See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/26820107

A Review of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory--Adolescent

(MMPI-A) and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) With an
Emphasis on Juvenile Justice Samples

Article  in  Assessment · September 2009

DOI: 10.1177/1073191109338264 · Source: PubMed

CITATIONS READS
29 5,178

4 authors, including:

Robert P Archer
Eastern Virginia Medical School
165 PUBLICATIONS   4,039 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Robert P Archer on 02 March 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Assessment
http://asm.sagepub.com/

A Review of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory−−Adolescent (MMPI-A) and the Millon
Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI) With an Emphasis on Juvenile Justice Samples
Linda J. Baum, Robert P. Archer, Johnathan D. Forbey and Richard W. Handel
Assessment 2009 16: 384 originally published online 17 September 2009
DOI: 10.1177/1073191109338264

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://asm.sagepub.com/content/16/4/384

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://asm.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://asm.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://asm.sagepub.com/content/16/4/384.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 14, 2009

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Sep 17, 2009

What is This?

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
 Assessment
Volume 16 Number 4
December 2009 384-400

A Review of the Minnesota © 2009 SAGE Publications

10.1177/1073191109338264

Multiphasic Personality http://asmnt.sagepub.com

hosted at
http://online.sagepub.com
Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A)
and the Millon Adolescent Clinical
Inventory (MACI) With an Emphasis
on Juvenile Justice Samples
Linda J. Baum
Robert P. Archer
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Johnathan D. Forbey
Ball State University
Richard W. Handel
Eastern Virginia Medical School

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A) and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory
(MACI) are frequently used objective personality self-report measures. Given their widespread use, the purpose of
the current study was to examine and compare the literature base for the two instruments. A comprehensive review
of the literature was conducted between the years 1992 and 2007 using the PsycINFO Database. Results indicate the
publication of 277 articles, books, book chapters, monographs, and dissertation abstracts on the MMPI-A. This was
compared with the results of a comparable search for the MACI, which yielded 84 citations. The literature was further
explored by determining the content of the topic areas addressed for both instruments. A particular focus was placed
on the utility of the instruments with juvenile justice populations; scale means, standard deviations, and effect sizes
calculated from this literature were examined. Results indicate that the use of the MMPI-A is supported by a substan-
tial literature and a growing research base is also available for the MACI. Both instruments appear to provide useful
results in juvenile justice settings.

Keywords:  MMPI-A; MACI; juvenile justice

A ddressing the mental health needs of juveniles

has become a critical concern within psychol-
ogy. A review of research addressing the occurrence
of mental illness in children and adolescents indicates
a prevalence rate of 13% to 23% (Funk, Bhalla, &
Saraceno, 2005). The mental health needs of juve-
niles in the justice system in particular must be identi-
fied to ensure that treatment needs are adequately
being met (Grisso, 2005). The field has responded to
this need by creating instruments designed specifi-
cally to assess pathology for juveniles. Two of
the most commonly used assessment tools are the
Minnesota Mul­tiphasic Personality Inventory–
Adolescent (MMPI-A; Butcher et al., 1992) and the
Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI; Millon,
1993; Archer & Newsome, 2000).
The Millon Adolescent Personality Inventory
(MAPI; Millon, Green, & Meagher, 1982) was devel-
oped to assess personality characteristics and other
Authors’ Note: A portion of these data were presented at the
42nd Annual Symposium on Recent Research with the MMPI-2
& MMPI-A, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 15, 2007. A compre-
hensive list of all MMPI-A and MACI studies reviewed for the
current paper can be obtained by contacting the first author.
Please address correspondence to Linda J. Baum, PhD, Regent
University, School of Psychology and Counseling, CRB 184,
1000 Regent University Drive, Virginia Beach, VA 23464; e-mail:
lbaum@regent.edu.

384
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014

concerns among juveniles. Similar to the adult ver-
sion of the instrument (Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory; MCMI; Millon, 1977), it was unique in
that its development followed a three-stage approach
to test construction and validation (Loevinger, 1957)
and was grounded in Millon’s comprehensive theory
of personality and psychopathology, as well as the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
(DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1987)
criteria (Millon & Davis, 1993). However, research
on the utility of the MAPI was scarce, possibly due to
difficulties in scoring the instrument (Cansler, 1986;
Millon & Davis, 1993). The MACI represents a
revised version of the MAPI, designed to assess not
only personality characteristics and expressed con-
cerns but also clinical symptomatology unique to
teenagers (McCann, 1997). This version further ref­
lected the changes to Millon’s theory and the chang-
ing DSM criteria (Millon & Davis, 1993). This
revised version of the instrument has been accepted
within the field, as is demonstrated in Archer and
Newsome’s (2000) survey of the use of assessment
instruments.
The use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) for
the assessment of adolescents has a long history (e.g.,
Capwell, 1945a, 1945b; Hathaway & Monachesi,
1963; Marks, Seeman, & Haller, 1974). The MMPI,
although initially intended for use with adults, was
rapidly used in the evaluation of younger individu-
als (Archer, 2005). A survey of psychologists with
substantial adolescent caseloads indicated that the
MMPI was the most widely used objective assess-
ment tool for use with adolescents (Archer, Maruish,
Imhof, & Piotrowski, 1991). However, the use of
standard adult norms with this age group typically
provided questionable or misleading results (e.g.,
Archer, 1984). Given the widespread application of
the instrument for use with adolescents, the MMPI-2
Restandardization Committee gave initial consid-
eration to the development of adolescent norms for
the revised form of the MMPI (Butcher et al., 2001).
However, a decision was eventually reached to
create a revised version of the test specific for ado-
lescents, leading to the development and subsequent
publication of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A; Butcher, et al.,
1992). The widespread acceptance of this revision is
reflected in a survey of clinicians that indicated that
the MMPI-A was the most widely used self-report
instrument for adolescents (Archer & Newsome,
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   385  
2000). Furthermore, the widespread application of
the MMPI-A in forensic evaluation was recently
documented in a survey of forensic psychologists
by Archer, Buffington-Vollum, Stredny, and Handel
(2006). Given its frequent use, it is important that the
clinical utility of this instrument be adequately sup-
ported by a comprehensive research base.
Forbey (2003) explored this issue by presenting
a review of published works addressing the MMPI-A.
This literature review identified 112 books, chap-
ters, monographs, and articles referencing the
MMPI-A, classified into one or more of five broad
content areas. Forbey noted that the majority of pub-
lished works focused on MMPI-A methodological
issues. Additionally, he compared the available MMPI-A
literature with that of the other MMPI instruments
(MMPI and MMPI-2) and concluded that the MMPI-A
literature base represented 12% of all works pub-
lished on these instruments. These results by Forbey
indicated that in the 10 years since its publication in
1992, the MMPI-A generated a substantive amount of
research attention.
The MMPI-A is the most frequently used self-
report tool among adolescents (Archer & Newsome,
2000). The current review objectives were to quantify
the MMPI-A research base, following the methodol-
ogy of Forbey (2003), and also to expand the litera-
ture reviewed to include published dissertation abstracts.
Dissertation projects represent an index of the research
interest in the instrument, and provide important inf­
ormation on the direction of investigations of the
MMPI-A. Additionally, because a subset of disserta-
tions will be published in journals or cited in pub-
lished literature reviews, these data provide relevant
information regarding the future of published research
in an area.
The current review also sought to examine the lit-
erature base for the MACI. Research has indicated
that this is the second most frequently used self-report
instrument for adolescents (Archer et al., 2006). In
2003, Forbey reported a disparity in the amount of
research for these two adolescent self-report instru-
ments, indicating the identification of only 15 works
published on the MACI. However, he did not seek to
quantify the MACI literature in detail. Therefore, the
current review provided a more detailed comparison
of the frequency of research attention for both the
MMPI-A and MACI.
The final objective of our review was to evaluate
the extent to which the MMPI-A and MACI have
been investigated with juvenile justice samples and
386   Assessment
the strengths of relationships between scales from
these instruments with relevant outcome criteria. Per­
sonality characteristics of juveniles involved in the
justice system may differ from other youth popula-
tions. The ability of the MMPI-A and MACI to assess
these characteristics is important, given the widespread
use of these instruments in forensic settings. We
hypothesize that MMPI-A scales such as Psychopathic
Deviate (Pd), Hypomania (Ma), Adolescent-conduct
problems (A-con), Adolescent-family problems
(A-fam), Adolescent-school problems (A-sch), and
MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale–Revised (MAC-R)
would be of particular significance in this setting, as
well as MACI scales such as Unruly, Oppositional,
Family Discord, and Delinquent Predisposition.
The scientific review and evaluation of an assess-
ment instrument is a particularly crucial issue in
forensic applications of clinical assessment instru-
ments. The Federal Rules of Evidence, as interpreted
through Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals
(1993) and subsequent Supreme Court rulings, link
the admissibility of expert testimony regarding evi-
dence from a technique or method not only to its
general acceptance within a field but also the results
of scientific evaluation as evidenced by the establish-
ment of a known error rate and published research
findings based on peer review (e.g., Pope, Butcher, &
Seelen, 2006). Testimony based on such evidence
submitted in federal courts, and many state courts,
are subject to a “Daubert challenge” to determine its
admissibility. Therefore, an understanding of the
research findings regarding the utility of MMPI-A
and MACI with juvenile justice samples could be
relevant to the ability of experts referencing these two
instruments to respond to a Daubert challenge in
addressing specific standards or issues of law. Alt­
hough the judge is always the gatekeeper in making
final determinations, the Daubert standards have been
articulated as a means of assisting in determining the
admissibility of evidence.
Method
In January 2008, a literature search under “keyword”
for the term “MMPI-A” was conducted bet­ween the
years 1992 and 2007, inclusive, using the PsycINFO
database. This search process yielded a total of 343
citations. Citations were then excluded from this total if
they met the following criteria: references for articles
in the Psych Critiques online publication, books for
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
which the relevant chapters were already cited, or the
citation referenced an erratum statement rather than
an original work. Additionally, as dissertation abstracts
that were subsequently published in a peer-reviewed
journal would provide an inflated estimate of research
productivity, 12 dissertations that were subsequently
published and included in the article publication cat-
egory of this review were excluded. Several addi-
tional works beyond those identified through the
PsycINFO search process were added to the list of
MMPI-A citations. These additions were based on the
results of the Forbey (2003) review and included
works available through the University of Minnesota
Press such as those from the monograph series and
the 2006 supplement to the MMPI-A manual. A com-
parable literature search was then conducted for the
keyword “MACI” between the years 1993 and 2007,
which yielded 89 citations. Again, books for which
the relevant chapters were already cited were excluded
from this review, as were two dissertation abstracts
that did not meet criteria for this study.
These procedures led to the identification of 277
MMPI-A citations for review and 84 citations refer-
encing the MACI. The abstracts for these works were
reviewed and sorted into a number of classification
groupings; publication type (i.e., article, book chap-
ter, etc.), citation date, and topic (i.e., forensic setting,
methodological issues, multicultural applications,
etc.). Three of the current authors reviewed the topic
area for each work, except dissertation abstracts, and
reached a consensus decision for content classifica-
tion. After establishing this classification procedure, the
senior author subsequently classified all dissertation
abstracts because the latter body of work was of more
restricted interest to the current review.
This process led to the creation of eight distinct
topic categories. The first area consisted of citations
with a methodological focus. These works included
those focused on the validation of the instrument or
the development of new scales. The second topic area
focused on forensic issues. This included research
with juvenile justice samples as well as publications
offering recommendations regarding test usage in
forensic settings. The third topic focused on the use
of the test with other specific populations. The fourth
topic area addressed test reviews. These works
included instructional guides as well as general test
use overviews. The fifth topic area consisted of cita-
tions addressing the use of the instruments with eth-
nic or cross-national populations. The sixth topic area
addressed the utility of the instruments in detecting

