Interpretive reliability of six Computer-Based Test Interpretation programs for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
The use of Computer-Based Test Interpretation (CBTI) of psychological tests has increased in recent years. This study evaluated the "interpretive reliability" of six commercially available CBTI programs for interpreting the MMPI-2, the most widely used psychological test, using a novel q-sort methodology. More specifically, this study addressed two major aspects of CBTI reliability: inter-program reliability was assessed by observing the similarity of q-sort ratings across programs; inter-interpreter reliability was addressed by observing the similarity of q-sort ratings across raters. It was found that there were no significant differences overall between the CBTIs or between profiles with regard to inter-interpreter reliability. There were specific CBTI/profile combinations that were interpreted with less consensus (e.g., the CBTI by Automated Assessment Associates on a within normal limits profile). With regard to inter-program reliability, there were no significant differences overall between the CBTIs, but there were overall differences between the profiles (e.g., the 4/9 and 1/2/3 profiles were interpreted with greater consistency while the 2/4 and 7/8 profiles were interpreted with less consensus). In addition there were specific CBTI profile combinations that were interpreted with more and less consensus (e.g., 4/9 profile interpreted by Pearson Assessments was most consensual with the other reports, while the 2/4 profile interpreted by Automated Assessment Associates was least consensual with the other reports). Inter-program reliability was recalculated after an attempt to correct for redundancy across profiles. Again, after correction there were no general differences in reliability for CBTIs but there were differences between profiles (the 4/9, 8/9 and WNL profiles were most consensual, while the 2/4 and 8/9 profiles were least consensual). Results suggest that these commercially available MMPI-2 CBTIs show similar levels of overall inter-program and inter-interpreter reliability. However, users should be alert to the possibility that certain MMPI-2 profiles are interpreted more or less consensually and that some CBTIs may show variable reliability in their interpretation depending on the MMPI-2 profile type. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2007 APA, all rights reserved)
https://www.upress.umn.edu/test-division/bibliography/2000-2009/2006/deskovitz_interpretive_2006
https://www.upress.umn.edu/logo.png
Mark Deskovitz
(2006)
Interpretive reliability of six Computer-Based Test Interpretation programs for the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2
PhD thesis.