and an outline
in Table 5-1.
Content Non-Responsiveness 13 39 39 54 T
CNS CRIN VRIN TRIN

45. Over-Reporting 66* 50 47 51 58
F Fp Fs FBS RBS
Under-Reporting 36 38
L K
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction 46 59 38 44 46
RC1 MLS NUC EAT COG
Emotional Dysfunction 80 80 72 86 78 77
EID RCd SUI HLP SFD NFC
75 60*
RC2 INTR
55 68 65 49* 59 51 63 68
RC7 STR WRY CMP ARX ANP BRF NEGE
Thought Dysfunction 49 50
THD RC6
44
RC8
47
PSYC
Behavioral Dysfunction 44 55 59* 48 58
BXD RC4 FML JCP SUB
36 45 41 49 55
RC9 IMP ACT AGG CYN
50
DISC

46. Interpersonal Functioning 37 34* 31 58* 55* 69
SFI DOM AGGR DSF SAV SHY
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 7
SA
MP
LE
SYNOPSIS
Scores on the MMPI-3 Validity Scales raise concerns about the
possible impact of unscorable responses on the
validity of this protocol. With that caution noted, scores on the
Substantive Scales indicate emotional, behavioral,
and interpersonal dysfunction. Emotional-internalizing findings
include suicidal ideation, demoralization, lack of
positive emotions, helplessness and hopelessness, self-doubt,
perceived inefficacy, negative emotionality, stress,
and worry. Behavioral-externalizing problems relate to lack of
energy and engagement. Interpersonal difficulties
include lack of self-esteem and social anxiety.
PROTOCOL VALIDITY
Content Non-Responsiveness
Unscorable Responses
The test taker answered less than 90% of the items on the
following scales. The resulting scores may therefore

47. be artificially lowered. In particular, the absence of elevation
on these scales is not interpretable1. A list of all items
for which the test taker provided unscorable responses appears
under the heading "Item-Level Information."
Infrequent Responses (F): 89%
Compulsivity (CMP): 88%
Family Problems (FML): 80%
Dominance (DOM): 89%
Disaffiliativeness (DSF): 57%
Social Avoidance (SAV): 78%
Introversion/Low Positive Emotionality (INTR): 86%
Inconsistent Responding
The test taker responded to the items in a consistent manner,
indicating that he responded relevantly.
Over-Reporting
The test taker may have over-reported general psychological
dysfunction. The extent of possible over-reporting
cannot be precisely determined because of 4 unscorable
responses on the 35-item Infrequent Responses (F)
scale. The following table shows what the T scores for F would
be if the unscorable items had been answered in
the keyed direction.
This interpretive report is intended for use by a professional
qualified to interpret the MMPI-3.
The information it contains should be considered in the context
of the test taker's background, the

48. circumstances of the assessment, and other available
information.
The report includes extensive annotation, which appears as
superscripts following each statement in the
narrative, keyed to Endnotes with accompanying Research
References, which appear in the final two
sections of the report. Additional information about the
annotation features is provided in the headnotes to
these sections and in the MMPI-3 User's Guide for the Score
and Clinical Interpretive Reports.
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 8
SA
MP
LE
See Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3 Manual for Administration,
Scoring, and Interpretation for guidance on interpreting
elevated scores on F.
Under-Reporting
There are no indications of under-reporting in this protocol.
SUBSTANTIVE SCALE INTERPRETATION
Clinical symptoms, personality characteristics, and behavioral
tendencies of the test taker are described in this
section and organized according to an empirically guided
framework. (Please see Chapter 5 of the MMPI-3

49. Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation for
details.) Statements containing the word "reports" are
based on the item content of MMPI-3 scales, whereas statements
that include the word "likely" are based on
empirical correlates of scale scores. Specific sources for each
statement can be viewed with the annotation
features of this report.
The following interpretation needs to be considered in light of
cautions noted about the possible impact
of unscorable responses on the validity of this protocol.
Somatic/Cognitive Dysfunction
There are no indications of somatic or cognitive dysfunction in
this protocol.
Emotional Dysfunction
The test taker reports a history of suicidal/death ideation and/or
past suicide attempts2. He likely is at risk for
self-harm3, is preoccupied with suicide and death4, and is at
risk for current suicidal ideation and attempts5.
His responses indicate considerable emotional distress that is
likely to be perceived as a crisis6. More
specifically, he reports experiencing significant demoralization,
feeling overwhelmed, and being extremely
unhappy, sad, and dissatisfied with his life7. He very likely
complains about significant depression8 and
experiences sadness and despair9. In particular, he reports
having lost hope and believing he cannot change and
overcome his problems and is incapable of reaching his life
goals10. He very likely feels hopeless, overwhelmed,

50. and that life is a strain11, believes he cannot be helped11 and
gets a raw deal from life12, and lacks motivation for
change13. He also reports lacking confidence, feeling
worthless, and believing he is a burden to others14. He very
likely experiences self-doubt, feels insecure and inferior, and is
self-disparaging and intropunitive15. In addition, he
reports being very indecisive and inefficacious, believing he is
incapable of making decisions and dealing
effectively with crisis situations, and even having difficulties
dealing with small, inconsequential matters16. He very
likely experiences subjective incompetence and shame17 and
lacks perseverance and self-reliance18.
The test taker reports a lack of positive emotional experiences
and a lack of interest19. He likely is pessimistic20
and presents with anhedonia21.
He reports experiencing an elevated level of negative
emotionality22 and indeed likely experiences various
negative emotions23. More specifically, he reports an above
average level of stress24. He likely complains about
Scale: F
T score based on scorable responses: 66
Cutoff for over-reporting concern: 75
If answered in the keyed direction The T score would be
1 69
2 72
3 75
4 78
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 9

51. SA
MP
LE
stress25 and feels incapable of controlling his anxiety level25.
He also reports excessive worry, including worries
about misfortune and finances, as well as preoccupation with
disappointments26. He indeed likely worries
excessively27 and ruminates28.
Thought Dysfunction
There are no indications of disordered thinking in this protocol.
Behavioral Dysfunction
There are no indications of maladaptive externalizing behavior
in this protocol. The test taker reports a low
energy level29 and indeed likely has a low energy level30 and
is disengaged from his normal activities30.
Interpersonal Functioning Scales
The test taker describes himself as lacking in positive
qualities31.
He reports being shy, easily embarrassed, and uncomfortable
around others32. He is likely to be socially
introverted33 and inhibited34, anxious and nervous in social
situations35, and viewed by others as socially awkward36.

52. DIAGNOSTIC CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides recommendations for psychodiagnostic
assessment based on the test taker's MMPI-3
results. It is recommended that he be evaluated for the
following, bearing in mind possible threats to protocol
validity noted earlier in this report:
Emotional-Internalizing Disorders
- Major depression and other anhedonia-related disorders37
- Features of personality disorders involving negative
emotionality such as Dependent38
- Generalized anxiety disorder25
- Disorders involving excessive worry39
Interpersonal Disorders
- Social anxiety disorder (social phobia)40
TREATMENT CONSIDERATIONS
This section provides inferential treatment-related
recommendations based on the test taker's MMPI-3 scores.
The following recommendations need to be considered in light
of cautions noted earlier about possible
threats to protocol validity.

