This document summarizes a study that explored gender differences in personality disorder traits, clinical syndromes, and IQ among 210 parental competency examinees. The study found: 1) Male examinees had significantly higher IQ scores than females, although both were in the low average range. 2) Males had significantly higher social desirability scores and lower debasement scores on the MCMI-III personality assessment. 3) Multivariate analysis found significant main effects for gender on clinical personality patterns and clinical scales measured by the MCMI-III, with medium effect sizes. Univariate analysis showed males had significantly higher scores on antisocial, sadistic, narcissistic, and substance misuse scales.

1. Gender differences in MCMI-III and WAIS-III scores in parental
competency examinees
Denise McCartan, Gisli Gudjonsson ⁎
Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, Kings College London, De Crespigny Park, Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AF, United Kingdom
a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 7 March 2016
Received in revised form 26 May 2016
Accepted 17 June 2016
Available online xxxx
This paper explores gender differences in personality disorder traits, clinical syndromes and IQ among 210 paren-
tal competency examinees. Examinees completed the MCMI-III and WAIS-III. Male examinees obtained higher IQ
scores than females, although both were in the low average range of ability. Males had significantly higher social
desirability scores and lower debasement scores. Multivariate analysis of variance was carried out for Clinical Per-
sonality Patterns and Clinical Scales and controlling for IQ and validity indices. There were significant main effects
on Clinical Personality Patterns and Clinical Scales with medium effect size. Univariate analysis showed males had
significantly higher scores on the antisocial, sadistic, narcissistic, and alcohol and drug misuse scales. Results
found male and female parental competency examinees are not a homogenous group but rather two distinct
groups with different personality profiles and differing levels of intellectual ability. The implications for future pa-
rental competency assessments are discussed.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Key words:
Parental competency
Personality
IQ
Psychopathology
Gender differences
1. Introduction
Many difficulties have been found to impact on parenting and lead to
Court involvement. Among those frequently reported are: domestic vi-
olence; child physical/sexual abuse; poor mental health; intellectual
limitations; parents own poor experience of being parented; alcohol
and/or substance misuse and personality disorder or difficulties
(Berlin, Appleyard, & Dodge, 2011; Conroy, Marks, Schacht, Davies, &
Moran, 2010; Jaffe, Cranston, & Shadlow, 2012; Low et al., 2012;
Lussier, Laventure, & Bertrand, 2010; McGaw, Scully, & Pritchard,
2010; Ramchandani & Psychogiou, 2009; Winqvist, Jokelainen,
Luukinen, & Hillborn, 2007).
Most of the research considering the impact of personality difficul-
ties on parenting looks specifically at parents with personality disorder
and findings indicate that parental personality difficulties impact nega-
tively on the parent/child relationship and frequently lead to a reduc-
tion in the level of care provided (Newman, Stevenson, Bergman, &
Boyce, 2007; Perepletchikova, Ansell, & Axelrod, 2012). Whilst these
studies provide some information about personality and parenting,
there is a paucity of literature considering the personality characteristics
of parents that contribute to a good or poor outcome for children, partic-
ularly those parents who do not meet criteria for personality disorder,
but have been accused of inadequate parenting. This knowledge is par-
ticularly important in a Court setting, where personality has been
assessed and decisions have to be made about the relevance of findings
to the future of the children and the potential interventions that should
be proposed.
Assessments for Court usually include a psychological assessment,
which encompasses evaluation of: mental health; intellectual function-
ing; attitudes towards parenting and a consideration of personality fac-
tors that impact on parental behaviour. The assessment of intellectual
ability is intended to identify whether there are any cognitive limita-
tions that would impact on parenting, and to ensure that parents are
capable of understanding the Court process and working with profes-
sionals without advocacy. In addition, an understanding of intellectual
limitations can aid professionals when interventions are being
proposed.
