MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007758416 · doi:10.1002/jclp.2005

A longitudinal study of the effects of seizure symptoms on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI‐2) clinical interpretation

2002· article· en· W2007758416 on OpenAlexaff
Paul A. Derry, Michael C. S. Harnadek, Richard S. McLachlan, Jennifer Sontrop, Warren T. Blume, John P. Girvin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Psychology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryEpilepsyPsychologyPersonalityPsychiatryPopulationPersonality testClinical psychologyPersonality Assessment InventoryPsychometricsTest validityMedicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigated whether the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) items reflecting seizure symptoms spuriously inflate MMPI-2 scores in persons with epilepsy. In a repeated measures prospective design, patients with epilepsy completed the MMPI-2 prior to epilepsy surgery and again two years later when they were either seizure-free or not seizure-free. Compared to baseline scores, only seizure-free patients showed a decline in endorsement of seizure items, and only on one scale, Hypochondriasis (Hs). Clinical profiles were not meaningfully different when readministered when seizures were no longer present. Moreover, profiles generated by individuals with and without seizures were not significantly different. We conclude the MMPI-2 is a valid test in an epilepsy population, as seizure content did not alter its clinical interpretation. In using the MMPI-2 in patients with epilepsy, a modest correction on the Hs and Schizophrenia (Sc) scales is warranted in selected cases. In MMPI-2 research, assessing both statistical and clinical significance is recommended.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.163
GPT teacher head0.477
Teacher spread0.314 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PsychologySame topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207