response validity. The seventh category focused on
literature that explored the test factor structure. In the
case of the MMPI-A, this also included references to
the Structural Summary approach of test interpreta-
tion (Archer & Krishnamurthy, 1994a) that uses the
eight scale-level factor dimensions identified by
Archer and Klinefelter (1991). A final topic area was
comprised of citations in which the MMPI-A or
MACI were used as external criteria in the validation
of another instrument.
The classification categories in this review were
mutually exclusive, despite the fact that some cita-
tions were relevant to more than one content area.
Because one goal of the study was to determine the
extent to which these instruments had been used in a
forensic context, there was an emphasis placed on
classification for this category. For example, if the
study evaluated the utility of the validity scales with
a juvenile justice sample (e.g., Stein & Graham, 1999)
it was placed in the forensic category rather than the
validity category.
When an abstract indicated that a juvenile justice
sample was used, the article was examined in greater
detail. For these studies, a systematic review of mean
scale scores, standard deviations, and effect sizes was
conducted. All identified published research on the
MMPI-A that reported mean scale T-score and stan-
dard deviation data for the Validity, Clinical, and
Content scales within juvenile justice settings were
reviewed and included in the calculation of average
mean scale scores and associated average standard
deviation values. This was done in an effort to pro-
vide a review of published MMPI-A data for juvenile
justice samples, which could be compared with that
from other samples. MMPI-A scale scores and stan-
dard deviations were derived from 14 published stud-
ies, including a total of 1,797 adolescents. The ages
represented in the samples were 12 to 18 years. Alt­
hough a majority of the samples were detained males,
adjudicated youth in outpatient treatment were
included in this review, as were 60 females. The
mean scores and standard deviations were based on
weighted mean values derived from sample sizes
used in the forensic studies. Ten studies included
multiple juvenile justice samples, and therefore con-
tributed more than one sample to the calculation.
Fourteen MMPI-A studies presented sufficient data
that allowed for the calculation of effect sizes
(Thallheimer & Cook, 2002).
Similar weighted mean and standard deviation
data for the MACI were calculated. MACI data were
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   387  
available from six studies that reported mean scale
scores and associated standard deviations for the
Clinical Syndrome, Expressed Concerns, and Per­
sonality Patterns scales. These data represent a total
of 1,328 adolescents, 1,303 of whom were in custody
within the juvenile justice system. The ages of the
juveniles ranged from 12 to 19 years, with 42 indi-
viduals being female. Five studies reported more than
one group. Ten studies provided data that permitted
the calculation of effect size statistics.
Results
Quantification of the Research
The literature was first sorted by publication type.
Results for the MMPI-A indicated that 108 works
(39%) were dissertation abstracts and 125 (45%)
were articles published in peer-reviewed journals.
The remaining 16% of works represent 21 book chap-
ters (8%), 20 books (7%), and 3 other works (mono-
graphs/manual supplement, 1%). Comparing these
results with those for the MACI, the majority of cita-
tions, 34, were also published articles (40%) and there
were 36 dissertation abstracts (43%). The review fur-
ther indicated that 4 books (6%) address the MACI as
well as 10 additional book chapters (12%).
Next, a review of citations by publication date was
conducted. In all, 169 citations were represented for
the MMPI-A and 48 citations for the MACI, as dis-
sertations were not included in this review. This
allowed for a direct comparison by year for the two
instruments. However, a meaningful comparison for
the year 1992, for which there were 5 MMPI-A cita-
tions, was not possible as the MACI was not pub-
lished until 1993. Three references for the MMPI-A
were available in 1993 and one for the MACI. There
was also only one MACI citation in 1994, and this
can be compared with nine for the MMPI-A. The next
2 years were marked by the availability of new
MMPI-A publications with no corresponding work
for the MACI; 7 citations in 1995 and 13 in 1996.
From 1997 to 2000 an average of 15 citations were
available per year regarding the MMPI-A; this can be
compared with an average of 3 for the MACI. The
18 citations available for 1999 indicated the greatest
number of publications per year, to date, for the
MMPI-A. Overall, findings indicate that MMPI-A
research has been generally more abundant. Only in
2004 were there a greater number of publications for
the MACI (10) when compared with the MMPI-A (8).
388   Assessment
Table 1
MMPI-A and MACI References by Category
Content Category MMPI-A MACI
Methodological 44 (47) 4 (7)
Forensic 28 (26) 16 (17)
Specific populations 21 (10) 5 (5)
Reviews 25 10
Multicultural 21 (12) 8 (1)
Validity 11 (4) 1
Factor structure 7 (3) 1 (2)
External criterion 5 (6) 3 (3)
Note: Numbers within parentheses reflect data based on disserta-
tion abstracts. MMPI-A = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory–Adolescent; MACI = Millon Adolescent Clinical
Inventory.
This also represents the year with the greatest number
of MACI publications to date.
Table 1 presents the eight topic areas and the num-
ber of citations falling into each category. The first
number represents the number of publications (includ-
ing articles, books, book chapters, monographs, and
the manual supplement), whereas the numbers in
parentheses indicate the additional number of disser-
tation abstracts in each topic area. Topic areas are
presented in the order of magnitude of frequency of
publications within the MMPI-A literature. Consistent
with the findings of Forbey (2003), the majority of
citations addressing the MMPI-A focus on method-
ological issues whereas the second largest topic area
refers to forensically oriented works. In contrast, the
majority of citations found for the MACI are forensi-
cally focused material. A brief description of each
topic area follows.
MMPI-A publications addressed a variety of meth-
odological issues, including scale reliability and
validity. For instance, Stein, McClinton, and Graham
(1998) evaluated the long-term stability of MMPI-A
scales in a sample of children in public school. Six
publications focused on the development of new
scales, including the Immaturity Scale (IMM; Archer,
Pancoast, & Gordon, 1994), the Personality Psy­
chopathology–Five (PSY-5; McNulty, Harkness,
Ben-Porath, & Williams, 1997) and the PSY-5 Facet
scales (Bolinskey, Arnau, Archer, & Handel, 2004).
Other articles addressed more specific issues, such as
the utility of the MMPI-A with various age groups,
including the evaluation of 13-year olds (Janus, deGroot,
& Toepfer, 1998) and 18-year olds (e.g., Shaevel &
Archer, 1996). Test formats and methods of adminis-
tration, such as an MMPI-A shortened form (Archer,
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Tirrell, & Elkins, 2001), the computer administered
MMPI-A (e.g., Hays & McCallum, 2005), and the
computerized adaptive MMPI-A (Forbey, Handel, &
Ben-Porath, 2000) were also addressed in the MMPI-A
literature. This can be compared with just four cita-
tions addressing methodological issues with the MACI,
such as the assessment of reliability and validity by
Pinto and Grillo (2004).
MMPI-A literature also focused on a wide variety
of issues within the forensic topic area. Some of this
research addressed issues specific to forensic set-
tings, such as characteristics of individuals in deten-
tion centers (e.g., Archer, Bolinsky, Morton, & Farris,
2003) and the prediction of violent offending (e.g.,
Parker, Morton, Lingefelt, & Johnson, 2005). Other
citations addressed more general test issues such as
appropriate norms in forensic settings (e.g., Gumbiner,
Arriaga, & Stevens, 1999) and the factor structure of
the MMPI-A among delinquent males (Archer,
Bolinsky, Morton, & Farris, 2002). Resources are also
available as general guides for the use of the MMPI-A
in forensic settings (e.g., Archer & Baker, 2005; Otto
& Collins, 1995; Pope et al., 2006). A variety of topic
areas were also addressed in the forensic MACI lit-
erature and general guides for use were also identi-
fied (e.g., Dyer, 1997).
The use of the MMPI-A and MACI with specific
populations, other than forensic samples, is addressed
in the literature, although to a more limited extent.
For instance, the MMPI-A has been utilized with
adolescents in educational settings. Cross, Adams,
Dixon, and Holland (2005), for example, evaluated
the MMPI-A profiles of 139 gifted students in a resi-
dential academy, and evaluated the profile changes
over 2 years. More frequently, the MMPI-A has been
used in the assessment of medical patients (e.g.,
Crews et al., 2003) and with patients with specific
psychiatric issues such as eating disorders (Cumella,
Wall, & Kerr-Almeida, 1999) and suicidal ideation
(Friedman, Archer, & Handel, 2004). The MACI has
also been used in the assessment of suicidal adoles-
cents (Velting, Rathus, & Miller, 2000), and in more
limited studies of adolescents with specific psychiat-
ric disorders such as the study of attention deficit/
hyperactive disorder symptoms conducted by Schneider,
Angliss, and Angstadt (2005).
More than twice as many general reviews of the
MMPI-A have been published in comparison to com-
parable work with the MACI. The MMPI-A interpre-
tative guides include such books as Archer (2005),
Archer and Krishnamurthy (2002), and Butcher and