53. Areas for Further Evaluation
- Risk for suicide should be assessed immediately41.
- Need for antidepressant medication42.
Psychotherapy Process Issues
- Serious emotional difficulties may motivate him for
treatment43.
- Indecisiveness may interfere with establishing treatment goals
and progress in treatment44.
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 10
SA
MP
LE
Possible Targets for Treatment
- Demoralization as an initial target45
- Loss of hope and feelings of despair as early targets for
intervention46

54. - Low self-esteem and other manifestations of self-doubt47
- Anhedonia48
- Developing stress management skills49
- Excessive worry and rumination39
- Anxiety in social situations40
ITEM-LEVEL INFORMATION
Unscorable Responses
Following is a list of items to which the test taker did not
provide scorable responses. Unanswered or double
answered (both True and False) items are unscorable. The
scale(s) on which the items appear are in parentheses
following the item content.
Item number and content omitted. (VRIN, SAV, INTR)
Item number and content omitted. (CMP)
Item number and content omitted. (TRIN, F, DSF)
Item number and content omitted. (TRIN, F, FML)
Item number and content omitted. (VRIN, DSF)
Item number and content omitted. (FBS)
Item number and content omitted. (DOM, AGGR)

55. Item number and content omitted. (EID, RC2, SAV, INTR)
Item number and content omitted. (RBS, L)
Item number and content omitted. (F, FML)
Item number and content omitted. (VRIN, DSF)
Item number and content omitted. (VRIN, EID, ANP, NEGE)
Item number and content omitted. (F, RC6)
Critical Responses
Seven MMPI-3 scales—Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI),
Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP), Anxiety-Related
Experiences (ARX), Ideas of Persecution (RC6), Aberrant
Experiences (RC8), Substance Abuse (SUB), and
Aggression (AGG)—have been designated by the test authors as
having critical item content that may require
immediate attention and follow-up. Items answered by the
individual in the keyed direction (True or False) on a
critical scale are listed below if his T score on that scale is 65
or higher. However, any item answered in the keyed
direction on SUI is listed. The percentage of the MMPI-3
normative sample that answered each item in the keyed
direction is provided in parentheses following the item content.
Suicidal/Death Ideation (SUI, T Score = 72)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 22.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 8.1%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 2.5%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 10.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 8.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 12.3%)

56. Item number and content omitted. (True, 4.6%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 45.4%)
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 11
SA
MP
LE
Helplessness/Hopelessness (HLP, T Score = 86)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 22.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 8.4%)
User-Designated Item-Level Information
The following item-level information is based on the report
user's selection of additional scales, and/or of lower
cutoffs for the critical scales from the previous section. Items
answered by the test taker in the keyed direction
(True or False) on a selected scale are listed below if his T
score on that scale is at the user-designated cutoff
score or higher. The percentage of the MMPI-3 normative
sample that answered each item in the keyed direction
is provided in parentheses following the item content.
Demoralization (RCd, T Score = 80)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 11.3%)

57. Item number and content omitted. (True, 44.5%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 14.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 29.4%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 41.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 15.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 35.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 23.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 21.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 21.5%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 58.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 27.8%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 46.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 28.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 25.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 32.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 22.0%)
Low Positive Emotions (RC2, T Score = 75)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 17.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 27.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 41.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 29.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 13.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 7.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 9.1%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 22.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 33.5%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 27.0%)
Self-Doubt (SFD, T Score = 78)

58. Item number and content omitted. (True, 11.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 29.4%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 41.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 11.8%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 28.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 14.6%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 32.0%)
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 12
SA
MP
LE
Inefficacy (NFC, T Score = 77)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 37.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 45.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 42.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 35.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 23.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 25.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 29.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 20.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 40.2%)
Stress (STR, T Score = 68)

59. Item number and content omitted. (False, 31.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 26.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 30.9%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 31.6%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 58.8%)
Worry (WRY, T Score = 65)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 42.5%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 26.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 40.6%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 54.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 57.8%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 50.9%)
Shyness (SHY, T Score = 69)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 27.8%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 29.1%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 38.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 38.6%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 52.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 32.3%)
Negative Emotionality/Neuroticism (NEGE, T Score = 68)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 31.2%)
Item number and content omitted. (False, 26.7%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 16.9%)

60. Item number and content omitted. (True, 26.3%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 38.4%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 40.6%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 46.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 26.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 35.8%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 59.1%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 54.0%)
Item number and content omitted. (True, 50.9%)
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 13
SA
MP
LE
ENDNOTES
This section lists for each statement in the report the MMPI-3
score(s) that triggered it. In addition, each
statement is identified as a Test Response, if based on item
content, a Correlate, if based on empirical correlates,
or an Inference, if based on the report authors' judgment. (This
information can also be accessed on-screen by
placing the cursor on a given statement.) For correlate-based
statements, research references (Ref. No.) are
provided, keyed to the consecutively numbered reference list
following the endnotes.
1 Correlate: Response % < 90, Ref. 12
2 Test Response: SUI=72
3 Correlate: SUI=72, Ref. 7, 26, 31
4 Correlate: SUI=72, Ref. 4, 7, 20, 21, 30, 31, 32, 42, 45

61. 5 Correlate: SUI=72, Ref. 4, 7, 20, 21, 31, 42, 43, 45
6 Correlate: EID=80, Ref. 7, 25, 33, 45
7 Test Response: RCd=80
8 Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 17, 18,
23, 24, 29, 30, 34, 36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 44, 45, 46,
47, 49, 50; RC2=75, Ref. 1, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 34,
36, 37, 38, 40, 41, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50
9 Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 7
10 Test Response: HLP=86
11 Correlate: HLP=86, Ref. 45
12 Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 45; HLP=86, Ref. 45
13 Correlate: HLP=86, Ref. 7
14 Test Response: SFD=78
15 Correlate: SFD=78, Ref. 7, 45
16 Test Response: NFC=77
17 Correlate: NFC=77, Ref. 7
18 Correlate: NFC=77, Ref. 10
19 Test Response: RC2=75
20 Correlate: RC2=75, Ref. 15, 40, 45; HLP=86, Ref. 45
21 Correlate: RC2=75, Ref. 7, 45
22 Test Response: NEGE=68
23 Correlate: NEGE=68, Ref. 7
24 Test Response: STR=68
25 Correlate: STR=68, Ref. 7
26 Test Response: WRY=65
27 Correlate: WRY=65, Ref. 7
28 Correlate: WRY=65, Ref. 7; SFD=78, Ref. 7, 45
29 Test Response: RC9=36
30 Correlate: RC9=36, Ref. 7, 45
31 Test Response: SFI=37
32 Test Response: SHY=69
33 Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 1, 2, 6, 7, 11
34 Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 1, 6, 7, 45
35 Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 6, 7, 10, 19, 30
36 Correlate: SHY=69, Ref. 7, 45

62. 37 Correlate: RCd=80, Ref. 7, 22, 27, 28, 35, 41, 45, 48;
RC2=75, Ref. 7, 22, 27, 28, 35, 41, 45, 48
38 Correlate: NEGE=68, Ref. 3, 7, 39
39 Inference: WRY=65
40 Inference: SHY=69
41 Inference: SUI=72
42 Correlate: RC2=75, Ref. 7
43 Inference: EID=80; RCd=80; NEGE=68
44 Inference: NFC=77
45 Inference: RCd=80
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 14
SA
MP
LE
46 Inference: HLP=86
47 Inference: SFD=78
48 Inference: RC2=75
49 Inference: STR=68
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 15
SA
MP
LE
RESEARCH REFERENCE LIST

63. The following studies are sources for empirical correlates
identified in the Endnotes section of this report.
1. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Ayearst, L., Quilty, L. C.,
Chmielewski, M., & Bagby, R. M. (2015).
Associations between DSM-5 Section III personality traits and
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory 2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scales in a
psychiatric patient sample. Psychological
Assessment, 27(3), 801–815.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000096
2. Anderson, J. L., Sellbom, M., Pymont, C., Smid, W., De
Saeger, H., & Kamphuis, J. H. (2015).
Measurement of DSM-5 Section II personality disorder
constructs using the MMPI-2-RF in clinical and
forensic samples. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 786–800.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000103
3. Anderson, J. L., Wood, M. E., Tarescavage, A. M., Burchett,
D., & Glassmire, D. M. (2018). The role of
dimensional personality psychopathology in a forensic inpatient

