This article was downloaded by: [University of Texas Libraries]

On: 25 November 2014, At: 16:23

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hjpa20

Implications of MMPI/MMPIA Findings for

Understanding Adolescent Development and
Psychopathology
Robert P. Archer
Published online: 10 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: Robert P. Archer (2005) Implications of MMPI/MMPIA Findings for Understanding Adolescent Development
and Psychopathology, Journal of Personality Assessment, 85:3, 257-270, DOI: 10.1207/s15327752jpa8503_02

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8503_02

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the Content) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 85(3), 257270
MMPI/MMPIA
ARCHERFINDINGS Copyright 2005, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

MASTER LECTURE

Implications of MMPI/MMPIA Findings

for Understanding Adolescent Development
and Psychopathology
Robert P. Archer
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014

Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences

Eastern Virginia Medical School

The MMPI (Hathaway & McKinley, 1943) and the MMPIAdolescent (MMPIA; Butcher et
al., 1992) have been used in the evaluation of adolescents for over 60 years, resulting in over
200 studies involving tens of thousands of adolescents. This literature not only informs us con-
cerning characteristics of this test instrument but also holds important implications for our un-
derstanding of adolescent development and psychopathology. In this article, based on an in-
vited master lecture at the 2005 Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, I
present several points illustrating the relevance of MMPI and MMPIA research in enriching
our understanding of adolescence.