Williams (2000) as well as book chapters such as
those in Newmark (1996) and Maruish (2004). Inter­
pretive guides and overviews available for MACI
users include the text by McCann (1999) and a chap-
ter by Woodward, Goncalves, and Millon (1994).
A literature base exists to support the use of the
MMPI-A with a variety of ethnic populations. Several
alternative language versions of the MMPI-A have
been created and evaluated, including a Dutch trans-
lation (Derksen, VenDijk, & Cornelissen, 2003) and a
Chinese version (Cheung & Ho, 1997). Additionally,
several book chapters addressed the use of the instru-
ment in a variety of cultures (e.g., Butcher, 1996;
Velasquez, Garrido, Castellanos, & Burton, 2004). To
date, publications regarding the utility of the MACI
with diverse populations have been restricted to the
use of the MACI with various Hispanic populations
(e.g., Blumentritt & VanVoorhis, 2004).
Another classification category used in this review
focused on the assessment of the validity of test res­
ponses. The literature has addressed the ability of the
MMPI-A to assess fake-bad responding or overreport-
ing (e.g., Stein, Graham, & Williams, 1995), random
responding (e.g., Archer, Handel, Lynch, & Elkins,
2002), and the detection of fake-good responding or
underreporting (e.g., Baer, Ballenger, & Kroll, 1998).
Research has also addressed the creation of new
MMPI-A scales to assess response validity, such as the
Fp-A scale by McGrath et al. (2000). Altough the MACI
historically lacked comparable scales to assess res­
ponse validity, a chapter by McCann (1998) did com-
pare the utility of the MACI, MMPI-A, and Rorschach
in the assessment of malingering and dissimulation.
The factor structure of the MMPI-A has been eva­
luated on the item and scale levels (e.g., Archer,
Belevich, & Elkins, 1994). Several works also address
the Structural Summary factors approach for MMPI-A
interpretation. For instance, Archer and Krishnamurthy
(1994b) investigated the empirical correlates of the
Structural Summary in the MMPI-A normative sam-
ple, as well as with 122 adolescents in a clinical
sample. A single study has evaluated the overall fac-
tor structure of the MACI, based on a sample of 251
adolescents referred to a residential treatment facility
(Romm, Bockian, & Harvery, 1999).
The final content area was comprised of MACI
and MMPI-A citations focused on the use of these
instruments in the validation of other tests. For ins­
tance, the MMPI-A has been used to validate the Beck
Anxiety Inventory (Osman et al., 2002) and Jesness
Inventory (Pinsoneault, 1996). This line of validation
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   389  
Table 2
MMPI-A Mean Basic Scale T-Scores and
Standard Deviations for Juvenile Justice Samples
MMPI-A Scale Samplesa M SD
L 20 (11) 52.87 8.57
K 18 (11) 51.47 8.33
F 18 (11) 58.34 7.97
Vrin 5 (3) 50.71 7.17
Trin 5 (3) 58.75 8.55
Hs 21 (11) 50.97 9.82
D 21 (11) 53.55 8.79
Hy 23 (13) 49.45 8.69
Pd 22 (12) 58.79 9.84
Mf 19 (11) 43.59 8.23
Pa 22 (12) 57.40 10.17
Pt 21 (11) 53.16 9.44
Sc 22 (12) 54.90 10.30
Ma 22 (12) 55.68 11.26
Si 21 (11) 50.78 6.98
Note: Mean scale scores and average standard deviations are
weighted based on the number of participants included in each
study sample. MMPI-A = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory–Adolescent; L = Lie; K = Defensiveness; F =
Infrequency; Vrin = Variable Response Inconsistency; Trin = True
Response Inconsistency; Hs = Hypochondriasis; D = Depression;
Hy = Hysteria; Pd = Psychopathic Deviate; Mf = Masculinity–
Femininity; Pa = Paranoia; Pt = Psychasthenia; Sc = Schizophrenia;
Ma = Hypomania; Si = Social Introversion.
a. The first number under the sample column represents the num-
ber of samples included in the calculation of mean MMPI-A scale
scores; the number in parentheses presents the number of samples
included in the calculation of the standard deviation mean.
research suggests a belief in the scientific community
that the MACI and MMPI-A have been sufficiently
validated to serve as concurrent validity criteria for
new measures. Interestingly, the MACI has been used
to validate the MMPI-A (Pinsoneault, 2005), but the
MMPI-A has not been used to validate the MACI.
Seven MMPI-A citations and one MACI citation
could not be classified into any of the eight topic
areas. These were typically publications in which the
MMPI-A or MACI were only briefly mentioned in
the abstract or were not a primary focus of the publi-
cation (e.g., Groth-Marnet, 2003).
Use of the MMPI-A and MACI
With Juvenile Justice Samples
Tables 2 through 4 provide scale mean and stan-
dard deviation data for the MMPI-A and for the
MACI derived from the study samples identified in
the forensic category. These samples were selected
from a variety of samples within the juvenile justice
390   Assessment
Table 3
MMPI-A Mean Content Scale T-Scores and
Standard Deviations for Juvenile Justice Samples
MMPI-A Scale Samplesa M SD
A-anx 3 50.32 7.84
A-obs 3 49.50 6.82
A-dep 3 54.04 7.53
A-hea 5 47.21 8.57
A-aln 5 (3) 54.22 7.54
A-biz 3 56.66 8.04
A-ang 7 (5) 54.99 10.55
A-cyn 3 51.27 7.78
A-con 6 (4) 62.46 9.37
A-lse 5 54.84 8.56
A-las 3 54.61 9.03
A-sod 3 54.70 6.05
A-fam 5 (3) 54.65 7.92
A-sch 4 60.80 9.06
A-trt 3 60.93 7.92
Note: Mean scale scores and average standard deviations are
weighted based on the number of participants included in each
study sample. MMPI-A = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory–Adolescent; A-anx = Adolescent-anxiety; A-obs =
Adolescent-obsessiveness; A-dep = Adolescent-depression; A-hea
= Adolescent-health concerns; A-aln = Adolescent-alienation;
A-biz = Adolescent-bizarre mentation; A-ang = Adolescent-anger;
A-cyn = Adolescent-cynicism; A-con = Adolescent-conduct prob-
lems; A-lse = Adolescent-low self-esteem; A-las = Adolescent-
low aspirations; A-sod = Adolescent-social discomfort; A-fam =
Adolescent-family problems; A-sch = Adolescent-school prob-
lems; A-trt = Adolescent-negative treatment indicators.
a. The number under the sample column represents the number of
samples included in the calculation of mean MMPI-A scale
scores. When the number of samples included in the calculation
of the standard deviation mean differed, it is presented in paren-
theses.
system. Table 2 presents weighted Basic scale means
and standard deviations for 14 studies, and Table 3
presents similar weighted findings for a smaller num-
ber of studies that report mean and standard deviation
data for the 15 Content scales. Available data varied
across studies; therefore the number of samples dif-
fered in the calculation of each mean scale score. The
number of study samples included in each calculation
is reflected in Column 2 of the tables. Standard dev­
iation data were only available for a subset of the
studies reviewed.
Table 4 presents the weighted mean base rate scores
and standard deviation data derived from six MACI
studies for the Personality Patterns, Expressed Concerns,
and Clinical Syndrome scales. Available data varied
across studies; Column 2 represents the total number of
study samples included in each calculation.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Table 4
MACI Mean Personality Patterns, Expressed
Concerns, and Clinical Syndrome Scale Base
Rate Scores and Standard Deviations for Juvenile
Justice Samples
MACI Scale Samples M SD
Personality Pattern Scales
Introversion 12 54.07 19.71
Inhibited 12 51.96 21.14
Doleful 14 55.65 21.57
Submissive 12 57.79 14.59
Dramatizing 13 55.34 17.33
Egotistic 12 51.55 16.29
Unruly 13 64.46 17.94
Forceful 12 37.48 22.71
Conforming 12 52.20 15.05
Oppositional 13 65.42 17.94
Self-Demeaning 14 44.83 21.01
Borderline Tendencies 12 40.86 20.93
Expressed Concerns Scales
Identity Confusion 10 47.60 19.24
Self-Devaluation 10 48.53 25.98
Body Disapproval 8 27.85 23.60
Sexual Discomfort 8 54.44 17.58
Peer Insecurity 8 53.46 24.22
Social Insensitivity 9 63.83 18.22
Family Discord 9 62.78 19.65
Childhood Abuse 8 47.96 28.70
Clinical Syndrome Scales
Eating Dysfunctions 8 20.57 17.42
Substance Abuse Proneness 11 52.97 27.29
Delinquent Predisposition 9 69.46 17.67
Impulsive Propensity 9 58.38 22.17
Anxious Feelings 10 58.24 19.37
Depressive Affect 10 57.09 27.77
Suicidal Tendency 10 32.61 22.00
Note: Mean scale scores and average standard deviations are
weighted based on the number of participants included in each
study sample. MACI = Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory.
Findings regarding the relationships between
MMPI-A and MACI predictor variables and a variety
of external criterion from forensic studies are pre-
sented in Table 5 (MMPI-A) and Table 6 (MACI).
Cohen’s d statistic was used to express effect sizes for
the MMPI-A and MACI, based on the most effective
or powerful predictors identified in each study. Effect
size data for MMPI-A scales most effective in distin-
guishing group membership were calculated. Several
studies evaluated more than one group. For instance,
Archer et al. (2003) evaluated mean scale score dif-
ferences between a group of adolescent males in a
detention center and two inpatient samples. Effect size
results for the five strongest predictors are presented.
 Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   391  

