Critiques of school psychological materials: Cognitive-behavioral therapy goes to school

Abstract

Clinical assessment of personality is both an art -and a science. Where empirically based data are available, actuarial procedures are possible in predicting behavior or describing personality. But frequently the clinician’s art is called upon to bridge the gap or make an educated guess where data specific to the particular situation are lacking. Generally, this arrangement has served fairly well. Certainly all test score-behavior relationships have not been examined empirically for all populations, and likely they never will be. Apparently not all such relationships need to be tested, since well-trained professionals have been reasonably successful in going beyond available data and making adequate predictions in specific situations. But more science is needed in some areas. One of the significant areas where art or clinical judgment have been required to go far out on a limb with very little statistical support is in the use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) with adolescents. Few research studies have been conducted to test the applicability of the enormous MMPI adult data base to a younger population. Yet application is commonly made. The MMPI is probably the most widely used objective measure in clinical work with adolescents (Archer, 1987). In working with adolescents, clinicians often rely heavily on their impressions or judgment in interpreting MMPI profiles. The clinician may simply evaluate the adolescent profile as if it were an adult profile, or convert the raw scores to adolescentnormed T scores before interpreting the profile in terms of behavioral correlates obtained with adult subjects. The assumption that is implicit here is that no meaningful differences exist between adult and adolescent responses to the inventory’s items. Another procedure, perhaps too frequently applied, has been the modification of the interpretation of some scales because they are suspected of being influenced by age or the nature of the adolescent: “Scales 4 and 9 are high, but adolescents are usually high on them. So we can ignore their usual interpretation.” While many talented psychologists have been successful in applying their clinical art to the interpretation of adolescent MMPI profiles, the need for more science seems obvious here. Among the specific questions raised by a consideration of the validity of using the MMPI in adolescent personality assessment are the following: 1. Are adolescent MMPI scores best expressed in T scores based on adult or adolescent norms? Both are commonly used, yet they differ significantly particularly on scales F, 4, and 8. 2. Under what conditions can the MMPI be used successfully with younger subjects? While developed on an adult population, the MMPI has been used frequently