The current study investigated the criterion validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory - 2 (MMPI-2) by comparing participants' profiles with other variables, including diagnosis, length of hospitalization, and chronicity. The specific diagnostic groups investigated were depressed (major depressive disorder; dysthymic disorder; and bipolar disorder, depressed), schizophrenic (schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, and schizoaffective disorder), and borderline personality disorder (BPD). Statistical analyses included use of univariate analyses of variance (ANOVAs), multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs), regression analyses, and measures of sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive power (PPP), and negative predictive power (NPP). MANOVA results indicated significant differences between diagnostic groups on Scales F, 2, 3, 4, 7, ANX. FRS. DEP. BIZ. M f i , LSE, and FAM. There were considerable differences between males and females when separate MANOVAs were performed for gender groups. Cutoff see ires for classification by diagnosis resulted in significant specificity rates and negative predictive power, but sensitivity rates and positive predictive power were not significant.

The evolution of the Systems Model approach to personnel selection marks the emergence of the relationship between the organization and the applicant. It has made organizations become increasingly aware of the potential influence of applicant reactions to selection procedures.

No description available.

No description available.

Accurate self-report assessment of psychopathology depends on individuals responding honestly and accurately. Some respondents, however, may respond in a manner not representative of their traits/symptoms. The MMPI-2-RF contains “validity” scales to detect elevations on over-reporting (OR) or under-reporting (UR) scales which typically correspond to elevations on MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and on instruments administered alongside the MMPI-2-RF. We examined effects of OR and UR on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5); a self-report instrument that assesses 25 pathological traits used with other diagnostic criteria to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) in Section III of the DSM-5. Using MMPI-2-RF validity scale scores, 908 students and 255 psychiatric outpatients were classified into OR, UR or within normal limit response groups. Significant group differences were found such that differences in the frequency of PD diagnosis emerged across response groups. We believe the PID-5 is vulnerable to OR and UR responding, which potentially compromises its validity.

Accurate self-report assessment of psychopathology depends on individuals responding honestly and accurately. Some respondents, however, may respond in a manner not representative of their traits/symptoms. The MMPI-2-RF contains “validity” scales to detect elevations on over-reporting (OR) or under-reporting (UR) scales which typically correspond to elevations on MMPI-2-RF substantive scales and on instruments administered alongside the MMPI-2-RF. We examined effects of OR and UR on the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5); a self-report instrument that assesses 25 pathological traits used with other diagnostic criteria to diagnose personality disorders (PDs) in Section III of the DSM-5. Using MMPI-2-RF validity scale scores, 908 students and 255 psychiatric outpatients were classified into OR, UR or within normal limit response groups. Significant group differences were found such that differences in the frequency of PD diagnosis emerged across response groups. We believe the PID-5 is vulnerable to OR and UR responding, which potentially compromises its validity.

“The relationship between the criminal and victim is much more complicated than the law would care to acknowledge. The criminal and his victim work on each other unconsciously. We can say that as the criminal shapes the victim, the victim also shapes the criminal. The law differentiates distinctly between the attacker and the victim. But their relationship may be, and often is, quite close, so that their roles are reversed and the victim becomes the determining person, while the [victimiser] in the end becomes his own victim.” (Abrahamsen, 1973:35). This research was directed at establishing whether narcissistic individuals will go to extreme levels of violence, specifically murder, if their self-image is threatened. The aim was to determine the extent of pre-existing narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) in these individuals and how this contributed to the murderous action they committed. Emphasis was placed on the psychological motivation of the perpetrator, as well as the relationship that existed between the perpetrator and the victim prior to the event. As the subject of the research was a relatively unknown phenomenon, a qualitative research approach was used. The research focused on analysing specific cases of murder, more particularly cases where rage-type murders were committed. It endeavoured to identify the underlying personality dynamics to determine whether an association between rage-type murder and NPD exists. Case studies illustrating rage-type murderers who had been admitted to Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital for a 30-day observation period were identified and analysed. These cases were selected through reviewing the case history of each individual to determine whether the murder fitted the outlined definition of a rage-type murder. The cases that met the outlined requirements were deemed suitable for the purpose of the research, where after the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-2) results of the selected cases were examined to determine the personality organisation of the individuals. This information was then used to determine the possible association between NPD and rage-type murder. The MMPI-2 was selected as the assessment tool as it is the most widely used personality assessment available. For the purposes of this research a two-point code type was used to indicate the presence of narcissistic personality traits. A two-point code type implies an elevation of two scales, for the purposes of this research specifically the Pd (Psychopathic deviance) scale and the Pa (Paranoia) scale, also referred to as the 4-6/6-4 code type. As interpretation based only on a two-scale elevation was considered to be overly simplistic, all the MMPI-2 clinical scales were interpreted independently, and a clinical interpretation provided in the context of each individual’s background. The 4-6/6-4 code type individual was used to indicate whether the individuals did have narcissistic personality traits, and thus were classified as having NPD. Nine cases were identified of individuals thought to be rage-type murderers, who were admitted for a 30-day period of psychiatric observation to Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital in Pretoria. Only five cases were acknowledged as rage-type murders. All the cases selected were referred to Weskoppies Psychiatric Hospital by order of the court and involved males over the age of 20 years. The individuals involved were admitted to the Forensic Unit of the hospital and were subjected to standard psychiatric hospital observations, which included psychiatric interviews, psychological interviews, psychological testing, as well as general behavioural observations in the ward. All the information obtained during the standard psychiatric hospital observations is held in the clinical case files in the archives at the hospital. All the standard psychiatric hospital observation evaluations were completed prior to the initiation of the research, and the case records had been closed. Although more research is necessary, this research has established an association between the selected cases of rage-type murder and NPD and there is historic documented evidence suggesting that individuals with NPD will most likely react in a similar manner in similar circumstances, as a result of their underlying personality disorder. This suggests that incarceration in a correctional facility is not the most appropriate place to rehabilitate individuals. It also serves as support to why a person with NPD who commits a rage-type murder should be acquitted because of their personality disorder and subsequently be committed to a psychiatric facility as a patient of the state president. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2010. / Social Work and Criminology / unrestricted

