tree…

Buy:Viagra Super Active+.Levitra.Cialis Super Active+.Cialis Professional.Soma.Viagra Super Force.Propecia.Super Active ED Pack.Viagra Professional.VPXL.Viagra Soft Tabs.Maxaman.Zithromax.Viagra.Cialis Soft Tabs.Cialis.Tramadol….

Buy:Arimidex.Zyban.Synthroid.Human Growth Hormone.Zovirax.Valtrex.Mega Hoodia.Prednisolone.Accutane.Actos.Retin-A.Prevacid.Nexium.Lumigan.100% Pure Okinawan Coral Calcium.Petcam (Metacam) Oral Suspension….

Categories: Skin Care.Mental HealthBlood Pressure/Heart.Antibiotics.Stop SmokingAntidepressants.Pain Relief.Anxiety/Sleep Aid.Antidiabetic.Antiviral.Vitamins/Herbal Supplements.Eye Care.Mens Health.Womens Health.Anti-allergic/Asthma.Weight Loss.St…

The name of the test: As Nichols points out, the items and norms for the MMPI-2-RF all come from the MMPI-2. Calling it anything other than a restructured version of the MMPI-2 would, in my view, have been quite misleading.

Level of detail regarding scale development: In writing the MMPI-2-RF manuals, Tellegen and I adhered closely to the chapter on “Requirements for Supporting Documents for Tests” spelled out in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Our scale development description is consistent with the level of detail found in other test manuals (e.g., WAIS-IV, PAI), in that the process is described without detailing how every single item wound up on a given scale.

As we indicated in the passage Nichols quoted: “ultimately what is most important is the results, the content, structure, correlates, and functions of each new scale”. Toward that end, in the same document we also included 53,886 validity coefficients based on data provided by 6,663 subjects assessed at various clinical, medical, forensic, and non-clinical settings, as well as descriptive data (means and standard deviations on the 50 MMPI-2-RF scales) for a total of 62,994 individuals tested in various clinical, medical, forensic, personnel screening, and non-clinical settings.

How much detail one provides in a test manual is, in the end, a judgment call. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree with our judgment, but I don’t see the need to resort to name calling in doing so.
Nichols provides four examples of our “sloppiness”. I respond briefly to each below.

1) Their failure to provide in the RC Monograph (2003) a complete scoring key for the preliminary Demoralization scale (Dem), the version of the scale used in their factor analyses of the original Clinical Scales in order to identify a core construct for each (Step 2).

I do not believe it is necessary for test developers to provide scoring keys for scales that are not scored on the test.

2) Their failure to confirm the results of these analyses after having dropped 5 items from Dem and added 6 new items to create the revised and final version of the Demoralization scale (RCd).

I don’t see the point of such an analysis. What we provided instead were data on the reliability and validity of the final versions of the nine RC Scales.

3) The contamination that resulted from appending Dem to the items of Scales 2 and 7, respectively, in their Step 2, after having previously recruited the Dem items exclusively from these same two scales in Step 1, thereby essentially ruling out any items overlapping Dem and either of Scales 2 or 7 as candidates for the latter scales’ core constructs. Unlike the Step 2 procedures followed to determine the core constructs of Scales 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, & 9, applying the same procedure to Scales 2 & 7 would have the effect of extracting the very same factor these scales had earlier been recruited to enlist!

I must confess that I am unable to follow what Nichols is trying to say here, but I think he’s referring to the fact that the items of our provisional Demoralization measure were made up of Scale 2 and 7 items that loaded on a factor common to the two scales. We describe our theory-based rationale for this procedure in the monograph.

4)Their failure to factor the final RC scales in any of their developmental samples to confirm that the core construct for each scale as embodied in the seed scales selected from each parent Clinical Scale survived as the dominant factor in its RC counterpart, or at least to report such analyses.

I don’t see how this would have shed any light on the RC Scales. The bottom line is whether we succeeded in what we set out to accomplish. The answer is to be found in “the content, structure, correlates, and functions of each new scale”, as reported in detail in the monograph and MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual.

Nichols concludes his comments by referring to a number of publications that have been critical of the RC Scales. I think it is noteworthy that these papers do not include any external validity findings. Not a single correlation with an external criterion. I do not see how one can seriously evaluate scales without reference to external validity.

Finally, anyone wanting to learn about the MMPI-2-RF should consider the data, rather than opinions (including my own). In addition to the validity data reported in the manual, there are now several dozen peer-reviewed publications on the test. Most, but not all, are on the RC Scales.

Yossef Ben-Porath