Within a parental competency assessment, it is common for person-
ality to be measured using a standardised assessment tool and a rela-
tively small number of studies have examined MCMI-III and MMPI-2
scores of parents assessed for Court proceedings (Bathurst, Gottfried,
& Gottfried, 1997; Lampel, 1999; Lenny & Dear, 2009; McCann et al.,
2002; Otto & Collins, 1995; Resendes & Lecci, 2012 and Stredny,
Archer, & Manson, 2006). These studies were carried out in the US and
two separate groups of parents were identified. Child custody litigants
are described by Resendes and Lecci (2012) as “civil cases that largely
involve parental disagreement about legal and/or physical custody,
without necessarily involving problems with the basic parenting abili-
ties of either parent” (p. 1055) and these seem comparable with what
is known in the UK as private family law cases. In contrast Resendes
and Lecci (2012) describe parental competency cases as involving “a
legal intervention by a government agency in order to protect the
child (e.g. allegations of abuse, neglect, etc.)” (p. 1055) and this is com-
parable to what is described in the UK as Child Care Proceedings cases.
Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 36–40
⁎ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: gisli.gudjonsson@kcl.ac.uk (G. Gudjonsson).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.06.035
0191-8869/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Personality and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

2. For the information to be valid, the conclusions drawn from the per-
sonality assessment are most helpful if they are based on the population
from which they came, but norms for parental competency examinees
have not been published. Bathurst et al. (1997) identified the impor-
tance of developing norms for child custody cases and published data
for 508 child custody litigants who had completed the MMPI-2. They
found participants exhibited a defensive underreporting of psychologi-
cal symptoms and a tendency to give socially desirable responses. Given
the high stakes involved this is not surprising; however the authors
argue that despite this finding the clinical utility of this scale is not
eroded.
In a similar study of MCMI-III profiles of 259 child custody litigants,
McCann et al., (2002), also found elevated scores on the desirability sub-
scale and in addition, subclinical increases in Scales 4 (Histrionic), 5
(Narcissistic) and 7 (Compulsive) with females scoring significantly
higher than males on all 3 scales.
Only one study has considered the personality characteristics of pa-
rental competency examinees using the MCMI-III. Stredny, Archer, and
Mason (2006) compared MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of 127
parental competency examinees and found participants had elevated
scores on desirability. Similar to McCann et al., (2002), with child custo-
dy litigants, they found the most elevated base rate scores were on the
Personality scales Histrionic, Narcissistic and Compulsive, although
mean scores were all below the standard clinical cut-off level, i.e. base
rate ≥ 75. They argued that their findings demonstrated the similarities
between child custody litigants and parental competency examinees.
Resendes and Lecci (2012) compared the MMPI-2 scores of parental
competency cases (n = 136), with child custody litigants and
interpreted these as two different groups. Like Stredny et al. (2006)
they found parental competency examinees obtained sub clinical scores
on the scales (scale 4, Pd was the exception). They also found parental
competency examinees obtained significantly higher mean scores on
most clinical scales relative to those obtained by child custody litigants.
In addition, parental competency examinees were younger, less educat-
ed, had more children and were more likely to be female than the child
custody litigants. They concluded that, as they expected, the child custo-
dy litigant's scores indicated greater parental fitness, than the parental
competency group.
To date, the only study to consider the MCMI-III characteristics of pa-
rental competency examinees is that of Stredny et al. (2006). The focus
of that study was to identify whether parental competency examinees
were a different group from child custody litigants.
Given the life changing implications for families following parental
competency assessment, the dearth of literature is concerning. This
group have not been given parity with child litigant examinees, even
though the possibility of a negative outcome for the children involved
is equally if not more likely. No study has considered gender differences
in personality characteristics or intellectual functioning in this group.
The findings have implications for policy makers and service providers.
This paper presents a description of data collected over a 5-year period
and during the process of assessing parental competency examinees for
Court proceedings. The findings have implications for these assess-
ments, which are often critical in the process towards helping the Courts
decide whether children remain with, or are removed from their par-
ents care.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Participants were 210 (n = 144 females; n = 66 males) parental
competency examinees who had been referred for psychological assess-
ment through the UK Court system. Examinations were carried out by a
Clinical Psychologist, chartered by the British Psychological Society and
registered with the Health and Care Professions Council.