64. psychiatric setting. Journal of Personality
Disorders, 32(4), 447–464.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_301
4. Anestis, J. C., Finn, J. A., Gottfried, E. D., Hames, J. L.,
Bodell, L. P., Hagan, C. R., Arnau, R. C., Anestis,
M. D., Arbisi, P. A., & Joiner, T. E. (2018). Burdonesomeness,
belongingness, and capability: Assessing the
interpersonal-psychological theory of suicide with MMPI-2-RF
scales. Assessment, 25(4), 415–431.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116652227
5. Arbisi, P. A., Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008).
Empirical correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured
Clinical (RC) Scales in psychiatric inpatients. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 90(2), 122–128.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845146
6. Ayearst, L. E., Sellbom, M., Trobst, K. K., & Bagby, R. M.
(2013). Evaluating the interpersonal content of
the MMPI-2-RF Interpersonal Scales. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 95(2), 187–196.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.730085
7. Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). The Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3):
Technical manual. University of Minnesota Press.
8. Binford, A., & Liljequist, L. (2008). Behavioral correlates of
selected MMPI-2 Clinical, Content, and
Restructured Clinical scales. Journal of Personality Assessment,
90(6), 608–614.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388657
9. Block, A. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Marek, R. J. (2013).
Psychological risk factors for poor outcome of spine

65. surgery and spinal cord stimulator implant: A review of the
literature and their assessment with the
MMPI-2-RF. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 27(1), 81–107.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.721007
10. Burchett, D. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2010). The impact of
over-reporting on MMPI-2-RF substantive
scale score validity. Assessment, 17(4), 497–516.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110378972
11. Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M., Gervais, R. O., &
Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2017). The generalizability of
over-reporting across self-report measures: An investigation
with the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form and the Personality Assessment
Inventory in a civil disability sample.
Assessment, 24(5), 555–574.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621791
12. Dragon, W. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Handel, R. W. (2012).
Examining the impact of unscorable item
responses on the validity and interpretability of MMPI-2/MMPI-
2-RF Restructured Clinical (RC) Scale scores.
Assessment, 19(1), 101–113.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111415362
13. Erbes, C. R., Polusny, M. A., Arbisi, P. A., & Koffel, E.
(2012). PTSD symptoms in a cohort of National
Guard Soldiers deployed to Iraq: Evidence for nonspecific and
specific components. Journal of Affective
Disorders, 142(1–3), 269–274.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.05.013
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 16

66. SA
MP
LE
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000096
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000103
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2017_31_301
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116652227
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845146
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.730085
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388657
https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2012.721007
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191110378972
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115621791
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111415362
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2012.05.013
14. Finn, J. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2015).
Dichotomous versus polytomous response options
in psychopathology assessment: Method or meaningful
variance? Psychological Assessment, 27(1),

67. 184–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000044
15. Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparison of
the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and
Clinical Scales in a substance abuse treatment sample.
Psychological Services, 4(1), 46–58.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.4.1.46
16. Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008). Empirical
correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC)
Scales in a non-clinical setting. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 90(2), 136–141.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845161
17. Forbey, J. D., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Arbisi, P. A. (2012).
The MMPI-2 computer adaptive version
(MMPI-2-CA) in a Veterans Administration medical outpatient
facility. Psychological Assessment, 24(3),
628–639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026509
18. Forbey, J. D., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Gartland, D. (2009).
Validation of the MMPI-2 Computerized Adaptive
version (MMPI-2-CA) in a correctional intake facility.
Psychological Services, 6(4), 279–292.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016195
19. Forbey, J. D., Lee, T. T. C., & Handel, R. W. (2010).
Correlates of the MMPI-2-RF in a college setting.
Psychological Assessment, 22(4), 737–744.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020645
20. Glassmire, D. M, Tarescavage, A. M., Burchett, D.,
Martinez, J., & Gomez, A. (2016). Clinical utility of the
MMPI-2-RF SUI items and scale in a forensic inpatient setting:
Association with interview self-reports and
future suicidal behavior. Psychological Assessment, 28(11),

68. 1502–1509. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000220
21. Gottfried, E., Bodell, L., Carbonell, J., & Joiner, T. (2014).
The clinical utility of the MMPI-2-RF
Suicidal/Death Ideation Scale. Psychological Assessment, 26(4),
1205–1211.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000017
22. Haber, J. C., & Baum, L. J. (2014). Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-2 Restructured Form
(MMPI-2-RF) Scales as predictors of psychiatric diagnoses.
South African Journal of Psychology, 44(4),
439–453. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246314532788
23. Handel, R. W., & Archer, R. P. (2008). An investigation of
the psychometric properties of the MMPI-2
Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales with mental health inpatients.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(3),
239–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701884954
24. Kamphuis, J. H., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., &
McNulty, J. L. (2008). Detecting comorbid Axis-II
status among inpatients using the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical
Scales. European Journal of Psychological
Assessment, 24, 157–164. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
5759.24.3.157
25. Lanyon, R. I., & Thomas, M. L. (2013). Assessment of
global psychiatric categories: The PSI/PSI-2 and
the MMPI-2-RF. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 227–232.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030313
26. Laurinaityte, I., Laurinavicius, A., Ustinaviciute, L.,
Wygant, D. B., Sellbom, M. (2017). Utility of the
MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in a sample of
Lithuanian male offenders. Law and Human

69. Behavior, 41(5), 494–505. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000254
27. Lee, T. T. C., Graham, J. R., & Arbisi, P. A. (2018). The
utility of MMPI-2-RF scale scores in the
differential diagnosis of schizophrenia and major depressive
disorder. Journal of Personality Assessment,
100(3), 305–312.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1300906
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 17
SA
MP
LE
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000044
https://doi.org/10.1037/1541-1559.4.1.46
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701845161
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026509
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016195
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020645
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000220
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000017
https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246314532788
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890701884954
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759.24.3.157
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030313
https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000254
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1300906

70. 28. McCord, D. M., & Drerup, L. C. (2011). Relative practical
utility of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 Restructured Clinical Scales versus the Clinical
Scales in a chronic pain patient sample. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 33(1), 140–146.
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.495056
29. McDevitt-Murphy, M. E., Weathers, F. W., Flood, A. M.,
Eakin, D. E., & Benson, T. A. (2007). The utility
of the PAI and the MMPI-2 for discriminating PTSD,
depression, and social phobia in trauma-exposed
college students. Assessment, 14(2), 181–195.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106295914
30. Menton, W. H., Crighton, A. H., Tarescavage, A. M.,
Marek, R. J., Hicks, A. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S.
(2019). Equivalence of laptop and tablet administrations of the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
Restructured Form. Assessment, 26(4), 661–669.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117714558
31. Miller, S. N., Bozzay, M. L., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Arbisi,
P. A. (2019). Distinguishing levels of suicide risk
in depressed male veterans: The role of internalizing and
externalizing psychopathology as measured by the
MMPI-2-RF. Assessment, 26(1), 85–98.

71. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117743787
32. Rogers, M. L., Anestis, J. C., Harrop, T. M., Schneider, M.,
Bender, T. W., Ringer, F. B., & Joiner, T. E.
(2017). Examination of MMPI-2-RF substantive scales as
indicators of acute suicidal affective disturbance
components. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(4), 424–
434.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1222393
33. Romero, I. E., Toorabally, N., Burchett, D., Tarescavage,
A. M., & Glassmire, D. M. (2017). Mapping the
MMPI-2-RF substantive scales onto, internalizing,
externalizing, and thought dysfunction dimensions in a
forensic inpatient setting. Journal of Personality Assessment,
99(4), 351–362.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1223681
34. Sellbom, M., Anderson, J. L., & Bagby, R. M. (2013).
Assessing DSM-5 Section III personality traits and
disorders with the MMPI-2-RF. Assessment, 20(6), 709–722.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113508808
35. Sellbom, M., Bagby, R. M., Kushner, S., Quilty, L. C., &
Ayearst, L. E. (2011). Diagnostic construct
validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) scale
scores. Assessment, 19(2), 176–186.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111428763
36. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2008). On
the hierarchical structure of mood and anxiety
disorders: Confirmatory evidence and elaboration of a model of
temperament markers. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 117(3), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012536
37. Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2006).