I want to express my appreciation to the Board of the Society
for Personality Assessment (SPA) for the invitation to present
a Master Lecture at this Annual Meeting in Chicago. Both the
location and timing of this opportunity are strikingly appropri-
ate in terms of framing a discussion of adolescent development
and psychopathology. Our location, Chicago (Cook County),
was the site of the development of the first family court in the
United States in 1899, based on a recognition that children and
adolescents should be treated differently than adults by the jus-
tice system because their behaviors were more flexible and ca-
pable of greater correction or reform (Grisso, 1998). In re-
gard to timing, approximately 1 week ago the U.S. Supreme
Court in the Roper v. Simmons (2005) decision ruled that the
execution of individuals below the age of 18 violated the 8th
(cruel and unusual punishment) and 14th Amendments. The
court reviewed extensive psychological literature in reaching
their conclusion that the immaturity, behavioral recklessness,
and impulsivity associated with adolescence reflects a dimin-
ished culpability inconsistent with imposing the ultimate pun-
ishment with this age group.
This presentation provides an opportunity to step back
from the specific research findings on the Minnesota
Editors Note: This is an invited article based on a Master Lecture
given on March 4, 2005 at the Society for Personality Assessment
Convention in Chicago, Illinois.
Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & Mc-
Kinley, 1943) and MMPIAdolescent (MMPIA; Butcher et
al., 1992) to address the more general issue of what we might
infer from these findings regarding adolescent development
and psychopathology. The MMPI/MMPIA provides an ex-
cellent basis for this discussion based on its use for over six
decades in the evaluation of adolescents. Since the first
studies using the MMPI with adolescent respondents in the
early 1940s, over 200 studies involving tens of thousands of
adolescents have served to provide an impressive empirical
foundation that is unique among self-report personality as-
sessment instruments. A number of important landmark con-
tributions can be identified across this 60-year history.
The first application of the MMPI with adolescents ap-
pears to have been made by Dora Capwell in 1941, 2 years
prior to the formal publication of the MMPI. Capwell
(1945a, 1945b) demonstrated that delinquent and
nondelinquent girls produce significantly different scores on
the MMPI Psychopathic Deviate (Pd) scale and that these
mean differences were maintained when the sample was re-
evaluated 4 to 15 months following the initial MMPI admin-
istration. In the late 1940s, Hathaway and Monachesi began
the collection of the largest MMPI data set ever obtained on
adolescents in a longitudinal study that attempted to establish
relationships between MMPI findings and subsequent delin-
quent behaviors. Hathaway and Monachesi administered the
 258 ARCHER
MMPI to 3,971 Minnesota ninth graders in the 1947 to 1948
school year, followed by collection of a larger sample of
11,329 ninth graders from 86 Minnesota communities in
1954. These combined samples, totaling roughly 15,000 ado-
lescents, served as the basis of a 1963 book by Hathaway and
Monachesi entitled Adolescent Personality and Behavior:
MMPI Patterns of Normal, Delinquent, Dropout, and Other
Outcomes. The outcome data generated by this work led
Hathaway and Monachesi to conclude that elevations on
MMPI scales Pd, Schizophrenia (Sc), and Mania (Ma)
served an excitatory role, that is, increased the probability
that an adolescent would subsequently engage in delinquent
or antisocial behaviors. In contrast to these Excitatory
Scales, Hathaway and Monachesi also observed that eleva-
tions on scales Depression (2), MasculinityFemininity (5),
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
and Social IntroversionExtroversion (0) served a suppres-
sor function in terms of reducing the probability of delin-
quent behavior, and the researchers termed these latter scales
Inhibitory. The research by Hathaway and Monachesi
(e.g., 1953, 1963) established that the MMPI could be used to
predict to an important area of adolescent behavior, that is,
delinquency and has provided a crucial body of information
concerning the way that adolescents endorse test items in a
manner significantly different than that typically found for
adult respondents (Archer, 2005).
In the 1960s, Phil Marks and Peter Briggs began the devel-
opment of the first set of widely used adolescent norms for
the MMPI. These norms were based on the responses of 720
adolescents selected from the data collected by Hathaway
and Monachesi in the Minnesota state-wide sample com-
bined with an additional 1,046 adolescents collected during
1964 and 1965 in six states. Much of the subsequent research
conducted with the MMPI with adolescents was based on the
Marks and Briggs (1972) norms set. Furthermore, the major-
ity of clinicians using the instrument with adolescents during
the 1970s and 1980s employed the Marks and Briggs adoles-
cent norms in interpreting adolescent response patterns. Sim-
ilar to the MMPIA norms utilized today (Butcher et al.,
1992), Marks and Briggs did not develop a K-correction pro-
cedure for use with their adolescent norms. Their observation
that the use of K-correction procedures actually reduced,
rather than increased, relationships to external criterion has
been replicated and supported in our subsequent investiga-
tions of the uses and limitations of K-correction with the
MMPIA (e.g., Alperin, Archer, & Coates, 1996).
In another landmark contribution, Marks, Seeman, and
Haller (1974) summarized their empirical findings on the cor-
relates of MMPI high-point code types in a text entitled The
Actuarial Use of the MMPI With Adolescents and Adults. This
important step in the development of the MMPI for adoles-
cents involved an evaluation of 834 adolescents between the
ages of 12 and 18 who had received at least 10 hr of psycho-
therapy between 1965 and 1970, eventually combined with an
additional sample of 419 adolescents receiving psychiatric
services between 1970 and 1973. Marks and his colleagues
evaluated the personality correlates for 29 MMPI high-point
code types based, in part, on the ratings of 172 therapists from
30 states. This correlate study was crucial in providing clini-
cians with the descriptive information necessary to interpret
adolescent code-type patterns, and the code-type classifica-
tion system developed by Marks et al. was sufficiently flexible
and comprehensive to accommodate the basic scale
configural patterns of most adolescents in clinical settings.
In the 1980s, the work of Carolyn Williams and James
Butcher on the original form of the MMPI, and particularly
their collaborative contributions on the development of the
MMPIA, served to significantly advance our understanding
of the use of this instrument with adolescent respondents. The
Williams and Butcher (1989a) correlate study, for example, in
a sample of 492 boys and 352 girls, provided significant infor-
mation on single scale descriptors for adolescents. In addition,
Williams and Butcher (1989b) investigated code type corre-
lates for this sample of 844 adolescents and noted important
areas in which these researchers were able to replicate the cor-
relates obtained by Marks et al. in 1974 as well as other areas in
which the Marks et al. code-type descriptors did not appear to
be applicable for their sample. Also in the 1980s, I conducted a
series of research studies, often in collaboration with David
Pancoast and Raymont Gordon, that culminated in the text
Using the MMPI With Adolescents (Archer, 1987). This text
summarized the results of numerous studies indicating that ad-
olescent response patterns differed in many important ways
from those typically produced by adult respondents.
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, the major research em-
phasis with the MMPI evolved into an effort to create a
unique form specifically designed for adolescents, resulting
in the publication of the MMPIA in August of 1992
(Butcher et al., 1992). For the period from 1992 through
2002, Jonathan Forbey (2003) estimated that there have been
120 publications on the MMPIA, underscoring the rapid
and vigorous growth of this revised instrument with this age
group. In addition, a survey study conducted by Archer and
Newsom (2000) with psychologists who work with adoles-
cents indicated that the MMPIA was the most widely used
self-report personality assessment instrument with this age
group. The presentation today will focus on the ways in
which the MMPI and MMPIA research literatures may be
used to address a series of issues or questions concerning ad-
olescent development and psychopathology.
BECAUSE MANY ASPECTS OF ADOLESCENT
DEVELOPMENT ARE UNIQUE,
GENERALIZING ADULT FINDINGS
TO ADOLESCENTS IS FREQUENTLY
INAPPROPRIATE
When I first began utilizing the MMPI with adolescents dur-
ing my internship training at the Medical University of South
Carolina in 1976 to 1977, it was still common practice to ap-
 MMPI/MMPIA FINDINGS
ply standard adult K-corrected norms to evaluate adolescent
response patterns. This practice, however, created numerous
problems in interpreting adolescent profiles and undoubtedly
contributed to gross overestimates of psychopathology for
the adolescents evaluated in this manner (e.g., Archer, 1984).
In the absence of an official set of adolescent norms, how-
ever, substantial confusion prevailed for many years con-
cerning the most appropriate normative reference point to
evaluate adolescents MMPI profiles.
The problem with the use of adult norms in interpreting ad-
olescent MMPI responses is illustrated in Figure 1 taken from
a study by Pancoast and Archer (1992). Pancoast and Archer
(1992) examined the differences in MMPI basic scale profiles
for large samples of adolescents, college students, and adults,
with the mean values for all three groups plotted on standard
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
adult norms. Figure 1 shows the dramatic differences ob-
served for scales Pd, Paranoia (Pa), Psychasthenia (Pt), Sc,
and Ma for the response patterns from normal adults, normal
college students, and normal adolescents. This pattern of in-
creasingly elevated scores for younger respondents was re-
peatedly found in numerous studies conducted in the 1970s
and 1980s, convincingly demonstrating that adult norms pro-
duced significant overestimates of antisocial and psychotic
symptomatology (particularly manic symptoms) for normal
adolescents (e.g., Archer, 1984, 1987). In fact, it is accurate to
state that all samples of adolescents, both from clinical and
from normal settings, would be expected to show significant
elevations on scales Pd, Sc, and Ma, regardless of the actual
symptom status of these adolescents, simply and solely as a
function of the use of adult norms with adolescents.
FIGURE 1 Mean Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(MMPI) T-score values for adolescents, college students, and adults
as shown on adult non-K-corrected norms. Note. From MMPI Re-
sponse Patterns of College Students: Comparisons to Adolescents
and Adults, by D. L. Pancoast and R. P. Archer, 1992, Journal of
Clinical Psychology, 48, p. 49. Copyright 1992 by John Wiley &
Sons, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
259
Pancoast and Archer (1988) illustrated another method of
examining maturational influences of MMPI basic scales by
evaluating patterns of adolescent responses on the Harris.n
Lingoes subscales. Harris and Lingoes (1955) rationally di-
vided six of the MMPI basic scales (D, Hy, Pd, Pa, Sc, and
Ma) into subscales by grouping items that appear to be simi-
lar in content. The HarrisLingoes subscales are frequently
used with both the adult and adolescent forms of the MMPI
to determine which content areas of the standard basic clini-
cal scales are critically endorsed in order to produce a given
T-score elevation on the basic parent scale. In the Pancoast
and Archer (1988) study, adolescent values were examined
on adult norms in order to highlight the content areas in
which adolescent response patterns might differ from those
typically found for normal adults. The adolescents selected
by Pancoast and Archer (1988) for this purpose were pre-
dominantly based on the adolescent normative data collected
by Robert Colligan and Kenneth Offord (1989) at the Mayo
Foundation based on a large sample of adolescents screened
to exclude adolescents with psychological symptomatology
as well as excluding adolescents with serious or chronic
medical conditions. Thus, the adolescents selected in the
Colligan and Offord normative sample were a carefully and
highly selected group of normal adolescents.
Figure 2 presents the HarrisLingoes MMPI subscale
findings for the Colligan and Offord (1989) adolescent sam-
ple based on adult MMPI norms for the HarrisLingoes
subscales D, Hy, and Pd. These results show a general trend
for the subscales related to the Psychopathic Deviancy (Pd)
scale to show more extreme elevations than subscales related
to Depression (D) or Hysteria (Hy). Although most of the Pd
subscales are elevated, the greatest elevation occurs on Pd1
(Familial Discord), which centers on the struggle against fa-
milial controls and the perception of marked family conflict.
In contrast, no elevation is observed on Pd3 (Social Imper-
turbability), a measure of denial of social anxiety and dis-
comfort in social situations.
Even more dramatic elevations for normal adolescents are
shown in Figure 3 for the HarrisLingoes subscales for Para-
noia (Pa), Schizophrenia (Sc), and Mania (Ma). For the Pa
scale, the highest subscale is Pa1 (Persecutory Ideas), reflect-
ing the perception of being treated unfairly, or punished un-
justly, by others. On the Sc scale, the highest subscale is Sc2
(Lack of Ego Mastery: Defective Inhibition), which relates to
feelings of restlessness, hyperactivity, and disinhibition. Even
more dramatically, these normal adolescents produced a mean
T-score that would be classified as a clinical range elevation
on the Ma2 subscale (Psychomotor Acceleration) related to
feelings of restlessness, excitement, and a pressure for action
(vs. thought and reflection). Overall, the HarrisLingoes
subscale pattern produced by these normal adolescents em-
phasized adolescent development as a period of time marked
by intense family struggles for independence and accompa-
nied by a restless, excited, and driven energy level and a sense
of being confined or misunderstood by others.
 260
FIGURE 2 HarrisLingoes subscale T-score values for adoles-
cents based on adult norms: Subscales for D, Hy, and Pd. Note. From
MMPI Adolescent Norms: Patterns and Trends Across 4 Decades,
by D. L. Pancoast and R. P. Archer, 1988. Journal of Personality As-
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
sessment, 52, p. 701. Copyright 1988 by Lawrence Erlbaum Asso-
ciates, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
FIGURE 3 HarrisLingoes subscale T-score values for adoles-
cents based on adult norms: Subscales for Pa, Sc, and Ma. Note.
From MMPI Adolescent Norms: Patterns and Trends Across 4 De-
cades, by D. L. Pancoast and R. P. Archer, 1988. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 52, p. 702. Copyright 1988 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
BECAUSE OF THE TURBULENT NATURE
OF ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT, MMPI
ITEMS ARE MORE EFFECTIVE
IN DISCRIMINATING NORMAL FROM
ABNORMAL FUNCTIONING FOR ADULTS
THAN FOR ADOLESCENTS
Shifting from our discussion of research findings in the late
1980s and early 1990s, I would now like to turn to more re-
cent research findings by Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001).
This study investigated the performance of MMPIA items
in terms of using item endorsement frequencies to accurately
identify groups of normal from abnormal adolescents and
ARCHER
contrasting these results with the effectiveness of item en-
dorsement frequency differences in differentiating the
MMPI2 (Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, &
Kaemmer, 1989) normative sample from adult clinical sam-
ples. Thus, item effectiveness was defined in this study as the
capacity to discriminate between groups of normal and ab-
normal respondents. In this recent research, we were at-
tempting to follow the dramatic scale and subscale level dif-
ferences identified in earlier research (e.g., Pancoast &
Archer, 1988, 1992) to evaluate endorsement differences that
might be manifest on the item level. Stated most broadly, the
research question concerned whether adolescents and adults
differed in their responses to the many items that appear both
on the MMPI2 and on the MMPIA. Table 1 presents our
findings that show that the MMPI2 basic scales contain a
much larger number of items than do the corresponding
MMPIA basic scales that produce a significant difference in
item endorsement frequency between individuals in normal
and clinical samples.
Review of Table 1 reveals that the only MMPIA basic
scale that shows a majority of items effectively discriminat-
ing between normal and clinical adolescent samples for both
boys and girls was the Pd scale. In the case of most other ba-
sic scales, the percentage of effective items is less than 30%
of the total items assigned to that scale. In sharp contrast, the
only MMPI2 basic scale that failed to show a majority of
items effectively discriminating between normal and abnor-
mal adults was the Mf scale, often viewed as a nonclinical
scale or dimension. In terms of applying this standard for
item effectiveness, it is important to recall that Hathaway and
McKinley (1943) originally selected the basic scale items
solely on the basis of significant item endorsement frequency
differences between the MMPI normative sample (i.e., the
Minnesota Normals) and one or more clinical criterion
groups. In contrast, criterion keying was not used in the se-
lection of MMPIA basic scale items. Rather, most
MMPIA basic scale items were essentially carried over
from the original form of the MMPI, although some items
were reworded to improve clarity. Surprisingly, it would ap-
pear that the MMPIA basic scales would have produced
somewhat different item structures had an empirical keying
(also known as contrasting groups) method been used for
item selection in scale development. This latter conclusion
may have been foreshadowed by the experience of the Advi-
sory Committee appointed by the University of Minnesota
Press to develop the MMPIA.
The Advisory Committee recognized the pervasive prob-
lems displayed by the F scale on the original MMPI, a valid-
ity scale that consistently produced quite elevated scores for
adolescents in both normal and clinical settings (e.g., Archer,
1984, 1987). To address this problem, the Committee reeval-
uated the endorsement frequencies for items on the original F
scale and found that 27 of the 60 F-scale items produced en-
dorsement frequencies exceeding 20% in the MMPIA nor-
mative sample (Archer, 2005). For example, the original F
 MMPI/MMPIA FINDINGS 261
TABLE 1
MMPIA Basic Scale Items Classified Based on Discrimination Performance Between the Normative
Sample and Two Adolescent Clinical Samples With Similar Item Comparisons for the MMPI2 Normative
Sample and an Adult Clinical Sample