2.2. Measures
Demographic data was collected which included age, employment
and cultural identity.
2.2.1. Wechsler adult intelligence scale – third edition
Participants completed the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Third
UK Edition (WAIS-III) (Wechsler, 1997). The WAIS-III consists of 11 sub-
tests, 6 verbal and 5 performance (non-verbal). A standardised or scaled
score can be derived for each subtest, with a mean of 10 and a standard
deviation of 3. Subtests can be summated to determine Verbal, Perfor-
mance and Full Scale IQ (FSIQ).
It is usual during assessment for civil or criminal cases, to include a
measure of malingering. This is because suboptimal performance on
tests of intellectual functioning can be of benefit to the participant, i.e.
to avoid assuming responsibility for behaviour, or for financial gain
(Young, Jacobson, Einzig, Gray, & Gudjonsson, 2016). With parenting as-
sessments for the Family Courts, there is no benefit to under perfor-
mance. For this reason tests of malingering were not routinely
administered.
2.2.2. Millon clinical multiaxial inventory – third edition (MCMI-III; Millon
(1997))
All participants completed the MCMI-III. The MCMI-III is based on
Millon's theory of personality and is comprised of 24 scales that parallel
DSM-III and DSM-IV Axis I and II diagnostic categories. A 175-item true-
false questionnaire groups information into 20 categories of enduring
personality characteristics (Axis II) and psychopathology (Axis I; clinical
syndromes [CSs]). There are also four validity measures, i.e. validity, dis-
closure, desirability and debasement.
The validity score encompasses three bizarre items and ensures indi-
viduals are responding appropriately to the instrument. Desirability
identifies individuals who tend to give socially desirable responses or
who are attempting to conceal some aspect of their personality. Disclo-
sure indicates those who either under- or over- report symptoms and
debasement suggests a tendency towards self-deprecation and iden-
tifies those who exaggerate emotional and interpersonal difficulties.
The Axis II Scales include 11 Clinical Personality Patterns: schizoid;
avoidant; depressive; dependent; histrionic; narcissistic; antisocial; sa-
distic; compulsive; negativistic and masochistic and 3 Severe Personality
Pathology Scales: schizotypal; borderline and paranoid. There are 7, Axis
I Clinical Scales: anxiety; somatoform; bipolar; dysthymia; alcohol de-
pendence; drug dependence and post-traumatic stress disorder and 3
Severe Clinical Syndromes: thought disorder; major depression and delu-
sional disorder. Raw scores can be transformed into base rate (BR)
scores and provide a continuum of scores against which individuals
can be compared and assessed.
A BR score of 75 or above is consistent with a diagnosis of DSM-IV
Personality Disorder trait or presence of a clinical syndrome. A BR
score of 85 or above is consistent with a diagnosis of DSM-IV Personality
Disorder and/or prominence of a clinical syndrome. Hence the lower
category indicates trait/presence level, and the higher category indi-
cates disorder/prominence. A BR Score of 60 was the median raw
score of the normative sample of the MCMI-III (Millon, 1997).
2.3. Procedure
This study reviewed the information gathered by the first author
during the process of assessment for care proceedings and over a 5-
year period (2008–2013). The assessments were required as a result
of concerns by Social Services that parents had not cared for their chil-
dren appropriately and in all cases, there were allegations of neglect,
and/or abuse. All parents involved were before the Court. The clinician
was a Court appointed expert witness. Cases were assigned to the ex-
pert, on the basis of the expert's availability to carry out the assessment
and write the report within a timeframe commensurate with the Court's
37D. McCartan, G. Gudjonsson / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 36–40

3. needs. Participants were administered the MCMI-III only if they met
criteria for its use, i.e. they evidenced problematic emotional and inter-
personal characteristics and/or they were undergoing mental health
evaluation. Participants were selected from a larger pool of 300 as
those who did not have English as a first language were excluded on
the basis that comprehension could not be guaranteed. Also those
who invalidated the MCMI-III due to inconsistent responding were not
included. All participants were administered the WAIS-III as a routine
element of their evaluation.
