Convergent validity of MCMI-III clinical syndrome scales.
ABSTRACT This study tested the convergent validity of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-III (MCMI-III) clinical syndrome scales.
Using a sample of 186 substance abusers from one single town referred for assessment, convergent and discriminant validity of the MCMI-III and Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) diagnoses was conducted. Additional measures included the Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale and the Beck Anxiety Inventory.
A single Axis I factor based on the raw scores correlated adequately with the factor based on the other scales (r= .85), whereas the correlation between the factor based on the MCMI-III baserate scores was somewhat lower (r= .74), but still indicated substantial convergent validity. For individual disorders, area under the curve (AUC) analyses suggested that the convergent validity of the MCMI-III and the MINI was adequate. The raw score scales were superior to the baserate adjusted scores in all but one case. Discriminant validity was good for alcohol and drug dependence, moderate for major depression and delusion, and poor for thought disorder and anxiety.
The MCMI-III clinical syndrome scales generally measure the constructs they were intended for. The data did not support that the adjustments used in calculating the baserate scores improved validity.
- SourceAvailable from: blackdoginstitute.org.au
Article: Beyond major depression.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The DSM concept of 'major depression' has accrued increased status but demonstrated limited utility since inception. An historical overview of models of depression and the initially perceived advantages presented by the concept of 'major depression' are presented before detailing its limitations in application. Challenges to the utility of 'major depression' are provided by examining its conceptual model, its validity, its utility and the limited information generated in aetiological and treatment efficacy studies. It is argued that the concept of 'major depression' has led to sterility in depression research and clinical practice, and that there is a need for a paradigm shift in modelling and classifying the depressive disorders.Psychological Medicine 05/2005; 35(4):467-74. · 5.59 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, 1983) is a commonly used self-report instrument designed to aid in the assessment of Axis I and Axis II disorders. Concerns have been expressed regarding the procedures used in the normative research for the current version of the MCMI (MCMI-III; Millon, 1994) leading to a call for additional validity research on the MCMI-III (Retzlaff, 1996). In this study, we investigated the psychometric properties of the MCMI-III's Anxiety and Avoidant personality scales in a sample of patients diagnosed with Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed.; American Psychiatric Association, 1994) anxiety disorders. Our results suggest that the MCMI-III Avoidant scale is reliable (r =.89) and it was found to demonstrate appropriate convergent and divergent validity with other self-report measures. The MCMI-III Anxiety scale also showed adequate reliability (r =.78); however, our findings raise some concerns about the discriminant validity of this scale. A scale composed of the MCMI-III core anxiety items was found to have better discriminant validity. These findings are consistent with those reported by other researchers regarding the relationship between self-report measures of anxiety, avoidance, and depression. We conclude that the MCMI-III measures of anxiety and avoidance are consistent with other measures of these constructs and may provide valuable clinical information in this regard.Journal of Personality Assessment 01/2004; 81(3):237-41. · 1.29 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Because of the potential for bias and error in questionnaire responding, many personality inventories include validity scales intended to correct biased scores or identify invalid protocols. The authors evaluated the utility of several types of validity scales in a volunteer sample of 72 men and 106 women who completed the Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R; P. T. Costa & R. R. McCrae, 1992) and the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ; A. Tellegen, 1978/1982) and were rated by 2 acquaintances on the observer form of the NEO-PI-R. Analyses indicated that the validity indexes lacked utility in this sample. A partial replication (N = 1,728) also failed to find consistent support for the use of validity scales. The authors illustrate the use of informant ratings in assessing protocol validity and argue that psychological assessors should limit their use of validity scales and seek instead to improve the quality of personality assessments.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 03/2000; 78(3):582-93. · 5.08 Impact Factor