MMPIA Percentage Effective Items

Normative/Clinical Samples Normative/Independent Samples MMPI2 Percentage Effective Items

Boys Girls Boys Girls Men Women

Scale (No.) % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No.

Hs (1) 3 1/32 13 4/32 28 9/32 50 16/32 84 27/32 91 29/32

D (2) 28 16/57 40 23/57 40 23/57 54 31/57 70 40/57 66 38/57
Hy (3) 25 15/60 28 17/60 28 17/60 38 23/60 60 36/60 55 33/60
Pd (4) 63 31/49 71 35/49 69 34/49 67 33/49 72 36/50 72 36/50
Mf (5) 16 7/44 25 11/44 14 6/44 16 7/44 45 25/56 14 8/56
Pa (6) 30 12/40 33 13/40 48 19/40 23 16/40 73 29/40 70 28/40
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014

Pt (7) 23 11/48 29 14/48 35 17/48 40 19/48 94 45/48 94 45/48

Sc (8) 18 14/77 30 23/77 45 35/77 44 34/77 92 72/78 97 76/78
Ma (9) 35 16/46 17 8/46 48 22/46 29 14/46 57 26/46 65 30/46
Si (0) 11 7/62 19 12/62 24 15/62 19 12/62 70 48/69 64 44/69

Note. From The Effectiveness of MMPIA Items in Discriminating Between Normative and Clinical Samples, by R. P. Archer, R. W. Handel, & K. D. Lynch,
Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, p. 428, 2001. Copyright 2001 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted with permission. Percentage figures
reflect the total percentage of items within each scale that showed significant differences in item endorsement frequencies between the normative and clinical
sample, that is, items classified as effective in terms of discrimination between samples. Under the No. columns, the first number indicates the number of
effective items within the scale, and the second number reflects the total number of items in the scale. MMPIA = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
InventoryAdolescent; MMPI2 = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2.

scale item expressing a preference for sitting and daydream-

ing rather than engaging in activity was endorsed by roughly
36% of the boys and 45% of the girls in the normative sample
(Butcher et al., 1992). The revised F scale for the MMPIA
consisted of 66 items, including numerous additions and de-
letions in contrast to the original F scale. The data presented
in Table 1 shows that significant revisions may have also oc-
curred in the composition of most of the basic clinical scales
had a psychometric reevaluation been extended beyond the F
scale.