2.4. Data analysis
The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Third Edition was used to de-
rive a full scale IQ for each participant (Wechsler, 1997). Eleven subtests
were administered: Picture Completion; Vocabulary; Digit-Symbol Cod-
ing; Similarities; Block Design; Arithmetic; Matrix Reasoning; Digit
Span; Information; Symbol Search and Letter-Number Sequencing and
Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ) was calculated. FSIQ scores were described and gen-
der differences were analysed using a t-test and Cohen's d for effect size
(Cohen's d: 0.30 = low; 0.50 = medium; 0.80 = large).
On the MCMI-III, profiles were interpreted using Millon's system of
base rate scores. The base rate is determined by the prevalence of traits
or disorders in a population of psychiatric patients. There were 2 types
of analysis: (1) gender differences on Clinical Personality Characteris-
tics; (2) gender differences on Clinical Scales/Psychopathology.
Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was used to measure
overall gender differences (main effect) on the enduring personality
characteristics (Axis II) and psychopathology (Axis I; clinical syn-
dromes) scales controlling for IQ and the disclosure, desirability and de-
basement indices. The MANOVAs were followed up with Univariate (t-
tests) analyses and gender effect sizes were determined using η2
.
3. Results
3.1. Demographics
The mean age of the females was 32.4 years (SD = 8.4) with an age
range of 18 to 55 years. The mean age of the males was 35.2 years
(SD = 9.59) with ages ranging from 21 to 62 years. There was no signif-
icant difference in age.
Ninety-seven percent of the sample, were white British or Irish, 3%
were from ‘other’ cultural backgrounds.
Seventy-five per cent of the group were unemployed, 8% were
employed in unskilled labour, 7% were in semi-skilled labour, 7% in
skilled labour and 4% were professionals.
3.2. Gender differences
There was a significant gender difference for the WAIS-III measure of
general intellectual functioning, (81.81 vs 87.62; t = −2.95; p b 0.01)
and men obtained higher scores than women (Cohen's d = 0.44, medi-
um effect size).
Table 1 shows gender differences in mean scores on Personality Indi-
ces: Desirability; Disclosure and Debasement. Males obtained
significantly higher Desirability scores and lower Debasement scores
than females with medium and low effect sizes, respectively.
In order to determine whether there was an overall significant dif-
ference between males and females on MCMI-III indices scores a multi-
variate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was carried out with regard to
the Clinical Personality Patterns and Clinical Syndrome Scales, respec-
tively. The Clinical Personality Patterns were entered as the dependent
variables. Group was the fixed factor, and IQ and the three indices [De-
sirability; Disclosure; Debasement] were the covariates. MCMI-III mean
scores for both males and females were all below the standard clinical
cut-off level, i.e. base rate ≥ 75. MANOVA showed a main gender effect
(Pillai's Trace: F = 3.11, p = 0.001; η2
= 0.19, medium effect size).
On Clinical Personality Patterns, males obtained significantly higher
scores than females on narcissistic, antisocial, and sadistic (low effect
size on all scales). Females did not obtain significantly higher scores
than males on any Clinical Personality Characteristic. Gender differences
for narcissistic and antisocial were consistent with the MCMI-III norms,
however, sadistic was not, and findings that males were more sadistic
than females, were not reported by Millon (1997).
With regard to the Clinical Syndrome Scales, MANOVA showed a
main gender effect (Pillai's Trace: F = 2.74, p = 0.01; η2
= 0.12, medi-
um effect size). Males obtained significantly higher scores than females
on both alcohol (low effect size) and drug dependence (medium effect
size). This was consistent with the MCMI-III norms.
4. Discussion
There was a significant gender difference in Full Scale IQ with males
obtaining on average almost 6 points higher IQ scores than females.
Both groups obtained ‘Low Average’ scores and intellectual functioning
was therefore lower than that found in the general population
(Wechsler, 1997). This information can be used when planning inter-
ventions for this group, for example, advocates can be provided, or in-
formation to be delivered can take account of lower intellectual
functioning, if this is deemed necessary.
