Diagnostic Construct Validity of MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) Scale Scores
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the current investigation, the authors examined the diagnostic construct validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2-Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) in a patient sample. All participants were diagnosed via the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis I Disorders (SCID-I/P). The data set used in this study was composed of 544 patients--67 with bipolar disorder, 407 with major depressive disorder, and 70 with schizophrenia. Multivariate analyses revealed a pattern of mean scale differences among patient groups that was mostly consistent with the prominent features of each diagnostic group; logistic regression analyses identified a number of scales that were strong, unique predictors in the differentiation between pairs of diagnostic groups. The higher order scales (H-O)--the Emotional/Internalizing Dysfunction (EID) and Thought Dysfunction (THD) scales were most useful in differentiating between patient groups. For differentiating bipolar disorder patients from the other diagnostic groups, the Activation (ACT) Specific Problem scale was most useful. Although not all hypothesized scale differences emerged; overall, the pattern of results provides support for the diagnostic construct validity of the MMPI-2-RF scales.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".