MMPI-2 profiles of Lakehead University students / Elizabeth M.R.M. Lettner.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Until most recently university students were considered to \nscore significantly higher on the MMPI clinical and validity \nscales, in terms of their mean profiles, than the original \nnormative non-psychiatric sample. According to the only study \nby Butcher, Graham, Dahlstrom and Bowman (1990) on this \nsubject, this does not seem to be the case on the MMPI-2. \nThe present research was a study of the same type as the \nButcher, Graham, et al. (1990) study but with a Canadian \nsample of university students, at Lakehead University in \nThunder Bay. The results obtained from the present study \nshowed significant elevations in terms of the mean profiles \nfor both male and female students on several of the validity \nand clinical scales of the MMPI-2 in comparison to the \nnormative sample. The obtained differences may reflect the \nyounger age, as well as the socio-economic differences of the \nLakehead University sample compared to the MMPI-2 normative \ngroup. Results also revealed that the L.U. student sample \nresponded, as a group, in a manner similar to the Butcher, \nGraham, et al. (1990) university student sample. Similar mean \nscores were obtained with only very few significant \ndifferences. The group profiles were also compared between \nthese two student samples and displayed a considerable degree \nof similarity. It is unclear whether the apparent contradictions between the results of the present study and \nthe Butcher, Graham, et al. (1990) study reflect real \ndifferences of statistical and clinical significance, or \nwhether they are the result of too small samples, or the \ndifferent statistical methods and criteria. However, if these \nresults reflect real differences and not statistical errors, \nthis would suggest that, contrary to the Butcher, Graham, et \nal. (1990) conclusion, the MMPI-2 norms might not be \nappropriate for use with college students.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".