Table 5
Review of MMPI-A Juvenile Justice Research and Associated Effect Size Data
Most Effective Effect Size
MMPI-A Study Classification Criteria Potential Predictors Predictors (Cohen’s d)

Archer, Bolinsky, Male delinquents (n = 196) versus Validity, Clinical, Content, F2 1.55/1.90
Morton, and Farris Male psychiatric inpatients and Supplementary Si2 1.18/1.55
(2003) (n = 200) or scales R 1.03/1.26
Male dually diagnosed inpatients Harris-Lingoes and Si MAC-R −0.37/−1.05
(n = 151) Subscales A-sod 0.78/1.02
Cashel, Ovaert, and Males with PTSD (n = 36) versus L, K, F Pa1 0.82
Holliman (2000) Males without PTSD (n = 24) 10 Clinical scales Pd 0.79
Based on PTSD-RI scores Pd4, Pd5, Pa1, Sc5, Sc6, PK Pd4 0.74
Pd 0.71
Sc6 0.70
Freeman, Dexter-Mazza, Male sexual offenders (n = 18) 3 Validity scales n.e.s.
and Hoffman (2005) versus Non–sex offending male Clinical scales
delinquents (n = 18) Number of scale
Elevations
Glaser, Calhoun, and Crime types by males: Hs, D2, H4, Ma1, Si2, Hs −0.88/0.68/0.42
Petrocelli (2002) Crime against Person (n = 20) versus A-anx, A-hea, A-sod, PRO 0.89/n.e.s./−0.77
Property Crime (n = 20) A-sch, ACK, PRO, IMM Si2 −0.84/0.38/0.56
versus Drug Crime (n = 32) D2 0.53/−0.84/0.47
Hy4 0.63/−.72/n.e.s.
Gumbiner, Arriaga, and Differences in normative set: L, K, F Females
Stevens (1999) for female inpatients with a history 10 Clinical scales (MMPI-2/A)
of juvenile detention Mf 1.88
(n = 11) F 1.37
and male inpatients with a history of Ma 1.32
juvenile detention (n = 11) Pd 1.21
Sc 1.19
Males
(MMPI-2/A)
L 8.34
Sc 2.89
Mf 1.63
Ma 1.49
Pd 1.39
Hume, Kennedy, Patrick, Male psychopaths (n = 28) versus 5 Validity scales n.e.s.
and Partyka (1996) Nonpsychopathic males (n = 62) 10 Clinical scales
Losada-Paisey (1998) Adjudicated male sexual offenders All predictors not Ma 0.92
(n = 21) versus identified Pd 0.82
Males adjudicated for nonsexual F 0.71
crimes (n = 30) Pa 0.69
Sc 0.67
Morton, Farris, and Male delinquents (n = 655) versus 5 Validity scales A-trt 1.25
Brenowitz (2002) Combined gender normative sample All Clinical, Content, and A-sch 1.12
Supplementary scales IMM 1.12
F 1.10
A-con 1.01
Parker, Morton, Male delinquents committing future All predictors not specified Hs 0.68
Lingefelt, and Johnson violent offenses A-hea 0.67
(2005) (n = 16) versus Pa-1 0.63
Male delinquents not committing A-lse 0.60
future violent offenses (n = 116) Welsh’s A 0.59
Pena, Megargee, and Delinquent boys (n = 162) 7 Validity scales MAC-R 1.95
Brody (1996) versus All Clinical, Content, and A-con 1.26
Nondelinquent boys (n = 805) Supplementary scales Ma 1.05
Harris Lingoes and Si Pd 0.99
Subscales IMM 0.97
(continued)

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
392   Assessment

Table 5  (continued)
Most Effective Effect Size
MMPI-A Study Classification Criteria Potential Predictors Predictors (Cohen’s d)

Rogers, Hinds, and Dually diagnosed feigning male and All Clinical scales Clinical scales .64
Sewell (1996) female offenders (n = 53) versus
Dually diagnosed honest male and
female offenders (n = 53)
Stein and Graham Correctional girls standard Validity scales Standard versus
(1999) instruction (n = 39) versus (L, K, F, F1, F2) Fake Instruction
Fake-good instruction (n = 39) or Clinical scales L 1.83/1.35
Noncorrectional girls (n = 79) Pd 1.76/1.27
Pt 1.5/0.83
Correctional boys K 1.35/0.80
standard instruction (n = 100) versus Hs 1.08/0.61
Fake-good instruction (n = 101) or Correctional
Noncorrectional boys (n = 58) versus
Noncorrectional
L 1.98/1.25
K 1.25/1.25
Pt 1.01/0.33
Mf 0.86/n.e.s.
Ma 0.68/n.e.s.
Stein and Graham Incarcerated Substance Abusers PRO PRO 0.46/2.21/0.64
(2005) (n = 67) versus ACK ACK 0.81/2.57/0.33
Incarcerated L L 0.31/2.21/n.e.s.
Non–substance Abusers (n = 59)a
(71% male)
Toyer and Weed (1998) Court-adjudicated youths All Clinical, Content, and MAC-R 1.3
(10 females/32 males) versus Supplementary scales A-con 1.2
Population t-score = 50 A-sch 1.0
IMM 0.9
Pd 0.8

Note: MMPI-A = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent; n.e.s. = negligible effect size. Italicized numbers indicate a
medium effect and boldface numbers indicate a large effect. Where multiple effect sizes (ES) are presented, the statistics are presented
in an order consistent with the presentation of classification groups. ACK = Alcohol/Drug Problem Acknowledgment; A-anx =
Adolescent-anxiety; A-con = Adolescent-conduct problems; A-hea = Adolescent-health concerns; A-lse = Adolescent-low self-esteem;
A-sch = Adolescent-school problems; A-sod = Adolescent-social discomfort; A-trt = Adolescent-negative treatment indicators; D2 =
Psychomotor Retardation; F = Infrequency; F1 = Infrequency 1; F2 = Infrequency 2; L = Lie; Hs = Hypochondriasis; Hy4 = Somatic
Complaints; IMM = Immaturity; K = Defensiveness; Ma = Hypomania; Ma1 = Amorality; MAC-R = MacAndrew Alcoholism Scale–
Revised; Mf = Masculinity–Femininity; Pa = Paranoia; Pa1 = Persecutory Ideas; Pd = Psychopathic Deviate; Pd4 = Social Alienation;
Pd5 = Self-Alienation; PK = Posttraumatic Stress Disorder; Pt = Psychasthenia; PRO = Alcohol/Drug Problem Proneness; R =
Repression; Sc = Schizophrenia; Sc5 = Lack of Ego Mastery; Defective Inhibition; Sc6 = Bizarre Sensory Experiences; Si = Social
Introversion; Si2 = Social Avoidance; Welsh’s A = Welsh’s Anxiety.
a. Groups were compared under standard instruction. Additionally, a within factor of instructional set (faking good vs. standard instruc-
tion) was explored as well as an interaction between group and instructional set. ES results are presented in that order.