72. Correlates of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical
(RC) Scales in a college counseling setting. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 86(1), 89–99.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_10
38. Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. W. (2006).
Incremental validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured
Clinical (RC) Scales in a private practice sample. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 86(2), 196–205.
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8602_09
39. Sellbom, M., & Smith, A. (2017). Assessment of DSM-5
Section II personality disorders with the
MMPI-2-RF in a nonclinical sample. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 99(4), 384–397.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1242074
40. Shkalim, E. (2015). Psychometric evaluation of the MMPI-
2/MMPI-2-RF Restructured Clinical Scales in
an Israeli sample. Assessment, 22(4), 607–618.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114555884
41. Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., &
Doebbeling, B. N. (2005). Psychometric evaluation
of the Restructured Clinical Scales of the MMPI-2.
Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 345–358.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.345
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 18
SA
MP
LE
https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2010.495056

73. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191106295914
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117714558
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191117743787
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1222393
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1223681
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191113508808
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191111428763
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012536
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_10
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8602_09
https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1242074
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114555884
https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.3.345
End of Report
42. Stanley, I. H., Yancey, J. R., Patrick, C. J., & Joiner, T. E.
(2018). A distinct configuration of MMPI-2-RF
scales RCd and RC9/ACT is associated with suicide attempt risk
among suicide ideators in a psychiatric
outpatient sample. Psychological Assessment, 30(9), 1249–
1254. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000588
43. Tarescavage, A. M., Glassmire, D. M., & Burchett, D.
(2018). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality

74. Inventory-2-Restructured Form markers of future suicidal
behavior in a forensic psychiatric hospital.
Psychological Assessment, 30(2), 170–178.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000463
44. Tarescavage, A. M., Scheman, J., & Ben-Porath, Y. S.
(2015). Reliability and validity of the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-
2-RF) in evaluations of chronic low back pain
patients. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 433–446.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000056
45. Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2008/2011). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF): Technical
manual. University of Minnesota Press.
46. Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, M., Arbisi, P. A.,
McNulty, J. L., & Graham, J. R. (2006).
Further evidence on the validity of the MMPI-2 Restructured
Clinical (RC) Scales: Addressing questions
raised by Rogers, Sewell, Harrison, and Jordan and Nichols.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 87,(2),
148–171. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_04
47. Vachon, D. D., Sellbom, M., Ryder, A. G., Miller, J. D., &
Bagby, R. M. (2009). A five-factor model
description of depressive personality disorder. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 23(5), 447–465.
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23.5.447
48. Van der Heijden, P. T., Egger, J. I. M., Rossi, G. M. P.,
Grundel, G., & Derksen, J. J. L. (2013). The
MMPI-2-Restructured Form and the standard MMPI-2 Clinical
Scales in relation to DSM-IV. European
Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29(3), 182–188.

75. https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000140
49. Wolf, E. J., Miller, M. W., Orazem, R. J., Weierich, M. R.,
Castillo, D. T., Milford, J., Kaloupek, D. G., &
Keane, T. M. (2008). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales
in the assessment of posttraumatic stress
disorder and comorbid disorders. Psychological Assessment,
20(4), 327–340.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012948
50. Wygant, D. B., Boutacoff, L. I., Arbisi, P. A., Ben-Porath,
Y. S., Kelly, P. H., & Rupp, W. M. (2007).
Examination of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales
in a sample of bariatric surgery candidates.
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings, 14(3), 197–
205.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-007-9073-8
MMPI®-3 Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings ID: Mr. J
08/01/2020, Page 19
SA
MP
LE
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000588
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000463
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000056
https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8702_04
https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2009.23 .5.447
https://doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000140
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012948
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10880-007-9073-8MMPI3 Interpretive
Report_Mr
J_060820_PDFMMPI3_10421_MrJ_Interp_MARKUP
f0: f1: f2: f3: f4: f5: f6: f7: f8: f9: f10: f11: f12: f13: f1 4: f15:

76. f16: f17: f18: f19: f20: f21: f22: f23: f24: f25: f26: f27: f28:
f29: f30: f31: f32: f33: f34: f35: f36: f37: f38: f39: f40: f41:
f42: f43: f44: f45: f46: f47: f48: f49: f50: f51: f52: f53: f54:
f55: f56: f57: f58: f59: f60: f61: f62: f63: f64: f65: f66: f67:
f68: f69: f70: f71: f72: f73: f74: f75: f76: f77: f78: f79: f80:
f81: f82: f83: f84: f85: f86: f87: f88: f89: f90: f91: f92: f93:
f94: f95: f96: f97: f98: f99: f100: f101: f102: f103: f104: f105:
f106: f107: f108: f109: f110: f111: f112: f113: f114: f115: f116:
f117: f118: f119: f120:
CHAPTER 9
Assessment of Normality
and Human Strengths
TOPIC 9A Assessment Within the
Normal Spectrum
9.1 Broad Band Tests of Normal Personality
9.2 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI)
9.3 California Psychological Inventory (CPI)
9.4 NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO-
PI-R)
9.5 Stability and Change in Personality
9.6 Assessment of Moral Judgment
9.7 Assessment of Spiritual and Religious
Concepts
In the previous chapter we surveyed tests used
by psychologists to evaluate clients for a range
of symptoms and life difficulties. These
instruments included the mainstays of the
profession such as the MMPI-2, MCMI-III,

77. Rorschach, and TAT. Such tests might be
referred to as “clinical” in nature, because they
are well suited to the needs of clinical practice.
But what are practitioners to do if they want to
evaluate someone who is reasonably normal? In
other words, assessment does not always entail
delving into symptoms, distress level, defense
mechanisms, diagnosis, and the like. One
example might be a young executive who wants
to know about “growth edges” in regard to
leadership positions. Another example might be
a college student who desires self-knowledge as
part of vocational explorations.
Even though clinical tests such as those
surveyed in the previous chapter can be
employed within the normal spectrum, they do
not excel in this application. In fact, the
evaluation of normal personality was not the
original purpose of tests such as the MMPI or
the Rorschach. For example, the initial objective
of the MMPI-2 was the diagnosis of
psychopathology, which remains the most
dominant and effective application of the
instrument. Historically, the purpose of the
Rorschach has been described by Frank (1939)
and others as providing an “X-ray of the mind”
to identify themes hidden away from ordinary
observation. Currently, the most common
application of the test is with clients who
display complex psychological symptoms that
do not fit neatly into the categories of the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV).