MATURATIONAL INFLUENCES HAVE

PROFOUND EFFECT ON ADOLESCENTS
(AND ADULTS) MMPI RESPONSES

Maturational changes are sufficiently powerful to influence

scores on broad-gauge personality instruments including the
MMPIA and MMPI2. Data derived in the original devel-
opment of the MMPIA provide us with some dramatic evi-
dence of the effects of age-related maturation on MMPI scale
elevations. For example, the data shown in Figure 4 provide
information on MMPI original F scale mean raw score values
for adolescents, ages 12 through 18 inclusive, who were part
of the data collection for the MMPIA normative sample.
Subsequently, the data from 11-, 12-, and 13-year-old adoles-
cents were eliminated from the final set of MMPIA norms
because the MMPIA Advisory Committee felt that the re-
sponses for this age group were significantly different than
those obtained from older adolescents.
FIGURE 4 Mean F scale raw score values for male and female ad-
olescents and adults. Note. From MMPIA: Assessing Adolescent
Psychopathology (3rd ed., p. 9), by R. P. Archer, 2005, Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Copyright 2005 by Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted with permission.
The data presented in Figure 4 show that the mean raw
score values changed gradually on a year-by-year basis such
that the frequency of endorsement of F-scale items decreased
with increasing age. Figure 4 shows, for example, that the av-
erage 18-year-old endorsed in the critical direction only
 262
about half of the items critically endorsed by the typical 11-
year-old adolescent. Furthermore, the typical adult critically
endorsed only about half of the items endorsed by the typical
18-year-old. Part of this inverse relationship between en-
dorsement of items in the pathological direction and age is
probably accounted for by the increased reading or literacy
limitations encountered with the younger adolescents. A sig-
nificant component of the relationship illustrated in Figure 4,
however, is also likely accounted for by maturational and so-
cial processes that teach individuals to respond to the world
in a consistent and conventional manner, that is, part of ma-
turing is learning what experiences or perceptions are inap-
propriate to share with others.
This intriguing relationship between maturation and
MMPI response patterns is not only illustrated for adoles-
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
cents but also clearly shown for adults in provocative data,
often overlooked, provided by Colligan, Osborne, Swenson,
and Offord in their 1983 text, The MMPI: A Contemporary
Normative Study. Colligan et al. presented the MMPI re-
sponse patterns of a carefully selected group of normal adults
and compared basic clinical scale findings based on cross-
sectional age differences. Figure 5 shows the cross-sectional
changes on the Hypochondriasis (Hs) scale by decade of life.
The mean T scores for both men and women on the Hs
scale begin to climb around age 40 to a mean T-score value of
approximately 55 for individuals in their 50s and 60s. Mean
T-score values begin to climb again as individuals of both
genders age into their 70s. For members of the audience that
are age 40 and beyond, I do not believe that it is necessary for
me to explain this phenomena to you. For those of you who
FIGURE 5 Cross-sectional changes in mean T-score values for
Scale Hs by age group and gender. Note. From The MMPI: A Con-
temporary Normative Study (p. 343), by R. C. Colligan, D. Osborne,
W. M. Swenson, and K. P. Offord, 1983, New York: Praeger. Copy-
right 1983 by the Mayo Foundation. Reprinted with permission.
ARCHER
are below age 40, let me emphasize (tongue-in-cheek) that
the gradual increases shown in Figure 5 do not reflect in-
creasingly hypochondriacal tendencies but rather a rational
and appropriate concern over increasing health problems and
decreasing physical capabilities. Figure 6 shows similar
cross-sectional data from Colligan et al. (1983) at the Mayo
Clinic for the Ma Scale. Note that older adolescents and
young adults show a mean T-score value near 60 on the Ma
scale, which gradually declines by decade of life. Similar
maturational changes can be seen in other basic scales, such
as the Pd scale, in the data provided by Colligan et al.
Before leaving the issue of maturational influences, I
would like to briefly mention the Immaturity (IMM) scale
developed for the MMPIA to assess psychological matura-
tion. This scale was developed based on Jane Loevingers
(1976) concept of ego development as described in her text
entitled Ego Development: Conceptions and Theories. A
short-form version of the Loevinger and Wessler (1970) Sen-
tence Completion measure of this construct served as the ba-
sis for the MMPIA IMM scale developed by Dave
Pancoast, Raymont Gordon, and myself (Archer, Pancoast,
& Gordon, 1994) to focus specifically on the developmental
stages characterized by Loevinger as preconformist and con-
formist, that is, the stages most closely associated with ado-
lescence. Preliminary item selection was based on
correlations between MMPIA items and scores produced on
the sentence completion measure of ego development, and
the final form of the IMM scale consisted of 43 items that
covered a variety of content areas including lack of self-
confidence, externalization of blame, lack of insight and in-
FIGURE 6 Cross-sectional changes in mean T-score values for
Scale Ma by age group and gender. Note. From The MMPI: A Con-
temporary Normative Study (p. 351), by R. C. Colligan, D. Osborne,
W. M. Swenson, and K. P. Offord, 1983, New York: Praeger. Copy-
right 1983 by the Mayo Foundation. Reprinted with permission.
 MMPI/MMPIA FINDINGS
trospection, interpersonal and social discomfort, hostility
and antisocial attitudes, and egocentricity and self-
centeredness. These characteristics of the preconformist
stage of adolescent development are largely associated with
much of the impulsive and potentially self-destructive be-
haviors found among adolescents. Intriguingly, recent stud-
ies of adolescents based on improved brain imaging
techniques have shown that adolescents frontal and
prefrontal lobe areas (areas related to judgment and the inhi-
bition of impulsive behavior) are less well developed than in
adults (e.g., Gogtay et al., 2004). These brain imaging stud-
ies, in fact, served as part of the evidence reviewed by the Su-
preme Court in their Roper v. Simmons (2005) decision.
IT IS CONSIDERABLY MORE DIFFICULT
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
TO DISCRIMINATE NORMAL FROM
ABNORMAL FUNCTIONING AMONG
ADOLESCENTS THAN ADULTS
The assertion that it is easier to discriminate normal from ab-
normal functioning for a 36-year-old man or woman than for
a 16-year-old adolescent always receives substantial support
from clinician audiences experienced in working with both
age groups. This difficulty in distinguishing normal from ab-
normal functioning among adolescents may also be directly
related to features that are observed in adolescents response
patterns to the MMPI and MMPIA. The MMPIA Advisory
Committee recognized that the discrimination of normal
from abnormal functioning would be a challenging task and
developed an innovative strategy for delineating clinical
range elevations for the test instrument. Specifically, the cre-
ation of the transitional zone or gray zone between T score 60
and 64 on all MMPIA profile sheets was a tangible way of
reflecting the observation that the dividing line between nor-
mal and abnormal functioning was more ambiguous for ado-
lescents in contrast to the sharp demarcation shown on
MMPI2 profile sheets at a T score of 65.
In reviewing the shaded area on the MMPIA profile
forms, it is tempting to speculate that simply lowering the
clinical cutoff criterion from T 65 to T 60 might solve
many of the substantive problems associated with low range
scores found for clinical groups on the instrument. Subse-
quent research on this issue, however, has shown that reduc-
ing the criterion for clinical range elevations minimally
increases sensitivity while producing unacceptable reduc-
tions in specificity and overall hit rate (e.g., Alperin et al.,
1996; Hand, 2005). An additional obvious possibility is that
some of the discrimination difficulty experienced on the
MMPIA may result from the absence of a K-correction pro-
cedure for this instrument. Studies conducted by Alperin et
al. (1996) and Fontaine, Archer, Elkins, and Johansen (2001)
have convincingly demonstrated, however, that the addition
of a K-correction procedure for the MMPIA does not signif-
icantly increase the discrimination ability of this instrument
to accurately identify normal versus abnormal functioning.
263
The difficulty in discriminating normal from abnormal
functioning on the MMPIA is illustrated by the consistent
research findings that have shown that somewhere between
20% to 33% of adolescents in clinical settings produce
MMPIA basic scale profiles characterized by the absence of
any clinical range elevation (Archer, 2005). Hand (2005) re-
cently reported the mean MMPIA basic scale profile pro-
duced by 33 studies published between 1994 and 2004,
inclusive, that provided basic scale mean data for 5,784 ado-
lescents evaluated in psychiatric settings. These data, shown
in Figure 7, clearly illustrate the relatively low mean profile
elevation shown for these combined samples. Similar mean
basic scale profiles are presented for male and female adoles-
cents by Archer (2005) for a sample of 730 male adolescents
and 1,032 adolescent girls evaluated in a variety of studies
conducted in psychiatric settings.
The high frequency of Within Normal Limit profiles for
adolescents in clinical settings most likely reflects the dra-
matically high rate of item endorsement in the pathological
direction by members of the MMPIA normative sample
rather than characteristics of the item endorsement patterns
found for adolescents in clinical groups. Stated differently,
discerning normal from abnormal psychological functioning
in adolescents is rendered more difficult by the very high rate
of endorsement of items in the pathological direction by ado-
lescents without independent, extratest evidence of abnormal
functioning. Forbey, Handel, Hand, and I are currently col-
laborating in a study centered on examining the effects of re-
fining the MMPIA normative sample by excluding 193
normative subjects who reported a history of referral for
counseling. Preliminary results, however, indicate that ex-
clusion of these latter adolescents from the normative sample
and recalculating uniform T-scores based on this modified
sample does not significantly affect the discrimination per-
formance of the instrument.
MMPI SINGLE SCALE AND CODE-TYPE
ELEVATIONS MEAN WHAT THEY MEAN
REGARDLESS OF THE AGE
OF THE RESPONDENT, THAT IS,
THE EXPRESSION OF PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
HAS MANY SIMILARITIES ACROSS
AGE GROUPS
We have noted substantial evidence of the important quanti-
tative/normative differences between adolescents and adults