The first number in the effect size column indicates
the effect size statistic for the difference between the
delinquent group and the standard inpatient group,
and the second number reflects the effect size results
for the comparison of the delinquent group and the
inpatient dual diagnosis group. Glaser, Calhoun, and
Petrocelli (2003) examined three adjudicated offense
groups; the crime against person versus property crime
results are presented first in the effect size column,
followed by crime against person versus drug related
offense, and property crime versus drug offense.
Gumbiner et al. (1999) compared mean scale scores
for 11 boys and 11 girls on the MMPI-A, MMPI-2,
and Marks and Briggs (1972) norms. The largest
effect sizes were found in the comparison of MMPI-A
and MMPI-2 norms, therefore, only these results were
presented. Rogers, Hinds, and Sewell (1996) exam-
ined differences on the clinical scales under honest

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
 Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   393  

Table 6
Review of MACI Juvenile Justice Research and Associated Effect Size Data
Most Effective Effect Size
MACI Study Criteria Potential Predictors Predictors (Cohen’s d)

Caggiano (2000) Males Classified as: 3 Validity scales 3 scales 0.70a

Violent toward staff Personality Patterns scales 6 scales 0.43
offenders (n = 11) versus Clinical Syndrome scales 10 questions 0.43
Nonviolent toward staff Expressed Concerns scales 30 scales n.e.s.
offenders (n = 57)
Glaser, Calhoun, Classification to: Doleful Doleful 0.76
Petrocelli, Bates, and Somatizing male delinquents (n = 32) versus Self-Devaluation Self-Devaluation 0.65
Owens-Hennick (2005) Nonsomatizing male delinquents (n = 51) Depressive Affect Depressive Affect 0.63
Self-Demeaning Self-Demeaning 0.54
Suicidal Tendency Suicidal Tendency 0.52
Identity Diffusion
Substance Abuse Proneness
Anxious Feelings
Goldstein et al. (2003) Correlations with: Suicidal Tendency Suicidal Tendency 2.27, 2.07, 1.58,
MAYSIb and YSRc scales for 192 female Family Discord 1.22
delinquents Depressive Affect Depressive Affect 0.98
Substance Abuse Proneness
Kennedy, Licht, and Classification of males to: Unruly Unruly 0.61
Caminez (2004) Conduct disorder Delinquent Delinquent 0.55
(n = 303) versus Social Insensitivity Social Insensitivity 0.51
Antisocial Behavior (n = 78) Impulsive Impulsive 0.49
Oppositional Oppositional 0.45
Desirability
Loper, Hoffschmidt, and Classification to: Incarcerated females Personality Patterns scales Peer Insecurity 0.87
Ash (2001) (n = 42) versus Clinical Syndrome scales Eating Dysfunction 0.78
Incarcerated males Expressed Concerns scales Childhood Abuse 0.77
(n = 40) Forceful 0.69
Self-Demeaning 0.67
Oxnam and Vess (2006) Classification of males to MACI derived clusters: Personality Patterns scales Self-Demeaning 4.97
Inadequate personality (n = 7) versus Clinical Syndrome scales Self-Devaluation 4.50
Normal-range personality (n = 7) Expressed Concerns scales Borderline 3.75
Depressive Affect 3.26
Egotistic 2.94
Salekin, Larrea, and Correlations with: 4 validity scales Suicidal Tendency 2.87
Ziegler (2002) BASC Scales Personality Patterns scales Self-Devaluation 2.14
for 92 young offenders (68% female) Clinical Syndrome scales Depressive Affect 2.49
Expressed Concerns scales Conforming 2.27, 2.14
Salekin, Ziegler, Larrea, Correlations for combined gender sample with: MC-P and subscales P-16 Total score 1.54/0.87
Anthony, and Bennett Violent Recidivism and P-16 and subscales P-16 Callousness 1.04/0.68
(2003) Number of Offenses P-16 Antisociality 0.75/1.04
for 55 offenders MC-P Antisociality 0.75/1.04
Stefurak, Calhoun, and Classification of males to MACI derived clusters: Personality Patterns scales Self-Demeaning 5.03
Glaser (2004) Compliant antisocial Clinical Syndrome scales Depressive Affect 4.94
(n = 18) versus Expressed Concerns scales Doleful 4.62
Reactive depressive Borderline 3.05
(n = 41) Self-Devaluation 2.89
Taylor, Kemper, Loney, Classification of boys to MACI derived clusters:
and Kistner (2006) Impulsive/Reactive (Group A, n = 139) versus Expressed Concerns scales Social Insensitivity 4.25 (B and C)
Anxious/Inhibited Self-Devaluation 4.25 (B and D)
(Group B, n = 82) versus 2.81 (B and C)
Psychopathy Body Disapproval 2.61 (B and C)
(Group C, n = 89) versus Peer Insecurity 2.55 (B and C)
Conforming Identity Diffusion 2.14 (A and D)
(Group D, n = 180)

Note: MACI = Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory; n.e.s. = negligible effect size. Italicized numbers indicate a medium effect and boldface numbers indicate a
large effect. Where multiple effect sizes (ES) are presented the statistics are presented in an order consistent with the presentation of classification groups. MC-P
= Murrie-Cornell Psychopathy Scale; P-16 = Psychopathy Scale.
a. Phi coefficient was used in calculation of ES based on chi-square data, rather than Cohen’s d. Scales most effective in prediction were; Social Insensitivity,
Forceful, Unruly, Delinquent Predisposition, Impulsive Propensity, and Submissive.
b. MAYSI = Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument. Alcohol/drug use, Anxiety, Depressed Mood, Suicidal Ideation, and Traumatic Experiences scales used
in the current study.
c. YSR = Youth Self-Report Inventory. Anxious/Depressed, Internalizing Behavior Problems, and Externalizing Behavior Problem scales were used in the current
study.

Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
394   Assessment
and feigning conditions with a repeated measures
analysis of variance (ANOVA) and found that overall
the clinical scale scores were higher in the feigning
condition.
Stein and Graham (1999) compared scale scores
for correctional adolescents under standard and fake-
good instructions. Additionally, scores produced under
faking conditions were compared with those from a
noncorrectional sample. Results were analyzed sepa-
rately for boys and girls, effect sizes for the girls are
presented first in the effect size column, and were
generally larger. In their 2005 paper, Stein and Graham
not only addressed main effects for substance abuse
(effect size results presented first in the effect size
column) and instructional set (fake-good vs. standard
instruction, presented second) but also an interaction
between the two (effect size results presented third in
the effect size column).
Effect size data for the most powerful MACI scales
are presented in Table 6. Some criteria for the MACI
consisted of classification placements, but criteria
also consisted of correlations with external measures.
Caggiano (2000) used linear combinations of predic-
tors (shown in the most effective predictor column) to
distinguish between groups of offenders, and their
significance was tested with a chi-square statistic,
therefore, the phi coefficient was used as a measure
of effect size, rather than Cohen’s d. Correlational
data were evaluated in the studies by Goldstein et al.
(2003), Salekin, Larrea, and Ziegler (2002), and
Salekin, Ziegler, Larrea, Anthony, and Bennett (2003).
Given the large number of scale correlates reviewed
in these studies, only the effect size statistics for the
strongest correlations are presented. For example, in
the study by Goldstein et al. (2003), 14 correlations
were presented with the strongest correlations found
between the MACI suicidal tendency scale and two
Youth Self-Report Inventory (YSR; Achenbach,
1991) scales and two Massachusetts Youth Screening
Instrument (MAYSI; Grisso & Barnum, 1998) scales.
The MACI depression scale was also highly corre-
lated with the MAYSI suicidal ideation scale, and
the corresponding effect size statistic is presented in
Table 6.
Additionally, as with the MMPI-A, several MACI
studies addressed multiple comparison groups. For
instance, Oxnam and Vess (2006) entered the Per­
sonality Pattern scale scores into a cluster analysis
and derived three groups; the antisocial type, the soc­
ially inadequate type, and a normal type with few
significant scale elevations. The groups were then
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
compared for mean scale score differences across all
MACI scales. The comparison of the inadequate per-
sonality and normal-range personality groups gener-
ally yielded the largest effect size statistics, therefore,
only comparisons between these two groups are pre-
sented in the effect size column in Table 6. Two addi-
tional studies presented data on MACI derived
clusters, that is, Stefurak, Calhoun, and Glaser (2004)
and Taylor, Kemper, Loney, and Kistner (2006). Only
those groups for which the largest effect size statistics
were demonstrated are presented in Table 6. For
instance, the comparison of four cluster groups yielded
multiple large effect sizes in a study by Taylor et al.
(2006). The MACI self-devaluation scale was par-
ticularly effective, in that it differentiated the anxious
group from the conforming group and the anxious
group from the psychopathic group.
Discussion
The current study reviewed the available literature
on the MMPI-A and MACI for the period from 1992
through 2007, inclusive. Results of the current survey
are consistent with those of Forbey in 2003, and dem-
onstrate that the MMPI-A has received extensive res­
earch attention with a wide variety of samples. It is
highly probable that the MMPI-A is the most widely
researched objective personality assessment instrument
used with adolescents. The growth of this research is
demonstrated in the significant increase (i.e., 57 addi-
tional citations) in new work published on the instru-
ment in an approximately 5-year period since the
time of the review by Forbey in 2003.
This review also examined the prevalence of lit-
erature focused on the MACI. Although more limited
than the MMPI-A, results indicate a substantive
research base for the MACI, with ongoing growth
demonstrated by 33 new publications in the past
5 years. However, there is a more focused literature
base for the use of the MACI in the area of forensics.
One-third of all MACI publications focus on the area
of forensics, compared with 20% of the MMPI-A
literature in this area. For instance, Taylor et al.
(2006) identified five offender types based on MACI
scale scores in a sam­ple of 652 male offenders, whereas
the factorial vali­dity of the MACI was explored with
250 offenders by Salekin (2002).
Nevertheless, even in the forensic area, differences
can be shown between the MMPI-A and MACI litera-
tures, in terms of breadth and quantity. This is consistent