78. When a practitioner wants to assess personality
within the normal spectrum, tests designed
expressly for that purpose typically provide a
more helpful perspective than instruments
developed from the standpoint of
psychopathology. Instead of measuring concepts
such as depression, paranoia, anxiety,
narcissism, or suicide potential, the focus in
these alternative instruments is on qualities
pertinent to the normal range of human
functioning. We are referring here to features
like responsibility, social presence, intuition,
locus of control, attachment style, or faith
maturity. This chapter investigates an
assortment of instruments suitable for
assessment within the normal continuum and
beyond.
Normality differs from abnormality by shades of
gray rather than revealing a sharp demarcation
(Offer & Sabshin, 1966). Understanding the
various definitions of normality would involve a
lengthy detour; we do not pursue the topic here.
In their comprehensive textbook of psychiatry,
Sadock and Sadock (2004) provide an excellent
overview. Our goal here is to focus on useful
tests and measures, including some that have
been neglected because of the emphasis on
psychopathology within the field of clinical
psychology.
In Topic 9A, Assessment Within the Normal
Spectrum, we explore the qualities of several
tests and discuss their strengths and weaknesses.
We feature a few widely used scales in this

79. topic, including the venerable Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator (Myers & McCaulley, 1985), one
of the most widely employed personality tests of
all time, and the California Psychological
Inventory (Gough & Bradley, 1996), a measure
with strong empirical roots.
In addition to their value in the assessment of
client personality, tests also contribute to our
understanding of both typical and atypical
trajectories of personality across the life span.
For this reason, we follow a key research issue
in personality psychology, namely, whether
personality remains stable or tends to shift in
specific directions with age. We close the topic
with an evaluation of tools for assessing
spiritual and religious constructs.
Other forms of assessment pertinent to the
normal spectrum of adult functioning also are
covered in Topic 9A. We are referring here to
the evaluation of spiritual, religious, and moral
constructs. These specialized forms of
assessment have received an increasing amount
of attention in recent years.
In Topic 9B, Positive Psychological Assessment,
we examine a number of relatively new scales
that have emerged in response to a reawakening
of interest in human potential, an interest that
has remained largely dormant in psychology
since the early 1900s (Seligman &
Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). A special focus in this

80. topic is the assessment of creativity.
9.1 BROAD BAND TESTS OF
NORMAL PERSONALITY
A broad band test is one that measures the full
range of functioning, as opposed to limited
aspects. Beginning in the 1940s, researchers
sought to capture the nuances of normal
personality by developing broad-band self-
report instruments. The sheer variety of
approaches to this task is a testament to the
complexity of human functioning. An enduring
question, related to the previous topic on
theories of personality, is how best to
conceptualize the multi-faceted notion of
personality. For example, is personality best
construed as a limited number of types, with
most people resembling one type or another
with reasonable precision? Or, is personality
best interpreted as several dimensions, with
each unique individual revealing a specific level
of each dimension? If a dimensional approach is
preferred, how many dimensions are needed to
describe the array of human responses: 5, 16, 20
—or more?
There are no definitive answers to these
questions, although dimensional approaches
generally have prevailed over typological
methods in the history of test development.
Even so, useful and popular typological
approaches do exist. In fact, we begin the
discussion of broad-band tests with an
instrument that flexibly permits both a
typological and a dimensional approach to the

81. understanding of normal personality.
9.2 MYERS-BRIGGS TYPE
INDICATOR (MBTI)
Originally published in 1962, the MBTI is a
forced-choice, self-report inventory that
attempts to classify persons according to an
adaptation of Carl Jung’s theory of personality
types (Myers & McCaulley, 1985; Tzeng, Ware,
& Chen, 1989). As discussed below, recent
adaptations of the test also provide dimensional
scores in addition to the well-known four-letter
typological codes.
According to the publisher, the MBTI is the
most widely used individual test in history,
taken by approximately 2 million people a year.
Proponents of the instrument deem it valuable in
vocational guidance and organizational
consulting. It comes in a number of versions,
including Form M, a 93-item test which can be
purchased by qualified psychologists in a self-
scoring paper-and-pencil format, or
administered on-line. Other forms such as the
126-item Form G and the 144-item Form Q are
available on-line and must be authorized by a
psychologist who has agreed to a licensing
arrangement with the publisher, Consulting
Psychologists Press (www.cpp.com).
Regardless of the version employed, the MBTI
is scored on four theoretically independent
polarities: Extraversion–Introversion, Sensing–
iNtuition, Thinking–Feeling, and Judging–
Perceiving. The test-taker is categorized on one
side or the other of each polarity, which results

82. in a four-letter code such as ENTJ
(Extraversion, iNtuition, Thinking, Judging).
Because there are two poles to each of the four
http://www.cpp.com/
dimensions, this allows for 24 or 16 different
personality types. Each of the 16 types has been
studied extensively over the years.
The four polarities (E-I, S-N, T-F, J-P) do not
necessarily correspond to common
understandings of the anchor terms and hence
require some explanation. It is also important to
note that the concepts are intended to be value-
neutral and merely descriptive. Thus, it is
neither better nor worse to manifest
Extraversion or Introversion. Likewise,
Thinking and Feeling are simply different
modalities and one is not better than the other,
and so forth. The opposite ends of each polarity
are simply different modes of being that may
have a variety of implications for relationships,
vocation, leadership, and personal functioning.
Possessing the qualities of one polarity or the
other may be advantageous (or not) in different
situations.
Extraversion–Introversion is probably the
easiest to describe. An extravert (E) directs
energy outward to people and conversations,
whereas an introvert (I) directs energy inward to
his or her inner world. A note of clarification:
The MBTI retains the original spelling of

83. Extraversion, preferred by Jung, instead of using
the synonymous concept of Extroversio n,
preferred by contemporary psychologists.
Sensing–iNtuition involves two opposite ways
of perceiving. Those who prefer sensing (S) rely
on the immediate senses, whereas those who
prefer intuition (N) rely upon “relationships and/
or possibilities that have been worked out
beyond the reach of the conscious mind” (Myers
& McCaulley, 1985). Of course, the letter N is
used to designate intuition because the letter I
already is taken to label Introversion. Thinking–
Feeling refers to basing conclusions on thinking
(T), that is, logic and objectivity, as opposed to
feeling (F), which involves a reliance on
personal values and social harmony. Finally,
Judging–Perceiving indicates a preference for
decisiveness and closure (J) or an open-ended
flexibility and spontaneity (P). Whereas in
common parlance the notion of “judging” often
has a negative connotation, this is not the case
when the term is applied to this polarity of the
MBTI.
The 16 possible four-letter types are not equally
represented in the general population, and some
types are more common in specific occupational
groups. For example, in a sample of 231
education graduate students from a Midwestern
university, the ENFP type was by far the most
common (N = 43), followed by ENFJ (N = 28)
in frequency. Codes beginning with the letter E
(Extraversion) constituted nearly two-thirds of
this sample, which highlights the importance of

84. Extraversion in the field of education.
Paraphrasing from Myers and McCaulley (1985,
p. 78), the work expectations for someone who
embodies the ENFP type are as follows:
• prefers to work interactively with a
succession of people away from the desk
• likes to work with a succession of new
problems to be solved
• prefers to provide service that is appreciated
• likes to work in changing situations that
require adaptation
These qualities align well with the role
expectations for people heading into the field of
education.
Standardization data for the MBTI is extensive
and based on large samples collected over many
decades (Myers & McCaulley, 1985). One
particularly useful table is a list of occupations
empirically attractive to the sixteen types. For
example, 18 percent of attorneys are INTJ in
type, whereas only 2 percent of elementary
school teachers fit this code. This is useful
information for clients who take the test in
search of personal or career guidance. Split-half
reliabilities for the four scales are in the .80s for
the combined subject pool of nearly 56,000
participants. Test–retest reliabilities for the four
scales are somewhat lower and depend on the
interval between tests. When the interval is
short, on the order of a few weeks, results are

85. strong, with coefficients mainly in the .70s and
higher. Yet, when the interval is longer, on the
order of several years, the coefficients are
predictably lower, in the .40s and .50s. With
regard to reliability, an important question with
the MBTI is the stability of the four letter code
from test to retest. The test manual reports on a
dozen studies of code type stability, with retest
intervals ranging from 5 weeks to 5 years (most
intervals a year or two). On average, about 41
percent of examinees retained their identical
code type, that is, all four letters of the code
remained the same from test to retest. About 38
percent of examinees remained stable on three
of the four letters, that is, one letter changed for
them. About 17 percent of examinees retained
two of their four letters, but switched on the
other two. And, 3 percent retained only one
letter, switching on the other three. Overall,
these are impressive results as to the long-term
stability of the MBTI code types.
In a review of 17 studies reporting reliability
coefficients, Capraro and Capraro (2002) found
respectably strong reliability coefficients of .84
(E-I), .84 (S-N), .67 (T-F), and .82 (J-P). Salter,
Forney, and Evans (2005) conducted an
especially rigorous evaluation of MBTI
reliability, looking at the stability of MBTI
categories across three administrations with 231
graduate students in education. The three