on the MMPI. There are also clearly some qualitative dif-
ferences between forms of psychopathology found during
adolescence and symptoms and disorders manifested by
adults. For example, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text revision [DSMIVTR];
American Psychiatric Association, 2000) cautions clini-
cians about using personality disorder diagnoses with indi-
viduals under 18 and prohibits the use of the antisocial per-
sonality disorder diagnosis with juveniles. However, review
 264
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
FIGURE 7 Mean Minnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryAdolescent (MMPIA) basic scale profile produced from 33 MMPIA studies of ado-
lescents in clinical settings conducted between 1994 and 2004, inclusive. Note. From The Classification Accuracy of the MMPIA: Effects of Modifying
the Normative Sample (p. 33), by C. Hand. MMPIA Profile sheet 1992 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota. Reprinted with permission.
of MMPI and MMPIA correlate data leads to the observa-
tion that most of the differences in the manifestation of
psychopathology between adolescents and adults are more
quantitative than qualitative. For example, adolescents who
produce 4-9 MMPIA profiles are typically described as
delinquent and/or conduct disordered adolescents, and ado-
lescents who produce elevations on the Depression basic
scale are typically described by themselves and by others as
depressed (e.g., Archer, Gordon, Giannetti, & Singles,
1988; Butcher et al., 1992). Thus, basic scale elevations
and profile patterns appear to have similar meanings for ad-
olescents as those typically found for adults on the
MMPI2. Perhaps this finding should not be surprising
given the similarities in MMPI correlates for code-type pat-
terns reported by Butcher and his colleagues (e.g., Butcher,
1996; Tsai, Butcher, Munoz, & Vitousek, 2001) in their
MMPI studies and comparisons across very different cul-
tural and national boundaries.
Additional support for the conclusion that MMPI scales
have similar meanings across age groups comes from group
data as reported in studies conducted on single scale correlates
by Williams and Butcher (1989a) and by Archer, Gordon, An-
derson, and Giannetti (1989). These studies have examined
correlates for basic and supplementary MMPIA scales
among adolescents, respectivley, and found patterns highly
ARCHER
similar to those established for adults. Furthermore, Archer
and Gordon (1988) showed that elevations on Scale D for ado-
lescents were related to an increased likelihood of diagnoses
of Depression, while elevations on the Sc scale were related to
an increased frequency of diagnoses of Schizophrenia (even
though this disorder represents a relatively low base rate diag-
nosis among adolescents). Indeed, the effectiveness of the Sc
scale in identifying schizophrenic adolescents appeared to be
similar to the hit rates reported by Hathaway (1956) for adults
in his original development of the MMPI Sc scale. Further-
more, the MMPI code-type literature for adolescents reported
by Marks et al. (1974) and the extrapolation of this literature to
the MMPIA as described by Archer (2005) also have shown
striking similarities to the 2-point code-type correlates found
for adults as has been reported by Graham (2000) and Greene
(2000). Furthermore, the empirical correlates reported by Ar-
cher and Krishnamurthy (2002) for the 10 most frequently oc-
curring MMPIA code types, for example, produces highly
similar descriptions to those found for the identical code types
in these standard MMPI2 guides. In summary, MMPI scale
elevations appear to have similar correlate meanings regard-
less of the age of the respondent. What clearly and dramati-
cally changes, however, are the normative standards we
should apply to these scales when evaluating adolescents ver-
sus adults.
 MMPI/MMPIA FINDINGS
ACTING OUT IS THE UBIQUITOUS DEFENSE
MECHANISM AMONG ADOLESCENTS
While the interpretation of MMPIA and MMPI2 basic
scale elevations reveal marked similarities, the defense struc-
ture typically employed by adolescents as reflected primarily
in MMPIA basic validity and clinical scale patterns mani-
fests important differences from that found for adults. These
differences may be summarized as follows. Adolescents typ-
ically display a more restricted range of defense mechanisms
than found for adults and more frequently utilize acting out
or externalizing behaviors as a primary defense structure.
The reduced use of such mechanisms as denial among ado-
lescents is well illustrated in the mean raw score differences
found on validity Scales L (Lie) and K (Defensiveness) be-
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
tween the MMPIA and the MMPI2 normative samples. On
both of these validity scales and across genders, adolescents
typically endorse fewer L-scale and K-scale items in the criti-
cal direction than do their adult counterparts (Archer, 2005).
Note that elevations of Scale L, for example, have similar
correlates for both adolescents and adults related to rigid
moral standards, lack of psychological insight, and use of rel-
atively crude defensive mechanisms such as denial (e.g., Ar-
cher, 2005; Graham, 2000). Elevations on Scale L, however,
appear rarer among adolescents than adults. Furthermore,
Archer (2005) observed that the Repression (R) scale (Welsh,
1956), developed to measure the tendency to be
overcontrolled or inhibited and included in both the MMPI2
and MMPIA, typically produces more frequent elevations
among adults in comparison to adolescents. Similarly, a
study by Truscott (1990) of the Overcontrolled-Hostility
(OH) scale showed that this scale was of little practical value
with adolescents because they rarely employed repression as
a primary defense mechanism.
Another piece of evidence concerning the use of acting out
or externalizing defense structures among adolescents is re-
lated to the frequency of 2-point, code-type assignments typi-
cally found for adolescents in mental health settings. Table 2
provides this information from Archer (2005) for a sample of
1,762 adolescents evaluated in mental health settings.
Table 2 shows that over one third of all adolescents evalu-
ated in mental health settings produce a 2-point code that in-
volves the Pd scale as one of the two most elevated basic
scales. Specifically, the most frequent code types include 4-
9/9-4, 4-6/6-4, 2-4/4-2, 3-4/4-3, and 4-8/8-4. These data not
only illustrate the high rate of behavioral disorders found
among adolescents but are also consistent with the observa-
tion that adolescents are quite frequently referred for treat-
ment because their conduct disorder behaviors become
intolerable to the adults around them.
The work of Archer and Krishnamurthy (1994) on the de-
velopment of the MMPIA Structural Summary provides yet
another source of data that emphasizes the importance of
externalizing behaviors among adolescents. The MMPIA
Structural Summary was developed to identify the underly-
265
ing factor structure of the 69 MMPIA scales and subscales
and resulted in organizing these measures along eight major
factor dimensions. The first factor, labeled General Malad-
justment, largely corresponds to the Demoralization factor
recently presented by Tellegen et al. (2003) in their work on
the MMPI2 Restructured Clinical scales. The second factor
identified by Archer and Krishnamurthy (1994), however,
was labeled Immaturity, and their third factor was identified
as Disinhibition/Excitatory Potential. Both of these latter two
factors deal with dimensions reflecting impulsive, conduct
disordered, and disinhibited attitudes and behaviors. The
prominence of these latter two factors in the Structural Sum-
mary leads to an intriguing question: Would a Demoraliza-
tion factor identified for the MMPIA be different from that
identified for the MMPI2? While the identification of the
first factor for adolescents on the MMPIA will undoubt-
edly include a very strong component of affective distress, it
seems possible that the MMPIA first factor may also show
some merging of the experience of distress with the domi-
nant defense mechanism used to protect the adolescent from
conscious awareness of this experience. This issue certainly
serves as an exciting direction for future research with the
test instrument.
ADOLESCENTS IN THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
AND MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEMS
ARE OFTEN SIMILAR
Archer, Stredny, Mason, and Arnau (2004) noted that several
studies have shown that the rate of psychiatric disturbance
among adolescents in the juvenile justice system is typically
somewhere between 50% and 60%, that is, if adolescents in
detention or correctional facilities underwent psychiatric in-
terviews, somewhere between one half and two thirds of
these adolescents would meet the criterion for one or more
DSMIVTR diagnoses (excluding conduct disorder). Based
on the observation that externalization serves as a basic de-
fense mechanism for adolescents, it should not be surprising
to propose that the distinctions in mental health functioning
between adolescents in the mental health system and in the
juvenile justice system are often quite ambiguous. Clinicians
who work with adolescents in both systems know that the
factors that decide whether a conduct disordered adolescent
is taken for mental health treatment versus arrested and held
in detention for the same behavior is often arbitrary and un-
fortunately influenced by secondary factors such as the ado-
lescents socioeconomic status or ethnicity. A recent study by
Archer, Bolinskey, Morton, and Farris (2003), for example,
compared MMPIA features of 200 male adolescents evalu-
ated in the South Carolina correctional system, 200 male ad-
olescent psychiatric inpatients, and 150 male adolescents in a
dual diagnosis inpatient facility for substance abuse/psychi-
atric disordered adolescents. Some differences were apparent
in the mean T scores produced by adolescents in these three
settings. For example, the mean Pd scale score for adoles-
 266
cents from the delinquent group was actually lower than the
mean Pd scale score found for adolescents in the clinical and
dual diagnosis groups. The most sensitive indicator of the de-
linquent group status in this study was scores from the Imma-
turity (IMM) scale. However, the overall pattern emerging
from this research was the striking MMPIA profile similari-
ties found for adolescents across these supposedly disparate
groups of adolescents.
ARCHER
One of the more promising approaches to the use of the
MMPIA in forensic settings may be an extension of the pro-
file classification system that has been developed by
Megargee (1979, 1994, 1997) for evaluation of adults in de-
tention and prison systems. Megargee (1979, 1994, 1997,
2001) has related MMPI and/or MMPI2 elevation patterns
to correlates of specific interest for prison populations, for
example, likelihood of violent infractions while incarcerated