On the MCMI-III, response styles for both males and females were
within the average range and BR scores fell below cut-offs for traits, or
the presence of clinical symptoms. Responses on the MCMI-III indicated
males were significantly more likely than females to give socially desir-
able responses. Stredny et al. (2006), found parental competency par-
ents as a group were more likely to give socially desirable responses
than child custody cases, although they did not report whether there
were gender differences in their results. We do not know therefore
whether Stredney's results were associated with strong social desirabil-
ity from the male participants. This study found males had lower de-
basement scores, which means they were less likely than the females
to deprecate or devalue themselves. Females may hope that by disclos-
ing their difficulties they will receive the support they need. In addition,
it is possible that by giving socially desirable responses males feelings of
debasement were masked, however, the response styles for gender
were consistent with the norms (Millon, 1997). There was an overall
significant gender difference on both the Clinical Personality Patterns
and Clinical (Psychopathology) Scales with medium effect sizes. The
Univariate analysis showed that males scored more highly on narcis-
sism, sadistic and antisocial characteristics than females. Males were
also more likely to report alcohol and drug problems.
This is the first study to consider gender differences using the MCMI-
III with this group. The male scores for narcissism and antisocial person-
ality, were above the clinical median BR score of 60, and above the me-
dian raw score from the MCMI-III normative sample (Millon, 1994). The
sadistic scale score for males, although significantly higher than for fe-
males, was below the 60 BR cut-off. This indicates that males in this
study were more controlling and abusive than the females.
When compared with the McCann et al., (2002), study of child cus-
tody evaluation examinees, it is of note that the one personality charac-
teristic that was found to be significantly different between genders in
Table 1
Mean score gender differences on MCMI-III indices.
Measure Males (n = 66) Females (n = 144) t-Value Cohen's d
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Disclosure 53.58 (20.5) 59.34 (27.9) 1.50 0.23
Desirability 68.62 (16.3) 59.97 (20.3) 3.04⁎⁎ 0.47
Debasement 44.14 (21.5) 51.58 (26.6) −2.00⁎ 0.31
⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎ p b 0.05.
38 D. McCartan, G. Gudjonsson / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 36–40

4. both studies was narcissism [see Table 2], however, McCann et al. found
females were significantly more narcissistic than males, whereas in this
study, we found males had significantly higher narcissism scores than
females. This suggests the difference in narcissism rates between gen-
ders for these two client groups is an important issue for assessment,
particularly since a feature of narcissism is a lack of empathy for others
and empathy is of fundamental importance when parenting children
(Rodriguez, 2013). Consistent with this, other studies have found pater-
nal child empathy is lower than maternal child empathy (Perez-Albeniz
& de Paul, 2004) (Table 3).
Another difference between these findings and that of McCann et al.,
(2002), is that McCann's participants were typically well below the non-
clinical population score on characteristics, whereas both males and fe-
males in this study generally scored well above the nonclinical
population score. This is not surprising given the background that has
led to their entry into the Court arena, but contradicts the conclusions
of a previous study that described these two groups as similar
(Stredny et al., 2006). These results suggest that male and female paren-
tal competency examinees have different profiles that are likely to
contribute to their parenting capacity and to the outcomes for their
children.
It seems that parental competency examinees are a different group
from child custody evaluation examinees. More research with higher
numbers, particularly of males, is required. In addition, further consider-
ation of all the scale differences between parental competency exam-
inees and the normal group would be an important next step in this
research.
The findings have implications for future assessment of this group.
When parental competency examinees are assessed, for males, social
desirability may mask difficulties, and recommendations and conclu-
sions have to be made in the knowledge that parents will not necessar-
ily be forthright. Therefore, parenting characteristics that have led to the
requirement for assessment may not be identified during this process.
For females the MCMI-III scores appear to be a more accurate reflection
of their functioning. This study highlights the importance of further in-
vestigation in this area to elucidate whether particular parenting char-
acteristics associated with child maltreatment, can be identified, either
by the MCMI-III or by other measures. This is necessary for the develop-
ment of appropriate risk assessments and interventions.