86. administrations were at the beginning of the first
year, beginning of the second year, and end of
the second year. Their report included extensive
analyses, but of interest here is the percentage of
respondents who received the same
classification (e.g., Extraversion or Introversion)
on all three occasions. The percentage who
displayed complete consistency for each
dimension was as follows:
Given the stringency of the reliability approach
(agreement across three administrations), these
are respectable findings.
More than 400 references citing the MBTI were
found in PsychINFO from 2000 to 2009, many
pertaining to the validity of the instrument. For
example, in a study of 177 managers, Higgs
(2001) reported a significant relationship
between emotional intelligence and the
dominant MBTI function of iNtuition.
• E-I 67%
• S-N 66%
• T-F 69%
• J-P 71%
Emotional intelligence is monitoring emotions
of self and others and using this information to
guide thinking and actions (Mayer & Salovey,
1993). A positive relationship with MBTI
iNtuition is strong support for the validity of this
dimension.
Another recent study also provides support for
the validity of the polarities assessed by the

87. MBTI. Furnham, Moutafi, and Crump (2003)
tested 900 adults with two instruments: the
MBTI and the Revised NEO-Personality
Inventory (NEO-PI-R, Costa & McCrae, 1992).
The NEO-PI-R is a well validated measure of
personality that evaluates five factors of
personality known as the “big five.” These
factors are Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness
(to experience), Agreeableness, and
Conscientiousness. As predicted by the authors,
the MBTI dimensions revealed healthy and
appropriate correlations with corresponding
factors from the NEO-PI-R. Specifically, the
following averaged concurrent validity
correlations were found between the MBTI
dimensions and the NEO-PI-R scales: E-I
correlated .71 with Extraversion; S-N correlated
−.65 with Openness; T-F correlated −.35 with
Agreeableness; and, J-P correlated .46 with
Conscientiousness. The negative correlations
indicate an inverse relationship, that is, those
categorized as S (Sensing) on the MBTI
obtained low scores on Openness, whereas those
categorized as N (iNtuition) obtained high
scores on Openness. In like manner a T or
Thinking type tended to obtain low scores on
Agreeableness whereas an F or Feeling type
tended to obtain high scores. All of these
correlations are consistent with theoretical
understandings of the MBTI and hence buttress
the validity of the instrument.
As mentioned, recent versions of the MBTI
yield additional information beyond the four-

88. letter typological classification. For example,
the 144-item form Q, available on-line, provides
a highly detailed and sophisticated summary
report that partitions each of the four polarities
into five facet scores. Hence the report includes
a total of 20 facet scores in addition to the four-
letter code. For example, the Thinking-Feeling
dimension includes bipolar facets such as
Logical-Empathetic, Reasonable-
Compassionate, and Tough-Tender. The
dimensions and facets of this version of the
MBTI are displayed in Table 9.1. The report
includes not only the typological classifications
(e.g., T or F) but also a rating for each bipolar
facet on an 11-point continuum. This kind of
nuanced dimensional information appeals to
many users.
TABLE 9.1 Dimensions and Facets of the
MBTI, Form Q
Extraversion (E) (I) Introversion
Initiating Receiving
Expressive Contained
Gregarious Intimate
Active Reflective
Enthusiastic Quiet
Sensing (S) (N) Intuition
Concrete Abstract
Realistic Imaginative
Practical Conceptual
Experiential Theoretical
Traditional Original

89. One concern about the MBTI is that the
increasing cost of administering the instrument
—in the range of $10 to $30 per individual—
provides a disincentive for outside researchers
who want to conduct reliability or validity
studies. This is an issue not only for the MBTI
but also for the most widely used contemporary
tests. Understandably, test publishers want to
profit from their massive and expensive efforts
at test development. But the downside is that
scholarly researchers need substantial funding if
they desire to administer newer versions of the
Thinking (T) (F) Feeling
Logical Empathetic
Reasonable Compassionate
Questioning Accommodating
Critical Accepting
Tough Tender
Judging (J) (P) Perceiving
Systematic Casual
Planful Open-Ended
Early Starting Pressure-Prompted
Scheduled Spontaneous
Methodical Emergent
MBTI to large samples of examinees. Partly in
reaction to the paucity of independent research
on newer versions of this test, reviewers
continue to suggest caution in its use, especially
when making simplistic inferences from the
four-letter type formulas (Pittenger, 2005).
9.3 CALIFORNIA

90. PSYCHOLOGICAL
INVENTORY (CPI)
Originally published in 1957, the CPI is a true–
false test designed expressly to measure the
dimensions of normal personality (Gough &
Bradley, 1996; McAllister, 1988). The
instrument is available in two forms, the
CPI-434 (Gough, 1995) and the CPI-260
(www.skillsone.com), which is available only
online. The component scales and the
interpretive strategies are nearly identical for the
two versions, which differ mainly in the number
of items—434 versus 260. Psychometric
properties of both versions are similar and
strong. Because of its ease of administration and
http://www.skillsone.com/
the immediacy with which the practitioner
receives an extensive computer-generated
report, the CPI-260 rapidly is gaining favor
among psychological practitioners.
The CPI-260 is scored for 20 folk measures of
personality, 7 work-related scales, and 3 broad
vectors. The purpose of the test is to provide a
clear picture of the examinee by using
descriptors based on the ordinary language of
everyday life (Gough & Bradley, 1996). Three
of the basic personality scales also provide
information on test-taking attitudes and
therefore function as validity scales. These
scales are Good Impression (Gi), which assesses
the extent to which the individual presents a
favorable image to others; Communality (Cm),
which measures unusual responses that might

91. arise from carelessness or faking bad; and Well-
being (Wb), which gauges the portrayal of
serious emotional problems.
TABLE 9.2 Brief Description of Standard
and Work-Related CPI-260 Scales
Standard
Scales
Common Interpretation of High
Score
D
o
Dominance dominant, persistent, good
leadership ability
C
s
Capacity for
Status
personal qualities that underlie
and lead to status
S
y
Sociability outgoing, sociable, participative
temperament
S

92. p
Social
Presence
poise, spontaneity, and self-
confidence in social situations
S
a
Self-
acceptance
self-acceptance and sense of
personal worth
I
n
Independen
ce
high sense of personal
independence, not easily
influenced
E
m
Empathy good capacity to empathize with
other persons
R
e

93. Responsibili
ty
conscientious, responsible, and
dependable
S
o
Social
Conformity
strong social maturity and high
integrity
S
c
Self-control good self-control, freedom from
impulsivity and self-
centeredness
G
i
Good
Impression
concerned about creating a good
impression
C
m

94. Communalit
y
valid and thoughtful response
pattern
W
b
Sense of
Well-being
not worrying or complaining,
free from self doubt
T
o
Tolerance permissive, accepting, and
nonjudgmental social beliefs
A
c
Achieveme
nt via
Conformanc
e
achieves well in settings where
conformance is necessary
A
i
Achieveme

95. nt via
Independen
ce
achieves well in settings where
independence is necessary
C
f
Conceptual
fluency
high degree of personal and
intellectual efficiency
Is Insightfulne
ss
interested in and responsive to
the inner needs, motives, and
experiences of others
F
x
Flexibility flexible and adaptable in thought
and social behavior
Source: Based on Gough, H. G. and Bradley, P. (1996).
CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press. Also, Megargee, E. (1972). The
S