TABLE 2
A Comparison of MMPIA and MMPI Code-Type Frequencies for 1,762 Adolescents Receiving Mental
Health Services

MMPIA MMPI

Male Female Male Female

Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014

Code-Type N % N % N % N %

1-2/2-1 9 0.9 16 2.2 14 1.4 25 3.4

1-3/3-1 23 2.2 44 6.0 33 3.2 38 5.2
1-4/4-1 16 1.5 2 0.3 21 2.0 7 1.0
1-5/5-1 4 0.4 5 0.7 12 1.2 2 0.3
1-6/6-1 12 1.2 3 0.4 14 1.4 2 0.3
1-7/7-1 7 0.7 2 0.3 13 1.3 4 0.5
1-8/8-1 9 0.9 6 0.8 19 1.8 24 3.3
1-9/9-1 6 0.6 6 0.8 13 1.3 12 1.6
1-0/0-1 7 0.7 2 0.3 4 0.4 1 0.1
2-3/3-2 25 2.4 30 4.1 25 2.4 22 3.0
2-4/4-2 52 5.0 24 3.3 38 3.7 50 6.9
2-5/5-2 12 1.2 9 1.2 25 2.4 3 0.4
2-6/6-2 8 0.8 5 0.7 4 0.4 7 1.0
2-7/7-2 11 1.1 6 0.8 9 0.9 16 2.2
2-8/8-2 1 0.1 2 0.3 5 0.5 7 1.0
2-9/9-2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.2 5 0.7
2-0/0-2 19 1.8 28 3.8 9 0.9 13 1.8
3-4/4-3 51 4.9 26 3.6 41 4.0 20 2.7
3-5/5-3 10 1.0 22 3.0 34 3.3 5 0.7
3-6/6-3 6 0.6 10 1.4 4 0.4 5 0.7
3-7/7-3 0 0.0 4 0.5 2 0.2 3 0.4
3-8/8-3 1 0.1 5 0.7 0 0.0 4 0.5
3-9/9-3 7 0.7 6 0.8 6 0.6 15 2.1
3-0/0-3 1 0.1 3 0.4 0 0.0 1 0.1
4-5/5-4 17 1.6 28 3.8 37 3.6 8 1.1
4-6/6-4 64 6.2 29 4.0 58 5.6 33 4.5
4-7/7-4 25 2.4 9 1.2 18 1.7 12 1.6
4-8/8-4 29 2.8 15 2.1 21 2.0 31 4.3
4-9/9-4 104 10.1 29 4.0 82 7.9 63 8.6
4-0/0-4 24 2.3 15 2.1 7 0.7 5 0.7
5-6/6-5 5 0.5 8 1.1 20 1.9 0 0.0
5-7/7-5 1 0.1 1 0.1 5 0.5 1 0.1
5-8/8-5 1 0.1 5 0.7 7 0.7 3 0.4
5-9/9-5 3 0.3 19 2.6 29 2.8 9 1.2
5-0/0-5 3 0.3 8 1.1 4 0.4 0 0.0
6-7/7-6 14 1.4 4 0.5 16 1.5 1 0.1
6-8/8-6 33 3.2 25 3.4 25 2.4 21 2.9
6-9/9-6 22 2.1 12 1.6 22 2.1 17 2.3
6-0/0-6 3 0.3 2 0.3 1 0.1 1 0.1
7-8/8-7 19 1.8 14 1.9 21 2.0 17 2.3
7-9/9-7 18 1.7 5 0.7 16 1.5 10 1.4
7-0/0-7 13 1.3 9 1.2 4 0.4 2 0.3
8-9/9-8 16 1.5 7 1.0 12 1.2 18 2.5
8-0/0-8 2 0.2 7 1.0 1 0.1 0 0.0
9-0/0-9 6 0.6 0 0.0 4 0.4 0 0.0
No Code 314 30.4 212 29.1 276 26.7 186 25.5
Total 1,033 729 1,033 729