with the clinical practice survey findings reported by
Archer et al. (2006). These authors surveyed 76 doc-
toral-level psychologists participating in forensic
assessment involving the evaluation of children and
adolescents. Results of the survey indicated that the
MMPI-A was most frequently mentioned as being
used with child related forensic issues whereas the
MACI was ranked third, being used about half as
frequently. Further, 78% of these survey respondents
reported that they had used the MMPI-A, compared
with 49% who reported use of the MACI. A particular
strength of the MMPI-A, when compared with the
MACI, is the availability of validated scales to assess
response validity. This aspect is of particular impor-
tance in forensic and correctional settings in which
testing is often conducted under circumstances in
which respondents may have substantial incentive to
distort test responses.
The mean and standard deviation data for the
MMPI-A with juvenile justice samples as reflected in
the findings from 14 studies indicated mean subclini-
cal elevations on scales Pd, Paranoia (Pa), and Ma,
corresponding to MMPI-A Basic scale characteristics
that might be easily identified with a juvenile delin-
quent population. Individuals with the 4-9/9-4 Code­
type have been described as “impatient, impulsive,
pleasure-seeking, restless, and emotionally and beh­
aviorally undercontrolled” (Archer, 2005, pp. 152-153)
and these individuals often receive conduct disorder
diagnoses. The MMPI-A Manual (Butcher et al., 1992)
describes adolescents with moderate elevations on Pa
as resentful, suspicious, hostile, and argumentative.
The three samples that provide mean and standard
deviation data for Content scales also indicate sub-
clinical elevations for scales conceptually related to
the occurrence of juvenile delinquency. For example,
the peak elevations on the MMPI-A Content scales
occurred on Conduct Disorders (A-con), School
Problems (A-sch), and Negative Treatment Indicators
(A-trt). The first scale, Conduct Disorders, is associ-
ated with poor impulse control, antisocial behaviors,
problems with authority figures, and attitudes that
conflict with societal norms (Butcher et al., 1992).
High scores on School Problems are related to the
difficulty in achievement in school due to negative
attitudes, the presence of learning difficulties, or
behavioral problems (Archer, 2005). High scores on
Negative Treatment Indicators reflect negative atti-
tudes toward treatment professionals and an unwill-
ingness to discuss one’s problems (Butcher & Williams,
2000). By combining results from published research
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   395  
on juvenile justice samples, an overall profile indica-
tive of the typical adolescent involved in the juvenile
justice system can be examined. Such “normative”
profile data can be used as a comparison for individ-
ual profiles obtained by clinicians.
In addition to mean profile data, the results from
the current review indicated that the MMPI-A is
capable of predicting to a variety of external criterion
with medium to large effect sizes for the most power-
ful predictor variables. Only two studies (Freeman,
Dexter-Mazza, & Hoffman, 2005; Hume, Kennedy,
Patrick, & Partyka, 1996) failed to yield noteworthy
effect size results. However, given the very specific
and small samples used in these studies, these latter
results should be interpreted with caution. In contrast,
several studies, based on more robust methodologies
and larger sample sizes, provide evidence of substan-
tive validity results for the MMPI-A. Results from
Archer et al. (2003), for example, indicated that a
large sample of male delinquents could be distin-
guished from male psychiatric patients through mul-
tiple scale scores, including Infrequency 2 (F2),
Social Avoidance (Si2), Repression (R), and MAC-R.
Morton, Farris, and Brenowitz (2002) examined scale
differences between a large delinquent sample and
the normative sample. The potential predictor pool in
this study was more limited, but still yielded numer-
ous effective predictors, including A-trt, A-sch, IMM,
F, and A-con. These results were generally consistent
with the study hypotheses, as well as other research
results reviewed. The results of Stein and Graham
(1999) are of particular interest, because this study
included adequate sample sizes for both males and
females in a correctional setting. Findings indicate
that numerous MMPI-A Validity and Clinical scales
are able to distinguish male and female adolescents in
a correctional sample from noncorrectional adoles-
cents, and faking good adolescents, with the largest
effect sizes ranging from .68 to 1.98. Results indicate
that Lie (L), Defensiveness (K), and Psychasthenia
(Pt), for instance, are scales that distinguish adoles-
cents in a school setting from those in a juvenile jus-
tice setting.
Results from the MACI literature as reported in the
current study are also consistent with what one would
expect from a juvenile justice population. For instance,
peak elevations were identified on the Personality
Patterns scales, Unruly and Oppositional, and Exp­
ressed Concerns scales, Social Insensitivity and
Familial Discord. The highest elevation, by a consid-
erable margin, was on the MACI Clinical Syndrome
396   Assessment
scale, Delinquent Predisposition. These results again
highlight the distinct personality profile difference
seen with an average adolescent involved in the juve-
nile justice system. Our data relating MACI scales to
a wide variety of criterion variables also show that
this instrument was capable of predicting with
medium to large effect sizes to selected outcome cri-
terion in a manner that appeared to be equivalent to
the findings of the MMPI-A. These results should be
interpreted with caution, however, as several of the
studies, which yielded the most impressive effect size
results (Oxnam & Vess, 2006; Stefurak et al., 2004;
Taylor et al., 2006), represented intercorrelations
between MACI scales and clusters, thus the predic-
tors and outcome criteria were based on the same
instrument. However, an example of a study that sig-
nificantly contributed to the MACI literature is that of
Loper, Hoffschmidt, and Ash (2001). These authors
examined differences between male and female
offenders, with the greatest effect size results ranging
from 0.67 to 0.87. Additionally, the relationship bet­
ween MACI scales and violence has been addressed
in two studies (Caggiano, 2000; Salekin et al., 2003).
The court decision in the case of Frye v. United
States (1923) held that in order for expert testimony
to be admitted as evidence, the technique used must
be generally accepted in the field. The Supreme
Court’s decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Phar­
maceuticals (1993) revised and expanded the general
acceptance criteria of Frye v. United States (1923),
noting that a strict application of the Frye standard
could impede the admission of new and promising
techniques that were not yet generally accepted in the
field. The Daubert ruling (1993) recommended the
standards that judges should consider when making
decisions regarding the admissibility of evidence,
including general acceptance in the field, but also the
availability of scientific support for the technique or
test established through the use of peer review and
publication. It has previously been acknowledged
that expert testimony based on the MMPI-2 is likely
to meet these standards (Pope et al., 2006), and the
current review provides an opportunity to address the
likelihood that MMPI-A testimony would also meet
these standards.
Grisso (2005) recommends that a variety of issues
be considered when determining the clinical utility of
an assessment measure: content, constructs, adminis-
tration, norms, internal integrity, reliability, and valid-
ity. Many of these areas are addressed in the MMPI-A
test manual (Butcher et al., 1992). For instance, standard
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
administration procedures, scale level reliability data,
and information on the standard error of measure-
ment have been assessed; but, no such data has been
reported in the juvenile justice settings reviewed
here. However, scientific support for the MMPI-A
with juvenile justice populations is demonstrated in
the mean and standard deviation results presented in
this article. A review of the literature allowed for a
“normative” profile representing the typical adoles-
cent in a juvenile justice setting. Additionally, the
scale elevations which were noted are consistent with
a typical conceptualization of a juvenile delinquent,
indicating support for the MMPI-A in assessing this
population. Furthermore, external validity data sup-
port the use of the instrument in discriminating bet­
ween delinquent and nondelinquent males and for the
assessment of underreporting. Given the method-
ological rigor of these studies, and the significant
effect size results that were obtained, testimony related
to these areas could meet admissibility standards under
Daubert. Further illustrating this point, the MMPI-A
has been used in a variety of documented legal cases to
address a range of issues including competency to
stand trial, transfer to adult status evaluations, sentenc-
ing mitigation factors, and child custody recommenda-
tions (O’Connor Pennuto & Archer, 2008).
However, research in certain areas is quite limited.
As previously noted, research with female juvenile
offenders is extremely limited, as only 60 females
were included in the quantitative research reviewed
in this article. It is important that more female delin-
quents be included in samples in the future, and that
research specifically address differences in test usage
with female and male delinquents. Until that time,
findings offered in regard to the use of the MMPI-A
with females in juvenile justice settings must be ten-
tative, as the generalizability to that population is
unknown. Additionally, research addressing specific
types of offenders (i.e., psychopaths, sexual offend-
ers) has been limited, and should be the focus of fur-
ther investigation. Expert testimony offered in these
areas could be problematic.
Similarly, research on the MACI also allows for a
normative profile of youths involved in the juvenile
justice system and indicates that this instrument has
the ability to predict effectively to external criteria
with juvenile justice samples. Specifically, results
indicate that there is some research support for the
MACI in identifying personality differences between
male and female incarcerated offenders and the pre-
diction of violence and recidivism. However, given