96. n
Sensitivity sensitive to others’ feelings,
personally vulnerable
Work-
Related
Scales
Common Interpretation of High
Score
M
p
Managerial
Potential
good judgment, effective at
dealing with people
W
o
Work
Orientation
strong work ethic, rarely
complains about work
C
t
Creative
Temperame
nt

97. creative thinker who prefers
what is new or different
L
p
Leadership strong leadership skills, deals
well with stress
A
m
i
Amicability collegial and cooperative, a
good team player
L
e
o
Law
Enforcemen
t
Orientation
practical, well suited to work in
law enforcement
California Psychological Inventory handbook. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass; and McAllister, L. (1988). A
practical guide to CPI interpretation. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
The 20 folk measures and 7 work-related scales

98. are listed and briefly described in Table 9.2.
These scales are reported as T-scores normed to
a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10 in
the general population. The test developers used
an empirical methodology of criterion-keying to
develop the majority of the scales. Specifically,
extreme groups of participants (mainly college
students) were formed on such scale-relevant
criteria as school grades, sociability, and
participation in curricular activities. Item-
endorsement frequencies were then contrasted
to ferret out the best statements for each scale.
For example, the Sociability (Sy) scale was
constructed by contrasting item-endorsement
rates for persons reporting a large number of
social activities versus those reporting few or no
social activities. In constructing four of the folk
scales, the authors used a rational basis backed
up by indices of internal consistency.
Reflecting the care with which the scales were
constructed, reliability data for the CPI are
respectable. Most alpha coefficients are in the
.70s and .80s, with a median value of .76. The
test–retest reliability coefficients tend to be
somewhat lower, with a median retest
correlation of .68. The authors provide a wealth
of normative data, including average test scores
for 52 samples of males and 42 samples of
females, subdivided by education, occupation,
college major, gender, and other variables. The
basic normative sample consists of 3,000 males
and 3,000 females of varying age, social class,
and geographic region (Gough & Bradley,

99. 1996).
In addition to the wealth of information
provided by the individual scale scores, the CPI
also is scored on three broad dimensions or
vectors derived from decades of factor-analytic
studies with the instrument. The three vectors
include two basic orientations and a third theme
reflecting ego integration. The first basic
orientation called vector 1 or v.1 has two
polarities: toward people or toward one’s inner
life. This vector is similar to the extraversion–
introversion dimension found in nearly every
personality theory ever proposed. The second
basic orientation or v.2 also has two polarities:
rule-favoring or rule-questioning. This vector
reflects a conventional–unconventional
dimension also found in many studies. These
first two bipolar orientations, v.1 and v.2,
provide a 2 × 2 typology of four lifestyles
termed the Implementer, Supporter, Innovator,
and Visualizer lifestyles, described below. The
third vector or v.3 assesses a 7-point continuum
variously referred to as self-realization,
psychological competence, or ego integration.
In the client feedback report provided by the
publisher, v.3 is referred to as Level of
Satisfaction and scored 1 (low) to 7 (high). This
vector acts as a moderator for each of the
lifestyles, with high scores on v.3 leading to a
positive expression and low scores leading to a
negative expression.
Results from several correlational studies
confirm distinctive psychological portraits for

100. the four lifestyles mentioned above (Gough &
Bradley, 1996). Briefly, the four life styles are
as follows:
• Implementers (extroverted and rule-
favoring) tend to do well in managerial and
leadership roles.
• Supporters (introverted and rule-favoring)
function well in supportive or ancillary
positions.
• Innovators (extroverted and rule-
questioning) are adept at creating change.
• Visualizers (introverted and rule-
questioning) work best alone in fields such
as art or literature.
The CPI Manual provides a wealth of
information about each lifestyle, including
adjective correlates obtained from spouses,
peers, and professional evaluators. From these
empirical sources, a clear portrait of each
lifestyle emerges. For example, the summary
statement for Innovators is as follows:
Gammas attend to and seek the monetary,
prestige, and other rewards offered by
society, but are often at odds with the
culture concerning the criteria by which

101. these rewards are apportioned. Their values
are personal and individual, not traditional
or conventional. Gammas [Innovators] are
the doubters, the skeptics, those who see
and resist the arbitrary and unjustified
features of the status quo. At their best,
they are innovative and insightful creators
of new ideas, new products, and new social
forms. At their worst, they are rebellious,
intolerant, self-indulgent, and disruptive;
and at low levels on the v.3 scale, they
often behave in wayward, rule-violating,
and narcissistic ways. (Gough & Bradley,
1996, p. 50)
The reader will notice that the third vector, v.3,
moderates the expression of the
Implementer lifestyle, for better or for
worse. When v.3 is high, the Implementer
is innovative and insightful. When v.3 is
low, the Implementer is wayward and
narcissistic. A similar pattern holds true for
the other three lifestyles—each can have a
positive or negative expression, depending
on the level of personal integration
reflected on the v.3 scale.
The CPI is heir to a long history of empirical
research that substantiates a number of real-
world correlates for distinctive test profiles. Due
to space limitations, we can only list several
prominent areas in which the value of the test

102. has been empirically confirmed. The CPI is
useful for helping predict the following:
• Psychological and physical health
• High school and college achievement
• Effectiveness of student-teachers
• Effectiveness of police and military
personnel
• Leadership and management success
The CPI is particularly effective at identifying
adolescents or adults who follow a delinquent or
criminal lifestyle. For example, Gough and
Bradley (1992) studied a sample of 672
delinquent or criminal men and women,
contrasting their CPI scale scores with a large
sample of controls. Of the 27 scales evaluated,
they found significant mean differences on 25
for men and 26 for women. The most
discriminating scale was Social Conformity
(So), which revealed healthy point-biserial
correlations of .54 for men and .58 for women.
They also found that low scores on v.3 (a
measure of ego integration) were associated
with greater incidence of delinquency. The
reader can find further details on the real-world
empirical correlates of CPI profiles in Groth-
Marnat (2003) and Hargrave and Hiatt (1989).
9.4 NEO PERSONALITY
INVENTORY-REVISED (NEO
PI-R)
The NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO
PIR) embodies decades of factor-analytic

103. research with clinical and normal adult
populations (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The test is
based upon the five-factor model of personality
described in the previous chapter. It is available
in two parallel forms consisting of 240 items
rated on a five-point dimension. An additional
three items are used to check validity. A shorter
version, the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-
FFI) is also available (Costa & McCrae, 1989).
We limit our discussion to the NEO PI-R. Form
S is for self-reports whereas Form R is for
outside observers (e.g., the spouse of a client).
The item format consists of five-point ratings:
strongly disagree, disagree, neutral, agree,
strongly agree. The items assess emotional,
interpersonal, experiential, attitudinal, and
motivational variables.
The five domain scales of the NEO PI-R are
each based upon six facet (trait) scales (Table
9.3). The internal consistency of the scales is
superb: .86 to .95 for the domain scales, and .56
to .90 for the facet scales. Stability coefficients
range from .51 to .83 in three- to seven-year
longitudinal studies. Validity evidence for the
NEO PI-R is substantial, based on the
correspondence of ratings between self and
spouse, correlations with other tests and
checklists, and the construct validity of the five-
factor model itself (Costa & McCrae, 1992;
Piedmont & Weinstein, 1993; Trull, Useda,
Costa, & McCrae, 1995).