There are a number of limitations to this study, for example, the
group were within one geographical region of the UK and may not be
representative of the population at large. In addition, the study only in-
cluded those participants who met the criteria for completing the
MCMI-III sample. Finally, consideration of the allegations made against
this group and the relationship between the level of maltreatment
they are reported to have exposed their children to, and their personal-
ity characteristics would have been helpful, and is likely to be a useful
area for further study.
5. Conclusion
This study found gender differences in intellectual ability and per-
sonality characteristics in parental competency examinees. Findings in-
dicated IQ scores in this group, are about one standard deviation below
that in the general population. Males had significantly higher IQ scores
than females. In addition, males had higher scores on narcissism, antiso-
cial and sadistic personality characteristics, although only the sadistic
scale score was inconsistent with MCMI-III norms. This is one of the
first studies of parental competency examinees in the UK. Future re-
search could consider how people in this category could be helped to
engage with services, and which personality characteristics impair the
ability to parent and/or engage with services offered.
References
Bathurst, K., Gottfried, A. W., & Gottfried, A. E. (1997). Normative data for the MMPI-2 in
child custody litigation. Psychological Assessment, 9, 205–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1037/a0028585.
Berlin, L. J., Appleyard, K., & Dodge, K. A. (2011). Intergenerational continuity in child mal-
treatment: Mediating mechanisms and implications for prevention. Child
Development, 82, 162–176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01547.
Conroy, S., Marks, M. N., Schacht, R., Davies, H. A., & Moran, P. (2010). The impact of ma-
ternal depression and personality disorder on early infant care. Social Psychiatry and
Psychiatric Epidemiology, 45, 285–292. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2011.10.007.
Jaffe, A. E., Cranston, C. C., & Shadlow, J. O. (2012). Parenting in females exposed to inti-
mate partner violence and childhood sexual abuse. Journal of Child Sexual Abuse, 21,
684–700. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10538712.2012.729866.
Lampel, A. K. (1999). Use of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory – III in evaluating
child custody litigants. American Journal of Forensic Psychology, 17, 19–31.
Lenny, P., & Dear, G. E. (2009). Faking good on the MCMI-III: Implications for child custo-
dy evaluations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91, 553–559. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1080/00223890903228505.
Low, N. C., Dugas, E., Constantin, E., Karp, I., Rodriquez, D., & O'Loughlin, J. (2012). The as-
sociation between paternal history of diagnosed mood/anxiety disorders and psychi-
atric symptoms and disorders in young adult offspring. BMC Psychiatry, 5, 188. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-12-188.
Lussier, K., Laventure, M., & Bertrand, K. (2010). Parenting and maternal substance addic-
tion: Factors affecting utilization of child protective services. Substance Use & Misuse,
45, 1572–1588. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/10826081003682123.
McCann, J. T., Flens, J. R., Campagna, V., Collman, P., Lazzaro, T., & Connor, E. (2002). The
MCMI-III in child custody evaluations: A normative study. Journal of Forensic
Psychology Practice, 1, 27–44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J158v01n02_02.
McGaw, S., Scully, T., & Pritchard, C. (2010). Predicting the unpredictable? Identifying
high-risk versus low-risk parents with intellectual disabilities. Child Abuse &
Neglect, 34, 699–710. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.02.006.
Millon, T. (1994). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III). Minneapolis, MN: Na-
tional Computer Systems.
Millon, T. (1997). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III. Manual (2nd ed.). Minneapolis,
MN: National Computer Systems.
Newman, L. K., Stevenson, C. S., Bergman, L. R., & Boyce, P. (2007). Borderline personality
disorder, mother-infant interaction and parenting perceptions: Preliminary findings.
The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 41, 598–605.
Table 2
Mean score gender differences on personality.
