MMPI-2 In A Forensic Setting Analysis

1460 Words6 Pages
MMPI-2 In A Forensic Setting Since the development of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) and its revision Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory -2 (MMPI-2), it has been used in many settings. The MMPI-2 has been the psychological examination apparatus most commonly used in forensic treatment and evaluation. It has its use in such ways as: in sanity evaluations, competency evaluations, personal injury assessments, and child custody evaluations. The MMPI-2 displays uses with the assessing of criminal responsibility, risk assessment within forensic evaluations, and detecting distortion in forensic applications. The MMPI-2 has appropriate uses within a forensic setting as well as inappropriate uses. MMPI-2’s Use and…show more content…
Again the MMPI-2’s use is to determine validly in ones testimony. In many cases, an individual may “fake good” or “fake bad” to gain more compassion in a case where personal injury/lose is otherwise allocated. “One situation often encountered is one in which the litigants produce extremely defensive profiles, that is, deny psychological problems in order to produce a “credible” physical problem” (Butcher, 1990). According to Ben-Porath and Graham and Hall and Hirschman and Zaragoza (1995),… psychopathology and personality evaluation, psychologist are being asked more frequently to serve as witness in the court to provide expert opinion…..whether the basis of an individual’s psychological claims is credible; whether current or past adjustment problems that a litigant might have experienced could have an impact on the current claim; whether an individual might be experiencing documentable and disabling stress-related symptoms; and whether the symptoms an individual is reporting could be attributed to lifelong chronic…show more content…
It also has shown many challenges. “The following two questions are critical in evaluating the value of the MMPI-2 to insanity evaluations: 1. Do MMPI-2 clinical profiles differentiate between those determined to be sane and those determined to be insane? 2. Do the MMPI-2 validity indicators facilitate the determination of malingering that might otherwise threaten the integrity of the insanity evaluations?”( Rogers & Shuman, 1986). Profiles due to race and ethnicity have produced diversified results from limited differences to numerous differences within the clinical scales. (Ben-Porath et al., 1995). The information on malingering has not been corroborated to orientations to race in the MMPI-2. Furthermore, in the case custody issues there can be an immense over interpretation of the K Scale in court or custody Settings. “The person 's social class and educational level must be considered in interpreting K since persons from higher social classes typically produce K scores on the MMPI-2 between 55 and 65” (Butcher, 1990). In one example, an evaluator asserted the K elevation meant that the client was defensive and was trying to "present himself in the best light psychologically and emotionally" and was "trying to answer the questions in the direction of looking good." Thus making the client look really bad in

More about MMPI-2 In A Forensic Setting Analysis

Open Document