MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128880312 · doi:10.2466/pms.2002.94.3c.1143

Intratest and Intertest Means and Reliability of the MMPI–168 for University Students and Patients Referred for Neuropsychological Assessment

2002· article· en· W2128880312 on OpenAlexaff
Michael A. Persinger, S. G. Tiller

Bibliographic record

VenuePerceptual and Motor Skills · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHealthcare Systems and Public Health
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMinnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryNeuropsychologyReliability (semiconductor)PsychometricsPsychologyClinical psychologyNeuropsychological assessmentPsychiatryPersonalityCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

68 first-year university students and 37 patients, after a 1-mo. or a 2-yr. interval, respectively, were re-administered the MMPI-168 (the first 168 items of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). The mean of the test-retest correlation coefficients between the first and second administrations for the 13 scales (3 validity, 10 clinical) was about .62 for the students and the patients. The mean absolute change in standardized scores for the scales between the two administrations for both groups was only 0.2 of a standard deviation. Compared to the students, however, the patients who had been referred for neuropsychological assessments displayed elevated (>2 SD) mean scores for several of the scales during both administrations. These results indicate that the MMPI-168 profiles of the patients did not change appreciably even though several years had elapsed since the injuries. The correlation coefficients between means of the scaled scores between the first and second administrations for the students and patients were .91 and .95, respectively.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.299 · 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

Citations2
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePerceptual and Motor SkillsSame topicHealthcare Systems and Public HealthFrench-language works237,207