The Standardization Of The Mcmi IIi

722 Words3 Pages
The standardization of the MCMI-III was based almost entirely off of clinical samples. Therefore, this sample is much more applicable to individuals with pathologies, as opposed to those without pathologies (Millon, 2006). Further strengths and limitations will be elaborated on in the strengths and limitations section. Overall reliability measures for the MCMI-III have consistently been promising. The test manual provided figures for internal consistency and test-retest reliability. For measures of internal consistency, the authors used Cronbach’s Alpha (Millon, 2006). On the clinical personality pattern index, internal consistency scores ranged from a high of .89 on the avoidant and depressive scales, to a low of .66 on the negativistic scale (Millon, 2006). Internal consistency scores on the severe personality pathology index included, .85 for schizotypal and borderline subscales and .84 for the paranoid subscale (Millon, 2006). Internal consistency scores on the clinical syndromes index ranged from a high of .89 on the post-tramautic stress disorder scale, to a low of .71 on the bipolar scale (Millon, 2006). Internal consistency scores on the severe clinical syndrome index included .79 for the delusional disorder scale, .87 for the thought disorder scale, and a high of .90 for the major depression scale (Millon, 2006). Internal consistency scores on the modifying indices index included .86 for the desirability scale and .95 for the debasement scale (Millon, 2006). Test-retest reliability was measured between five and fourteen days (Millon, 2006). Scores were similar in consistency to the internal consistency measures, but higher overall. On the clinical personality pattern index, test-retest scores ranged from a ... ... middle of paper ... ...validity are other essential psychometric properties to examine. Predictive power for the MCMI-III has a wide variability that ranged from a high of .80 to a low of .30 (Millon, 1987). Furthermore, Hsu (2002) stated that the MCMI-III has shown an improving trend it its sensitivity measures, however, no figures were provided with this statement. In addition, Widiger (2001), stated that sensitivity measures in the initial manual were were extremely low ranging from a low of .00 on the sadistic scale to a high of .4 on the dependent scale. However, with the publication of the second test manual, more promising figures were provided. The same is true for specificity, as average diagnostic validity in the original manual had a specificity of .86, where as specificity for the second publication of the manual featured a specificity of .96 (Millon, 1994; Millon, 1997).

More about The Standardization Of The Mcmi IIi

Open Document