Measure Males (n = 66) Females (n = 144) F-value η2
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Schizoid 48.61 (23.1) 58.32 (22.7)
Avoidant 45.11 (28.3) 56.44 (29.0)
Depressive 44.47 (29.7) 56.05 (29.1)
Dependent 49.33 (25.1) 56.11 (27.6)
Histrionic 57.45 (18.3) 46.43 (22.8)
Narcissistic 64.83 (20.1) 53.35 (21.2) 6.2⁎ 0.03
Antisocial 61.02 (19.9) 51.44 (23.8) 16.6⁎⁎⁎ 0.08
Sadistic 50.86 (20.6) 44.79 (24.3) 11.0⁎⁎ 0.05
Compulsive 61.62 (16.6) 56.24 (21.3)
Negativistic 49.35 (24.6) 54.36 (27.2)
Masochistic 45.23 (29.4) 53.92 (29.2)
Schizotypal 48.32 (27.9) 52.54 (29.1)
Borderline 44.98 (26.9) 51.39 (29.9)
Paranoid 55.09 (28.4) 60.53 (24.4)
⁎ p b 0.05.
⁎⁎ p b 0.01.
⁎⁎⁎ p b 0.001.
Table 3
Gender differences in clinical syndromes.
Males (n = 68) Females (n = 140) F η2
Mean (SD) Mean (SD)
Anxiety 54.05 (39.0) 61.40 (35.7)
Somatoform 33.77 (27.2) 42.92 (27.8)
Bipolar manic 56.18 (22.4) 53.83 (26.1)
Dysthymia 37.98 (30.5) 51.02 (32.3)
Alcohol depend 55.88 (24.6) 49.52 (25.9) 11.8⁎ 0.06
Drug depend 57.47 (22.2) 45.86 (28.3) 20.6⁎⁎ 0.09
PTSD 46.68 (31.1) 53.34 (29.4)
Thought dis. 44.95 (27.1) 49.54 (28.5)
Major depression 38.44 (34.8) 51.52 (35.3)
Delusional dis. 49.11 (28.7) 55.49 (27.6)
⁎ p ≤0.01.
⁎⁎ p ≤0.001.
39D. McCartan, G. Gudjonsson / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 36–40

5. Otto, R. K., & Collins, R. P. (1995). Use of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A in child custody evalua-
tions. In Y. S. Ben-Porath, & J. R. Graham (Eds.), Forensic applications of the MMPI-2
(pp. 225–226). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Perepletchikova, F., Ansell, E., & Axelrod, S. (2012). Borderline personality disorder fea-
tures and history of childhood maltreatment in mothers involved with child protec-
tive services. Child Maltreatment, 17, 182–190. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1077559512448471.
Perez-Albeniz, A., & de Paul, J. (2004). Gender differences in empathy in parents at high –
and low – risk of child physical abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect, 28, 289–300.
Ramchandani, P., & Psychogiou, L. (2009). Paternal psychiatric disorders and children's
psychosocial development. Lancet, 374, 646–653. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-
6736(09).
Resendes, J., & Lecci, L. (2012). Comparing the MMPI-2 scale scores of parents involved in
parental competency and child custody assessments. Psychological Assessment, 24,
1054–1059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0028585.
Rodriguez, C. M. (2013). Analog of parental empathy: Association with physical child
abuse risk and punishment intentions. Child Abuse & Neglect, 37, 493–499. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2012.10.004.
Stredny, R., Archer, R. P., & Mason, J. A. (2006). MMPI-2 and MCMI-III characteristics of pa-
rental competency examinees. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 113–115.
Wechsler, D. (1997). WAIS-III — Wechsler adult intelligence scale — Third edition adminis-
tration and scoring manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Winqvist, S., Jokelainen, J., Luukinen, H., & Hillborn, M. (2007). Parental alcohol misuse is
a powerful predictor for the risk of traumatic brain injury in childhood. Brain Injury,
21, 1079–1085.
Young, S., Jacobson, R., Einzig, S., Gray, K., & Gudjonsson, G. (2016). Can we recognise ma-
lingerers? The association between malingering, personality traits and clinical im-
pression among complainants in civil compensation cases. Personality and Individual
Differences, 98, 235–238. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.052.
40 D. McCartan, G. Gudjonsson / Personality and Individual Differences 102 (2016) 36–40