the small samples utilized and the medium effect
sizes that were obtained, additional research would
be needed to support these later findings if these areas
were to meet Frye or Daubert standards. Interestingly,
published research on the MMPI-A and MACI has
failed to address the use of these instruments with
forensic samples other than adjudicated juveniles (e.g.,
pre-adjudication, civil forensic). Therefore, future
research would need to address these diverse popula-
tions to expand the utility of these instruments in the
courtroom.
The strength of the research literature is likely a
major factor in the wide use of the MMPI-A in clini-
cal and forensic settings. Additionally, the MACI has
more recently received increased research attention,
particularly related to the use of this instrument with
forensic populations and juvenile justice samples.
The particular strengths of the MACI relate to the
relative brevity of its 160-item pool and its ability
(demonstrated in this review) to predict to selected
outcome criteria with moderate to large effect sizes in
a manner similar to the results achieved for the
MMPI-A. The MACI has the potential to serve as a
useful complement and/or alternative to the MMPI-A
in assessing adolescent psychopathology. It is antici-
pated that the research base supporting the use of
both instruments will continue to expand in both
­volume and scope.
References
Achenbach, T. M. (1991). Manual for the Youth Self-Report and
1991 profile. Burlington: University of Vermont Department
of Psychiatry.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statis-
tical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., rev.). Washington,
DC: Author.
Archer, R. P. (1984). Use of the MMPI with adolescents: A review
of salient issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 241-251.
Archer, R. P. (2005). MMPI-A: Assessing adolescent psychopa-
thology (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Archer, R. P., & Baker, E. M. (2005). Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–Adolescent. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, &
D. Seagrave (Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment
in juvenile justice (pp. 240-252). New York: Guilford Press.
Archer, R. P., Belevich, J. K. S., & Elkins, D. E. (1994). Item-
level and scale-level factor structures of the MMPI-A. Journal
of Personality Assessment, 62, 332-345.
Archer, R. P., Bolinsky, P. K., Morton, T. L., & Farris, K. L.
(2002). A factor structure for the MMPI-A: Replication with
male delinquents. Assessment, 9, 319-326.
Archer, R. P., Bolinsky, P. K., Morton, T. L., & Farris, K. L. (2003).
MMPI-A characteristics of male adolescents in juvenile justice
and clinical treatment settings. Assessment, 10, 400-410.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   397  
Archer, R. P., Buffington-Vollum, J. K., Stredny, R. V., &
Handel, R. W. (2006). A survey of psychological test use patterns
among forensic psychologists. Journal of Personality Asses­
sment, 87, 85-94.
Archer, R. P., Handel, R. W., Lynch, K. D., & Elkins, D. E.
(2002). MMPI-A validity scale uses and limitations in detect-
ing varying levels of random responding. Journal of Per­
sonality Assessment, 78, 417-431.
Archer, R. P., & Klinefelter, D. (1991). MMPI factor analytic
findings for adolescents: Item-and scale-level factor struc-
tures. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57, 356-367.
Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1994a). MMPI-A Structural
Summary [Summary form]. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1994b). A structural sum-
mary approach for the MMPI-A: Development and empirical
correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 63, 554-573.
Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2002). Essentials of MMPI-A
assessment. New York: Wiley.
Archer, R. P., Maruish, M., Imhof, E. A., & Piotrowski, C.
(1991). Psychological test usage with adolescent clients: 1990
survey findings. Professional Psychology, 22, 247-252.
Archer, R. P., & Newsome, C. R. (2000). Psychological test usage
with adolescent clients: Survey update. Assessment, 7, 227–235.
Archer, R. P., Pancoast, D. L., & Gordon, R. A. (1994). The
development of the MMPI-A Immaturity (IMM) scale:
Findings for normal and clinical samples. Journal of Pers­
onality Assessment, 62, 145–156.
Archer, R. P., Tirrell, C. A., & Elkins, D. E. (2001). Evaluation of
an MMPI-A Short Form: Implications for adaptive testing.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 76, 76-89.
Baer, R. A., Ballenger, J., & Kroll, L. S. (1998). Detection of
underreporting on the MMPI-A in clinical and community
samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 71, 98-113.
Blumentritt, T. L., & VanVoorhis, C. R. W. (2004). The MACI: Is
it valid and reliable for Mexican American youth? Journal of
Personality Assessment, 83, 64-74.
Bolinskey, P. K., Arnau, R. C., Archer, R. P., & Handel, R. W.
(2004). A replication of the MMPI-A PSY-5 scales and devel-
opment of facet scales. Assessment, 11, 40-48.
Butcher, J. N. (1996). Translation and adaptation of the MMPI-2
for international use. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), International adap-
tations of the MMPI-2: Research and clinical applications (pp.
26-43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegan, A.,
Dahlstrom, W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). MMPI-2 manual
for administration scoring and interpretation (Rev. ed.).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., & Williams, C. L. (2000). Essentials of MMPI-2
and MMPI-A interpretation (2nd ed.). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P.,
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., et al. (1992). MMPI-A
(Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–Adolescent):
Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation (Rev.
ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Caggiano, A. D. (2000). Identifying violent-toward-staff juvenile
delinquents via the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory and
neuropsychological measures. Journal of Offender Rehabi­
litation, 32, 147-165.
398   Assessment
Cansler, D. (1986). Review of the Millon Adolescent Personality
Inventory. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64,
469-471.
Capwell, D. F. (1945a). Personality patterns of adolescent girls:
I. Girls who show improvement in IQ. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 29, 212-228.
Capwell, D. F. (1945b). Personality patterns of adolescent girls:
II. Delinquents and nondelinquents. Journal of Applied Psyc­
hology, 29, 284-297.
Cashel, M. L., Ovaert, L., & Holliman, N. G. (2000). Evaluating
PTSD in incarcerated male juveniles with the MMPI-A: An
exploratory analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56,
1535-1549.
Cheung, F. M, & Ho, R. M. (1997). Standardization of the
Chinese MMPI-A in Hong Kong: A preliminary study.
Psychological Assessment, 9, 499-502.
Crews, W. D., Jefferson, A. L., Broshek, D. K., Rhodes, R. D.,
Williamson, J., Brazil, A. M., et al. (2003). Neuropsychological
dysfunction in patients with end-stage pulmonary disease:
Lung transplant evaluation. Archives of Clinical Neuro­
psychology, 18, 353-362.
Cross, T. L., Adams, C., Dixon, F., & Holland, J. (2005).
Psychological characteristics of academically gifted adoles-
cents attending a residential academy: A longitudinal study.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 159-181.
Cumella, E. J., Wall, A. D., & Kerr-Almeida, N. (1999). MMPI-A
in the inpatient assessment of adolescents with eating disor-
ders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 31-44.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 590 U.S. 579
(1993).
Derksen, J., VenDijk, J., & Cornelissen, A. (2003). The Dutch
version of the MMPI-A. Psycholoog, 38, 304-311.
Dyer, F. J. (1997). Applications of the Millon inventories in
forensic psychology. In T. Millon (Ed.), The Millon invento-
ries: Clinical and personality assessment (pp. 124-139). New
York: Guilford Press.
Forbey, J. D. (2003, June). A review of the MMPI-A literature.
Paper presented at the 38th annual symposium on recent
developments in the use of the MMPI-2 & MMPI-A, Minn­
eapolis, MN.
Forbey, J. D., Handel, R. W., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2000). Real
data simulation of computerized adaptive administration of
the MMPI-A. Computers in Human Behavior, 16, 83-96.
Freeman, K. A., Dexter-Mazza, E. T., & Hoffman, K. C. (2005).
Comparing personality characteristics of juvenile sex offend-
ers and non-sex offending delinquent peers: A preliminary
investigation. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and
Treatment, 17, 3-12.
Friedman, A. F., Archer, R. P., & Handel, R. W. (2004). MMPIs
(MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A) and suicide. In R. Yufit & D. Lester
(Eds.), Assessment, treatment, and prevention of suicide behav-
ior (pp. 63-91). New York: Wiley.
Frye v. United States. 392 F.101 3 (D.C. Cir. 1923).
Funk, M., Bhalla, P., & Saraceno, B. (2005). Child and adoles-
cent mental health policy and plans. Geneva: World Health
Organization.
Glaser, B. A., Calhoun, G. B., & Petrocelli, J. V. (2003).
Personality characteristics of male juvenile offenders by adju-
dicated offenses as indicated by the MMPI-A. Criminal Jus­
tice and Behavior, 29, 183-201.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Glaser, B. A., Calhoun, G. B., Petrocelli, J. V., Bates, J. M., & Owens-
Hennick, L. A. (2005). Depression and somatic complaints among
male juvenile offenders: Differentiating somatizers from non-
somatizers with the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory (MACI).
Journal of Forensic Psychiatry & Psychology, 16, 566-576.
Goldstein, N. E., Arnold, D. H., Weil, J., Mesiarik, C. M.,
Peuschold, D., Grisso, T., et al. (2003). Comorbid symptom
patterns in female juvenile offenders. International Journal of
Law and Psychiatry, 26, 565-582.
Grisso, T. (2005). Evaluating the properties of instruments for
screening and assessment. In T. Grisso, G. Vincent, & D. Seagrave
(Eds.), Mental health screening and assessment in juvenile
justice (pp. 71-93). New York: Guilford Press.
Grisso, T., & Barnum, B. (1998). Massachusetts Youth Screening
Instrument: Preliminary manual and technical report.
Worcester: University of Massachusetts Medical School.
Groth-Marnet, G. (2003). Handbook of psychological assessment
(4th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Gumbiner, J., Arriaga, T., & Stevens, A. (1999). Comparison of
MMPI-A, Marks and Briggs, and MMPI-2 norms for juvenile
delinquents. Psychological Reports, 84, 761-766.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Rev. ed.). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Hathaway, S. R., & Monachesi, E. D. (1963). Adolescent person-
ality and behavior: MMPI patterns of normal, delinquent,
dropout, and other outcomes. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Hays, S., & McCallum, R. S. (2005). A comparison of the pencil-
and-paper and computer- administered Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory-Adolescent. Psychology in the Schools,
42, 605-613.
Hume, M. P., Kennedy, W. A., Patrick, C. J., & Partyka, D. J.
(1996). Examination of the MMPI-A for the assessment of
psychopathy in incarcerated adolescent male offenders.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 40, 224-233.
Janus, M. D., deGroot, C., & Toepfer, S. M. (1998). MMPI-A and
13-year old inpatients: How young is too young? Assessment,
5, 321-332.
Kennedy, W. A., Licht, M. H., & Caminez, M. (2004). False
positives among adolescent sex offenders: Concurrent and
predictive validity of the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory.
Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 39, 1-13.
Loevinger, J. (1957). Objective tests as instruments of psycho-
logical theory. Psychological Reports, 3, 635-694.
Loper, A. B., Hoffschmidt, S. J., & Ash, E. (2001). Personality
features and characteristics of violent events committed by juve-
nile offenders. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 81-96.
Losada-Paisey, G. (1998). Use of the MMPI-A to assess personal-
ity of juvenile male delinquents who are sex offenders and
nonsex offenders. Psychological Reports, 83, 115-122.
Marks, P. A., & Briggs, P. F. (1972). Adolescent norm tables for the
MMPI. In W. G. Dahlstrom, G. S. Welsh, & L. E. Dahlstrom
(Eds.), An MMPI handbook: Vol. 1. Clinical interpretation
(Rev. ed., pp. 388-399). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press.
Marks, P. A., Seeman, W., & Haller, D. L. (1974). The acturarial
use of the MMPI with adolescents and adults. Baltimore:
Williams & Wilkins.