Note. From MMPIA: Assessing Adolescent Psychopathology (3rd ed., p. 128), by R. Archer, 2005, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Copyright 2005 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Reprinted with permission. MMPIA = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality InventoryAdolescent.
 MMPI/MMPIA FINDINGS
and probability of re-offense following release. Dillon, Ar-
cher, Morton, and Elkins (2005) recently evaluated a modifi-
cation of the Megargee (1994, 1997, 2001) MMPI2
classification system for use with the MMPIA, and the pre-
liminary findings for a group of 1,734 adolescents indicated
that nearly 90% of these adolescents MMPIA profiles
could be reliably classified in a Megargee (2001) system
based on relatively minor modifications in his classification
rules to accommodate the lower range scores often found for
adolescents. We are now evaluating these cases to assess the
potential relationship between Megargee (2001) classifica-
tion type and re-offense rates at varying follow-up intervals.
GIVEN THE FLUID NATURE
OF SYMPTOMATOLOGY DURING
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
ADOLESCENCE, LONG-TERM PREDICTIONS
BASED ON MMPIA FINDINGS
ARE ILL ADVISED
The MMPIA is best conceptualized as an assessment measure
that evaluates the adolescents functioning at a moment in
time (Archer, 2005; Archer & Krishnamurthy, 2002). While
many of the items on the MMPIA (and the MMPI2) are writ-
ten in a manner that could elicit responses based on historical
factors showing substantial stability across time, both adoles-
cents and adults show dramatic changes in their response pat-
terns across relatively short intervals (e.g., Archer, 2005;
Greene, 2000). These profile changes are not measurement er-
rors in the sense that such changes typically reflect dramatic
changes that have occurred in the individuals psychological
functioning over a short time period. Illustrating this point, the
extensive data collected by Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) on
15,000 Minnesota adolescents have subsequently shown only
marginal success in terms of the usefulness of Excitatory and
Inhibitory scales in predicting delinquent behaviors. Some stud-
ies have shown moderate support for these scales, particularly
when combined with other nontest data sources (e.g., Briggs,
Wirt, & Johnson, 1961; Rempel, 1958), while other studies have
shown more mixed or negative findings. The study by Archer et
al. (2003), for example, found that delinquent behaviors among
boys were most strongly associated with elevations on the
MMPIA IMM scale, accompanied by low (masculine direc-
tion) Mf scores, and provided little support for the effectiveness
of the Excitatory scales. The limited success achieved by the
Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) Excitatory and Inhibitory
scales in predicting delinquent outcomes may be the result of
the transitory nature of many adolescent behaviors and person-
ality features. Indeed, this variability inherent in adolescents
personality structure is shown in the testretest correlations
found by Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) for nearly 4,000 stu-
dents who were originally tested in the 9th grade and reevalu-
ated in the 12th grade. Hathaway and Monachesi reported 3-
year, testretest correlation coefficients ranging from the low to
mid .30s on scales such as Pd and Pa to correlation values in the
high .50s and low .60s for scale Si.
267
Gottesman and Hanson (1990) conducted a study based on
a follow-up to Hathaway and Monachesis (1963) collection
of adolescent MMPI data in the late 1940s and early 1950s.
Specifically, Gottesman and Hanson identified 183 individu-
als admitted to Minnesota psychiatric hospitals or correc-
tional facilities who had served, more than 20 years earlier,
as participants in the Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) study.
Furthermore, these researchers narrowed their focus for the
purposes of this study to 26 men and women admitted to pub-
lic institutions with a diagnosis of schizophrenia. Figure 8
shows the MMPI profiles of 16 boys originally evaluated in
the 9th grade who later received a diagnosis of schizophre-
nia. This figure also shows a group of normal matched con-
trol subjects selected by Gottesman and Hanson from the 9th
grade Minnesota testing.
In addition, Figure 9 shows similar MMPI data for a group
of 10 girls evaluated in the 9th grade, who later manifested
schizophrenia, and their matched cohorts. The remarkable
data presented in Figures 8 and 9 illustrate the difficulties in
making long-term predictions based on the MMPI profiles of
adolescents. The MMPI profile for boys displays few differ-
ences between controls and preschizophrenics. The profile
based on the responses of 10 adolescent girls, while showing
greater differences from their matched controls, still presents
a mean MMPI that would not lead to specific predictions re-
garding their long-term psychological functioning. As noted
by Hanson, Gottesman, and Heston (1990), utilizing these
MMPI data in an attempt to predict the later onset of schizo-
phrenia would have been unproductive although Bolinskey,
Gottesman, Hawson, and Hestor (2001) recently expressed
greater optimism concerning the use of a combination of
standard and experimental scales to discriminate premorbid
schizophrenics. Similarly, Lowman, Galinsky, and Gray-
Little (1980) reported the MMPI profiles produced by a sam-
ple of 8th graders were generally unrelated to the eventual
level of psychological adjustment manifested by this sample
in young adulthood. Reflecting on the substantial changes
shown by adolescents in their 3-year MMPI testretest data,
Hathaway and Monachesi (1963) commented on the tran-
sient organization of the personality (p. 69) during adoles-
cence. The message for clinical psychologists using the
MMPIA might be summarized as follows: Psychologists
utilizing MMPIA results to make long-term predictions are
trading short-term gratification for long-term humiliation.
THE TURBULENT VIEW OF ADOLESCENT
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BY G. STANLEY
HALL AND ANNA FREUD RECEIVES
SUBSTANTIAL SUPPORT
FROM THE MMPI/MMPIA
Many of the characteristics emphasized in this presentation
are consistent with the view of G. Stanley Hall, father of child
psychology, that adolescence is a developmental period
marked by substantial emotional turbulence and behavioral
 268
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
FIGURE 8 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
mean profiles for boys who grew up to be schizophrenic (N = 16) and
their normal matched controls. Note. From Can the MMPI at Age 15
Predict Schizophrenics-to-be? by I. I. Gottesman and D. R. Hanson,
1990, in R. C. Colligan (Chair) The MMPI and adolescents: Histori-
cal perspective, current research, future developments. Copyright
1990 by I. I. Gottesman. Reprinted with permission.
FIGURE 9 Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)
mean profiles for girls who grew up to be schizophrenic (N = 10) and
their normal matched controls. Note. Can the MMPI at Age 15 Pre-
dict Schizophrenics-to-be? by I. I. Gottesman and D. R. Hanson,
1990, in R. C. Colligan (Chair) The MMPI and adolescents: Histori-
cal perspective, current research, future developments. Copyright
1990 by I. I. Gottesman. Reprinted with permission.
ARCHER
experimentation. Hall (1904) used the term Strum und Drang
or Storm and Stress to describe this developmental phe-
nomena. While this model had been subject to substantial
criticism, the storm and stress view appears to fit much of the
data we have discussed today. Furthermore, Anna Freud
(1958) also postulated that adolescence is a period of devel-
opment marked by emotional upheavals and behavioral tur-
bulence. Indeed, Freud believed that adolescents who did not
demonstrate such turbulence during their adolescence were
at increased risk for the development of serious forms of
psychopathology during adulthood. Freuds (1958) views
are well illustrated by the following quote, which has served
as my favorite description of adolescence for many years:
I take it that it is normal for an adolescent to behave for a con-
siderable length of time in an inconsistent and unpredictable
manner; to fight his impulses and to accept them; to ward
them off successfully and to be overrun by them; to love his
parents and to hate them; to revolt against them and to be de-
pendent on them; to be deeply ashamed to acknowledge his
mother before others and, unexpectedly, to desire heart-to-
heart talks with her; to thrive on imitation and identification
with others while searching unceasingly for his own identity;
to be more idealistic, artistic, generous, unselfish than he will
ever be again, but also the oppositeself-centered, egotistic,
calculating. Such fluctuations between extreme opposites
would be deemed highly abnormal at any other time of life.
At this time they may signify no more than that an adult
structure of personality takes a long time to emerge, that the
ego of an individual in question does not cease to experiment
and is in no hurry to close down on possibilities. (p. 276)
This poetic and existential perspective offered by Anna
Freud resonates with many of the features we have observed
for normal adolescents on the original MMPI and the
MMPIA.
YOURE ONLY YOUNG ONCE, BUT YOU CAN
SPEND AN ENTIRE CAREER STUDYING
ADOLESCENCE AND THE MMPI/MMPIA
In conclusion, I want to again thank the SPA Board for this
opportunity to reflect on the manner in which findings from
the MMPI and MMPIA can enrich our understanding of ad-
olescent development and psychopathology. It has been my
privilege to have the opportunity to become involved with a
psychometric instrument of sufficient complexity to hold my
attention for nearly 30 years, and it is my hope that some of
my enthusiasm for the MMPI and MMPIA has been com-
municated through this presentation.
REFERENCES
Alperin, J. J., Archer, R. P., & Coates, G. D. (1996). Development and ef-
fects of an MMPIA K-correction procedure. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 67, 155168.
 MMPI/MMPIA FINDINGS
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical man-
ual for mental disorders (4th ed., text revision). Washington, DC: Author.
Archer, R. P. (1984). Use of the MMPI with adolescents: A review of salient
