I am posting it here at the request of one of the authors, Dr. You do have the ability to decide for yourself to not be an early adopter when it comes to the MMPI-3 if that is what you conclude.
However, when it comes to scientific evidence it does not always make sense to be an “early adopter,” because sometimes a very limited pool of evidence can be flawed. When it comes to psychological testing we know it makes sense to use current norms. I will say one thing to keep in mind before introducing the following article. Please keep that in mind when you see this iteration of the MMPI marketed as “MMPI-3” with the available courses primarily being presented by someone with a financial interest in the adoption of the MMPI-3. In relation to the current question: If you’re going to use the MMPI-3, it would make sense to be sure you know what it actually is that you’re using, right? Remember in the world of science there is a difference between marketing materials and independent scientific evidence free from bias and conflicts of interest. For example, I called out the construction of the DSM-5 personality disorders task force with a statement like “should authors of personality assessments be allowed to author how personality is assessed?” I posted a bit about that here if you’re interested: Given the potential for confusion in the marketplace and that science related to the MMPI-2 might not necessarily translate to the MMPI-3, it makes sense for us to pay close attention to the behavior of test publishing organizations.įull disclosure: I have a past history of being publicly skeptical or even cynical of some things related to the personality testing industry.
0 kommentar(er)
