Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Comment on the Validity of the MCMI-III

Comment on the Validity of the MCMI-III Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 Paul D. Retzlaff This comment is in response to Rogers, Salekin, and Sewell’s (1999) article on the validity of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, 1983, 1987, 1994, and 1997). The major validity study for the most recent version of the test was not included in their literature review or analyses. As such, I believe that the conclusions reached by the authors regarding the validity of the MCMI-III are leaving the readership with a misunderstanding of the test. An article of mine (Retzlaff, 1996) was referenced several times in their paper. My work showed that the validity study presented in the first edition of the MCMI- III manual (Millon, 1994) was flawed. Rogers et al. suggest that my article concludes that the MCMI-III itself is not valid. On p. 432 of their article, they write, ‘‘Finally, Retzlaff’s (1996) reanalysis of Millon’s own data indicated diagnostic inaccuracy of the MCMI-III for Axis II disorders.’’ This is not the case. I went to great lengths to show evidence that the validity study alone was flawed. In the final paragraph of my article on p. 437, I state, ‘‘It is most likely http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior Springer Journals

Comment on the Validity of the MCMI-III

Law and Human Behavior , Volume 24 (4) – Oct 19, 2004

Loading next page...
 
/lp/springer-journals/comment-on-the-validity-of-the-mcmi-iii-pIbMcPqbWm

References (5)

Publisher
Springer Journals
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by American Psychology-Law Society/Division of the American Psychological Association
Subject
Psychology; Law and Psychology; Criminology and Criminal Justice, general; Personality and Social Psychology; Community and Environmental Psychology
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1023/A:1005552631950
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2000 Paul D. Retzlaff This comment is in response to Rogers, Salekin, and Sewell’s (1999) article on the validity of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, 1983, 1987, 1994, and 1997). The major validity study for the most recent version of the test was not included in their literature review or analyses. As such, I believe that the conclusions reached by the authors regarding the validity of the MCMI-III are leaving the readership with a misunderstanding of the test. An article of mine (Retzlaff, 1996) was referenced several times in their paper. My work showed that the validity study presented in the first edition of the MCMI- III manual (Millon, 1994) was flawed. Rogers et al. suggest that my article concludes that the MCMI-III itself is not valid. On p. 432 of their article, they write, ‘‘Finally, Retzlaff’s (1996) reanalysis of Millon’s own data indicated diagnostic inaccuracy of the MCMI-III for Axis II disorders.’’ This is not the case. I went to great lengths to show evidence that the validity study alone was flawed. In the final paragraph of my article on p. 437, I state, ‘‘It is most likely

Journal

Law and Human BehaviorSpringer Journals

Published: Oct 19, 2004

There are no references for this article.