Maruish, M. E. (Ed.). (2004). The use of psychological testing for
treatment planning and outcomes assessment: Volume 2.
Instruments for children and adolescents. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
McCann, J. T. (1997). The Millon inventories: Clinical and per-
sonality assessment. New York: Guilford Press.
McCann, J. T. (1998). Psychological testing approaches. In
J. T. McCann (Ed.), Malingering and deception in adoles-
cents: Assessing credibility in clinical and forensic settings
(pp. 87-122). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
McCann, J. T. (1999). Assessing adolescents with the MACI:
Using the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory. New York:
Wiley.
McGrath, R. E., Pogge, D. L., Stein, L. A. R., Graham, J. R.,
Zaccario, M., & Piacentini, T. (2000). Development of an
Infrequency-Psychopathology Scale for the MMPI-A: The
Fp-scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 282-295.
McNulty, J. L., Harkness, A. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Williams,
C. L. (1997). Assessing the Personality Psychopathology-Five
(PSY-5) in adolescents: New MMPI-A scales. Psychological
Assessment, 9, 250-259.
Millon, T. (1977). Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI-I):
Manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T. (1993). Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory: Manual.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T., & Davis, R. D. (1993). Millon Adolescent Personality
Inventory and the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory.
Journal of Counseling and Development, 71, 570-574.
Millon, T., Green, C. J., & Meagher, R. B. (1982). Millon
Adolescent Personality Inventory manual. Minneapolis, MN:
National Computer Systems.
Morton, T. L., Farris, K. L., & Brenowitz, L. H. (2002). MMPI-A
scores and high points of male juvenile delinquents: Scales 4,
5, and 6 as markers of juvenile delinquency. Psychological
Assessment, 14, 311-319.
Newmark, C. S. (1996). Major psychological assessment instru-
ments (2nd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
O’Connor Pennuto, T., & Archer, R. P. (2008). MMPI-A forensic
case studies: Uses in documented court decisions. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 90, 215-226.
Osman, A., Hoffman, J., Barrios, F. X., Kopper, B. A., Breitenstein,
J. L., & Hahn, S. K. (2002). Factor structure, reliability, and
validity of the BAI in adolescent psychiatric inpatients.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 58, 443-456.
Otto, R. K., & Collins, R. P. (1995). Use of the MMPI-2 and
MMPI-A in child custody evaluations. In Y. S. Ben-Porath,
J. R. Graham , G. N. C. Hall, R. D. Hirschman, & M. S. Zaragoza
(Eds.), Forensic applications of the MMPI-2 (pp. 222-252).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Oxnam, P., & Vess, J. (2006). A personality-based typology of ado-
lescent sexual offenders using the Millon Adolescent Clinical
Inventory. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 35, 36-44.
Parker, J. S., Morton, T. L., Lingefelt, M. E., & Johnson, K. S.
(2005). Predictors of serious and violent offending by adjudi-
cated male adolescents. North American Journal of Psychology,
7, 407-417.
Pena, L. M., Megargee, E. I., & Brody, E. (1996). MMPI-A pat-
terns of male juvenile delinquents. Psychological Assessment,
8, 388-397.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
Baum et al. / A Review of the MMPI-A   399  
Pinsoneault, T. B. (1996). Rationally developed fake-good and
fake-bad scales for the Jesness Inventory. Journal of Psyc­
hopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 18, 255-273.
Pinsoneault, T. B. (2005). Detecting random, partially random,
and nonrandom MMPI-A protocols. Psychological Assessment,
17, 476-480.
Pinto, M., & Grillo, C. M. (2004). Reliability, diagnostic effi-
ciency, and validity of the MACI: Examination of selected
scales in psychiatrically hospitalized adolescents. Behavior
Research and Therapy, 42, 1505-1519.
Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI,
MMPI-2, and MMPI-A in court: A practical guide for expert
witnesses and attorneys (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Rogers, R., Hinds, J. D., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). Feigning psy-
chopathology among adolescent offenders: Validation of the
SIRS, MMPI-A, and SIMS. Journal of Personality Assessment,
67, 244-257.
Romm, S., Bockian, N., & Harvery, M. (1999). Factor-based
prototypes of the MACI in adolescents referred for residential
treatment. Journal of Personality Assessment, 72, 125-143.
Salekin, R. T. (2002). Factor analysis of the Millon Adolescent
Clinical Inventory in a juvenile offender population: Implications
for treatment. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 34, 15-29.
Salekin, R. T., Larrea, M. A., & Ziegler, T. (2002). Relationships
between the MACI and the BASC in the assessment of child
and adolescent offenders. Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 2, 35-50.
Salekin, R. T., Ziegler, T., Larrea, M. A., Anthony, V. L., &
Bennett, A. D. (2003). Predicting dangerousness with two
Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory psychopathy scales:
The importance of egocentric and callous traits. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 80, 154-163.
Schneider, H. G., Angliss, A. H., & Angstadt, K. K. (2005).
Personality, expressed concerns, and pathology as a function
of AD/HD symptoms. North American Journal of Psychology,
7, 141-149.
Shaevel, B., & Archer, R. P. (1996). Effects of MMPI-2 and
MMPI-A norms on T-score elevations for 18 year olds.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 67, 72-78.
Stefurak, T., Calhoun, G. B., & Glaser, B. A. (2004). Personality
typologies of male juvenile offenders using a cluster analysis
of the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory introduction.
International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 48, 96-110.
Stein, L. A. R., & Graham, J. R. (1999). Detecting fake-good
MMPI-A profiles in a correctional facility. Psychological
Assessment, 11, 386-395.
Stein, L. A. R., & Graham, J. R. (2005). Ability of substance
abusers to escape detection on the Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory–Adolescent (MMPI-A) in a juvenile
correctional facility. Assessment, 12, 28-39.
Stein, L. A. R., Graham, J. R., & Williams, C. L. (1995).
Detecting fake-bad MMPI-A profiles. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 65, 415-427.
Stein, L. A. R., McClinton, B. K., & Graham, J. R. (1998). Long
term stability of MMPI-A scales. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 70, 103-108.
Taylor, J., Kemper, T. S., Loney, B. R., & Kistner, J. A. (2006).
Classification of severe male juvenile offenders using the
 400   Assessment
MACI clinical and personality scales. Journal of Clinical
Child and Adolescent Psychology, 35, 90-102.
Thallheimer, W., & Cook, S. (2002, August). How to calculate
effect sizes from published research articles: A simplified
methodology. Retrieved May 8, 2009, from www.work-
learning.com/effect_sizes.htm
Toyer, E. A., & Weed, N. C. (1998). Concurrent validity of the
MMPI-A in a counseling program for juvenile offenders.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 54, 395-399.
Velasquez, R. J., Garrido, M., Castellanos, J., & Burton, M. P.
(2004). Culturally competent assessment of Chicana/os with
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent.
Downloaded from asm.sagepub.com at Eastern Virginia Medical School Library on July 21, 2014
View publication stats
In R. Velasquez, L. M. Arellano, & B. W. McNeill (Eds.), The
Handbook of Chicana/o psychology and mental health
(pp. 97-112). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Velting, D. M., Rathus, J. H., & Miller, A. L. (2000). MACI
personality scale profiles of depressed adolescent suicide
attempters: A pilot study. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56,
1381-1385.
Woodward, M. J., Goncalves, A. A., & Millon, T. (1994). Millon
Adolescent Personality Inventory and Millon Adolescent
Clinical Inventory. In M. E. Maruish (Ed.), The use of psycho-
logical testing for treatment planning and outcome assess-
ment (pp. 453-478). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.