Abstract
In this article, we examine 5 criticisms of Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and Sellbom (2009/this issue) about our study demonstrating the redundant relationships of the Restructured Clinical (RC) scales with extant MMPI–2 scales. We discuss differences in univariate versus multivariate comparisons of the RC scales and our “proxy” scales using their data. We show that (a) both the RC and extant proxy scales identified in our analyses account for most of the variance in the Clinical scales; (b) the proxy scales are redundant with the RC scales; (c) the proxy scales matched the 6 RC scales in accounting for variance in the Clinical scales exactly in three cases, differed by ≤.02 in 2 cases, and reached a maximum of .11 in one case; (d) the item overlap between RC1 and HEA is not at issue but rather their correlation with Scale 1; and (e) the evidence for the construct validity of the RC scales is weak using findings on the incremental validity of RC4 as illustrative.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