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) is a popular measure of psychosocial functioning and psychopathology in the assessment of individuals in a variety of settings. However, the method of construction employed with the MMPI more than 60 years ago with psychiatric patients challenges the applicability of the scales for determining the psychosocial functioning of individuals from different settings. The restandardisation conducted in 1987 made no effort to eradicate the item overlap that was a result of the criterion keying method with contrasted groups. Although restandardized and updated with more contemporary language and content, the original psychiatric constructs were retained in order to maintain continuity with its predecessor. The aims of this investigation were to develop a new structure for the MMPI-2 constructed at the item-level, empirically derived and which specifically represents the dimensions that are relevant and appropriate in evaluating the psychosocial functioning of personal injury claimants. This task included comparisons with a comparable scale-level analysis and developing optimal scoring strategies where items in components and facets are allocated weightings based upon their strength of association. Study 1 was conducted using a sample of 2989 personal injury claimants assessed in Australia and the United States of America. The final sample of 3230, included 241 normal individuals, was utilized to develop a scale-level structure from 79 standard MMPI-2 scales and subscales. A nine-component solution consisting of General Maladjustment /Emotional Distress, Asocial Beliefs, Social Vulnerability, Somatic Complaints, Psychological Disturbance, Impulsive Expression, Antisocial Practices, Stereotypic Fears and Family Difficulties was derived using principal component analysis. However, intercorrelation between components in the structure signaled the need to develop a structure that would eradicate problems that were perpetuated by item overlap. The second study was conducted with a set of best practice procedures with the same clinical sample of 2989 personal injury claimants as Study 1. Forty-one components were derived through principal component analysis. Through the application of a set of criteria, a 35-component solution was retained. The pattern coefficients from the allocation of items to components determined the weightings to be applied to each item. Further analysis of the 35 components derived a substructure of 37 facets. The 35 components included only 442 of the 567 items, with the reliability coefficients of the first 25 components that ranged between .5 and .97, and the remaining 10 components that ranged from .29 to .49. The latter unreliable components were not included in the final Structural Summary, leaving 25 components (400 items) and their 33 facets for interpretation. Hence, in demonstrating the utility of the newly-derived structure, only 25 components and their 33 facets were interpreted. The 25 components were grouped conceptually into six domains. In the emotional domain were Psychological Distress (PsyDist), Anger, Fears, Psychotic Symptoms (PsyS), Paranoia (Par), Irritability (Irrit), Elation (Elat), Fear of the Dark (FD), and Financial Worry (FinWo). Somatic Complaints (SomC), Sexual Concerns (SexCon), and Gastrointestinal Problems (GasP) made up the measures in the physiological domain. In the behavioural domain were Cognitive Difficulties (CogDiff), Stimulus-Seeking (StimuS), Discipline (Dis), and Delinquency (Del) whilst the interpersonal domain was formed by Social Withdrawal (SoW), Negative Interpersonal Attitude (NIA), Timidity (Tim), Lie, Dissatisfaction with Self (DWS) and Family Relationship Difficulties (FReD). Alcoholism (Alco) was the only measure in the substance abuse domain, and the gender domain was comprised of Masculinity (Mas) and Femininity (Fem). The third study established preliminary normative means and standard deviations using a small opportunistic Australian university student sample (N = 219). No substantial gender differences were found but gender norms were maintained to facilitate comparisons with the traditional MMPI-2 approach. Comparisons of frequency of 'true' item response between the Australian university student sample and the U.S. restandardisation sample found relatively little differences and permitted evaluation of between sample differences on components and facets. The utility of the structure was demonstrated with the illustration of two clinical case examples, and a comparison was made with the standard MMPI-2 scales and subscales. The Structural Summary for the MMPI-2 demonstrated discriminative measures of psychosocial functioning that were a result of no item overlap, and the ability to attend to the different levels of intensity of self-report items because of differential weightings.