104. The NEO PI-R is an excellent measure of
personality that is especially useful in research.
Rubenzer, Faschingbauer, and Ones (2000)
describe a particularly fascinating research
project with the test in which all U.S. presidents
were evaluated by 115 highly informed, expert
presidential biographers who filled out the NEO
PI-R on behalf of the presidents, from George
Washington through George H. W. Bush. The
authors developed a typology of presidents from
the data and related facets of the test to
presidential success (i.e., historical greatness).
They also published individual presidential
profiles, such as the following results for
George Washington (50 is average in the general
population):
The portrait that emerges is of a leader who is
well-adjusted, slightly introverted, not
particularly open to experience, markedly
Neuroticism 47
Extraversion 44
Openness 39
Agreeableness 40
Conscientiousness 72
disagreeable, and extremely conscientious. After
reviewing the specific facet scores (see Table
9.3), the authors concluded that Washington
“falls quite short of the modern political
commodities of warmth, empathy, and open-
mindedness.”

105. TABLE 9.3 Domain and Facet (Trait) Scales
of the NEO PI-R
Domains Facets
Neuroticism Anxiety Self-
Consciousness
Angry
Hostility
Impulsiveness
Depression Vulnerability
Extraversion Warmth Activity
Gregariousne
ss
Excitement
Seeking
Assertiveness Positive
Emotions
Openness to
Experience
Fantasy Actions
Aesthetics Ideas
Feelings Values
Agreeableness Trust Compliance
The test also shows promise as a measure of

106. clinical psychopathology. For example, Clarkin,
Hull, Cantor, and Sanderson (1993) found that
patients diagnosed with borderline personality
disorder scored very high on Neuroticism and
very low on Agreeableness, which resonates
strongly with every clinician’s response to these
challenging patients. Ranseen, Campbell, and
Baer (1998) determined that 25 adults with
attention deficit disorder scored significantly
higher than controls in the Neuroticism domain
and significantly lower in the Conscientiousness
domain, demonstrating the usefulness of the
NEO PI-R in understanding attention deficit
disorders in adulthood. One minor concern
about the instrument is that it lacks substantial
Straightforwa
rdness
Modesty
Altruism Tender-
Mindednesss
Conscientiousne
ss
Competence Achievement
Striving
Order Self-Discipline
Dutifulness Deliberation
validity scales—only three items assess validity.

107. The administration of the NEO PI-R assumes
that subjects are cooperative and reasonably
honest. This is usually a safe assumption in
research settings but may not hold true in
forensic, personnel, or psychiatric settings.
For purposes of education and research, several
psychometricians have constructed websites
where it is possible to self-administer an
equivalent version of the NEO PI-R. Although
not identical to the commercial version of the
test (Costa & McCrae, 1992), these parallel
adaptations do provide estimates of examinee
standing on the five broad domains and 30
subdomains of personality tested by the NEO
PI-R and also provide useful narrative reports.
One such site can be found at
www.personalitytest.com. Another useful site is
available at http://ipip.ori.org. This location
hosts the International Personality Item Pool
(IPIP), advertised as a “scientific collaboratory
for the development of advanced measures of
personality and other individual differences.”
The term collaboratory was coined by Finholt
http://www.personalitytest.com/
http://ipip.ori.org/
and Olson (1997) to describe Internet-based
arrangements that facilitate the collaboration of
test specialists, regardless of geographical
location. For example, the specific mission of
IPIP is to bring test development into the public
domain and serve as a forum for the
dissemination of research findings and
psychometric developments.

108. Recently, the developers of the NEO-PI-R
produced a new version that is more readable
and therefore better suited to students as young
as 12 years of age. The NEO-PI-3 is a careful
and modest revision of the original instrument
that addresses a number of problematic items
difficult for adolescents and young adults to
comprehend (McCrae, Costa, & Martin, 2005).
As noted above, the NEO-PI-R consists of 240
items rated on a 5-point Likert scale from
Strongly Agree to Strongly Disagree. The
authors identified 30 items using words on a par
with laissez-faire, fastidious, and adhere that
even adults might find challenging. The authors
rewrote these items for transparency and
carefully tested them for equivalence in a new
sample of 500 respondents. Three illustrations
of old items and replacement items (in boldface)
are shown below. These are representative only,
not the actual items and revisions:
• 1. I feel angst about the future.
• 1. I feel nervous about the future.
• 2. I think of myself as laissez-faire.
• 2. I think of myself as easy-going.
• 3. I enjoy situations of raucous hilarity.
• 4. I like to laugh.
An additional 18 items were rewritten because
they revealed low item-total correlations with
the facet (trait) scale to which they belonged.
The resulting instruments, the NEO-PI-3,
retained the original five-factor structure and
revealed better internal consistenc y and

109. readability than the previous version. In sum,
the authors improved their test, especially for
applications with adolescent and college-aged
clients (Costa, McCrae, & Martin, 2008).
9.5 STABILITY AND CHANGE
IN PERSONALITY
Most of us have heard adages like “People don’t
change” or “Personality traits become
exaggerated with age” or “You have to hit
bottom before change is possible.” Opinions
abound on the stability or malleability of
personality. What the lay public seldom
recognizes, however, is that issues of stability
and change in personality can be approached
with empiricism through psychological
assessment. As we will see, a few tests figure
prominently in lifespan developmental research,
especially instruments that embody the five-
factor approach (Costa & McCrae, 1992).
One question central to the field of personality
psychology is whether personality remains
stable throughout life, or reveals predictable
shifts in certain qualities as we age. On the
surface this question appears amenable to
straightforward longitudinal research. Simply
administer a suitable instrument to a large
sample of the general population, and retest
every five years or so. Then, chart the trends in
dimensions of personality over the life span. But
this is not as simple as it seems. One problem is

110. selective attrition, in which less healthy
individuals tend to drop out, disappear, or
discontinue the project for reasons known and
unknown (Barry, 2005). Although there are
methodological adjustments for minimizing the
impact, selective attrition nonetheless may skew
results toward an unrealistically optimistic
picture of trends in aging. Another problem with
longitudinal research is that decades of time are
needed to follow individuals over the life span.
Long-term developmental research is difficult
and expensive.
An alternative strategy is cross-sectional
research in which a large sample of individuals
of all ages (from teenagers to persons in their
90s) is tested at one point in time, allowing for
immediate age comparisons in personality
characteristics. This is an appealing technique
but also fraught with methodological concerns.
In particular, the cross-sectional strategy is
vulnerable to a research problem known as
cohort effects (Schaie, 2011). A cohort is a
group of individuals born at roughly the same
time who therefore share particular life
experiences and historical influences. A cohort
effect is the inference that differences between
age groups (cohorts) are due to disparities in the
nature and quality of early developmental or
historical experiences rather than caused by the
impact of aging. A hypothetical example will
serve to illustrate. Suppose we observe in a
cross-sectional study of neuroticism (anxiety-
proneness) that persons in their 70s score higher

111. than those in their 50s. We might be tempted to
attribute the apparent increase in neuroticism to
the impact of aging and its attendant concerns.
But that inference overlooks the possibility that
the older participants in our study were always
higher in neuroticism than the younger
members, perhaps because their early formative
years occurred during the frantic uncertainty of
World War II, or for other unknown reasons. In
this hypothetical example, the higher level of
neuroticism would not be a general trend or
result of traversing into old age, but a specific
quirk of the older cohort. Again, this is an
hypothetical example. Real age trends in
neuroticism are reviewed below.
Yet, the proposal that historical forces can shape
the personality of an entire cohort is accurate.
Elder (1974) has documented historical impacts
on personality in a path-breaking longitudinal
study of children raised during the Great
Depression (1929–1941). Among other findings,
these children grew into adults who responded
with habits of greater frugality than preceding or
subsequent cohorts.
In studying age trends in personality, a certain
degree of tentativeness is warranted, because no
single study or method is conclusive. Some
researchers combine longitudinal and cross-
sectional methods in what is known as the cross-
sequential approach (Nestor & Schutt, 2012).
This method involves the longitudinal retesting
of cross-sectional study participants on at least
one additional occasion. The beauty of the