issues. Clinical Psychology Review, 4, 241251.
Archer, R. P. (1987). Using the MMPI with adolescents. Hillsdale, NJ: Law-
rence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Archer, R. P. (2005). MMPIA: Assessing adolescent psychopathology (3rd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Archer, R. P., Bolinskey, P. K., Morton, T. L., & Farris, K. L. (2003).
MMPIA characteristics of male adolescents in juvenile justice and clini-
cal treatment settings. Assessment, 10, 400410.
Archer, R. P., & Gordon, R. A. (1988). MMPI and Rorschach indices of
schizophrenic and depressive diagnoses among adolescent inpatients.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 52, 276287.
Archer, R. P., Gordon, R. A., Anderson, G. L., & Giannetti, R. A. (1989).
MMPI special scale correlates for adolescent inpatients. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 53, 654664.
Archer, R. P., Gordon, R. A., Giannetti, R. A., & Singles, J. M. (1988).
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
MMPI scale clinical correlates for adolescent inpatients. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 52, 707721.
Archer, R. P., Handel, R. W., & Lynch, K. D. (2001). The effectiveness of
MMPIA items in discriminating between normative and clinical sam-
ples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 77, 420435.
Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1994). A structural summary approach
for the MMPIA: Development and empirical correlates. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 63, 554573.
Archer, R. P., & Krishnamurthy, R. (2002). Essentials of MMPIA assess-
ment. New York: Wiley.
Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test usage with ado-
lescent clients: Survey update. Assessment, 7, 227235.
Archer, R. P., Pancoast, D. L., & Gordon, R. A. (1994). The development of
the MMPIA Immaturity (IMM) scale: Findings for normal and clinical
samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 62, 145156.
Archer, R. P., Stredny, R. V., Mason, J. A., & Arnau, R. C. (2004). An exami-
nation and replication of the psychometric properties of the Massachu-
setts Youth Screening Instrument2nd edition (MAYSI2) among adoles-
cents in detention settings. Assessment, 11, 113.
Bolinskey, P. K., Gottesman, I. I., Hanson, D. R., & Heston, L. L. (2001).
Can the MMPI at age 15 predict schizophrenics-to-be? Revisiting the
question. Unpublished abstract, University of Virginia.
Briggs, P. F., Wirt, R. D., & Johnson, R. (1961). An application of prediction
tables to the study of delinquency. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 25,
4650.
Butcher, J. N. (Ed.). (1996). International adaptations of the MMPI2: A
handbook of research and clinical applications. Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer,
B. (1989). MMPI2: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2:
Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press.
Butcher, J. N., Williams, C. L., Graham, J. R., Archer, R. P., Tellegen, A.,
Ben-Porath, Y. S., et al. (1992). MMPIA (Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality InventoryAdolescent): Manual for administration, scoring, and
interpretation. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Capwell, D. F. (1945a). Personality patterns of adolescent girls. 1. Girls
who show improvement in IQ. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29,
212228.
Capwell, D. F. (1945b). Personality patterns of adolescent girls. 2. Delin-
quents and non-delinquents. Journal of Applied Psychology, 29,
284297.
Colligan, R. C., & Offord, K. P. (1989). The aging MMPI: Contemporary
norms for contemporary teenagers. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 64, 327.
Colligan, R. C., Osborne, D., Swenson, W. M., & Offord, K. P. (1983). The
MMPI: A contemporary normative study. New York: Praeger.
Dillon, J., Archer, R. P., Morton, T. L., & Elkins, D. E. (2005, March). The
applicability of the Megargee classification system to the MMPIA. Paper
269
presented at the annual proceedings of the Society for Personality Assess-
ment, Chicago.
Fontaine, J. L., Archer, R. P., Elkins, D. E., & Johansen, J. (2001). The ef-
fects of MMPIA T-score elevation on classification accuracy for normal
and clinical adolescent samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 76,
264281.
Forbey, J. D. (2003, June). A review of the MMPIA research literature. Pa-
per presented at the 38th Annual Symposium on Recent Developments in
the use of the MMPI2 and MMPIA, Minneapolis, MN.
Freud, A. (1958). Adolescence. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 13,
255278.
Gogtay, N., Giedd, J., Lusk, L., Hayashi, K., Greenstein, D., Vaituzis, A., et
al. (2004). Dynamic mapping of human cortical development during
childhood through early adulthood. Proceedings of the National Academy
of Sciences of the United States of America, 101(21), 81748179.
Gottesman, I. I., & Hanson, D. R. (1990, August). Can the MMPI at age 15
predict schizophrenics-to-be? In R. C. Colligan (Chair), The MMPI and
adolescents: Historical perspective, current research, future develop-
ments. Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the American
Psychological Association, Boston.
Graham, J. R. (2000). MMPI2: Assessing personality and psychopathology
(3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Greene, R. L. (2000). MMPI2: An interpretive manual (2nd ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Grisso, T. (1998). Forensic evaluation of juveniles. Sarasota, FL: Profes-
sional Resources Press.
Hall, G. S. (1904). Adolescence: Its psychology and its relationship to physi-
ology, anthropology, sociology, sex, crime, religion, and education. New
York: Appleton.
Hand, C. (2005). The classification accuracy of the MMPIA: Effects of
modifying the normative sample. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Vir-
ginia Consortium Program in Clinical Psychology, Norfolk, Virginia.
Hanson, D. R., Gottesman, I. I., & Heston, L. L. (1990). Long-range schizo-
phrenia forecasting: Many a slip twixt cup and lip. In J. E. Rolf, A.
Masten, D. Cicchetti, K. Neuchterlein, & S. Weintraub (Eds.), Risk and
protective factors in the development of psychopathology (pp. 424444).
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Harris, R. E., & Lingoes, J. C. (1955). Subscales for the MMPI: An aid to
profile interpretation [Mimeographic materials]. San Francisco: Depart-
ment of Psychiatry, University of California School of Medicine and the
Langley Porter Clinic.
Hathaway, S. R. (1956). Scales 5 (MasculinityFemininity), 6 (Paranoia),
and 8 (Schizophrenia). In G. S. Welsh & W. G. Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic
readings on the MMPI in psychology and medicine (pp. 104111). Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1943). The Minnesota Multiphasic Per-
sonality Inventory (rev. ed.). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Hathaway, S. R., & Monachesi, E. D. (Eds.). (1953). Analyzing and predict-
ing juvenile delinquency with the MMPI. Minneapolis: University of Min-
nesota Press.
Hathaway, S. R., & Monachesi, E. D. (1963). Adolescent personality and be-
havior: MMPI patterns of normal, delinquent, dropout, and other out-
comes. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Loevinger, J. (1976). Ego development: Conceptions and theories. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Loevinger, J., & Wessler, R. (1970). Measuring ego development: Vol. I.
Construction and use of a Sentence Completion Test. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.
Lowman, J., Galinsky, M. D., & Gray-Little, B. (1980). Predicting achieve-
ment: A ten-year follow-up of black and white adolescents (IRSS Re-
search Reports). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Institute for Research in Social Science.
Marks, P. A., & Briggs, P. F. (1972). Adolescent norm tables for the MMPI.
In W. G. Dahlstrom, G. S. Welsh, & L. E. Dahlstrom (Eds.), An MMPI
handbook: Vol. 1. Clinical interpretation (rev. ed., pp. 388399). Minne-
apolis: University of Minnesota Press.
 270 ARCHER
Marks, P. A., Seeman, W., & Haller, D. L. (1974). The actuarial use of the
MMPI with adolescents and adults. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.
Megargee, E. I. (1979). Development and validation of an MMPIbased sys-
tem for classifying criminal offenders. In J. N. Butcher (Ed.), New devel-
opments in the use of the MMPI (pp. 303324). Minneapolis: University
of Minnesota Press.
Megargee, E. I. (1994). Using the Megargee MMPI-based classification sys-
tem with MMPI2s of male prison inmates. Psychological Assessment, 6,
337344.
Megargee, E. I. (1997). Using the Megargee MMPI-based classification sys-
tem with the MMPI2s of female prison inmates. Psychological Assess-
ment, 9, 7582.
Megargee, E. I. (2001). Classifying clinical offenders with the MMPI2: The
Megargee system. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Pancoast, D. L., & Archer, R. P. (1988). MMPI adolescent norms: Patterns
and trends across 4 decades. Journal of Personality Assessment, 52,
691706.
Pancoast, D. L., & Archer, R. P. (1992). MMPI response patterns of college
Downloaded by [University of Texas Libraries] at 16:23 25 November 2014
students: Comparisons to adolescents and adults. Journal of Clinical Psy-
chology, 48, 4753.
Rempel, P. P. (1958). The use of multivariate statistical analyses of the Min-
nesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory scores in the classification of
delinquent and nondelinquent high school boys. Journal of Consulting
Psychology, 22, 1723.
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 03633 (2005).
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R.,
& Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI2 restructured clinical (RC) scales:
Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Truscott, D. (1990). Assessment of overcontrolled hostility in adolescence.
Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy-
chology, 2, 145148.
Tsai, J. L., Butcher, J. N., Munoz, R. F., & Vitousek, K. (2001). Culture, eth-
nicity, and psychopathology. In H. E. Adams & P. B. Sutker (Eds.), Com-
prehensive handbook of psychopathology (3rd ed., pp. 105127). New
York: Plenum.
Welsh, G. S. (1956). Factor dimensions A and R. In G. S. Welsh & W. G.
Dahlstrom (Eds.), Basic reading on the MMPI in psychology and medi-
cine (pp. 264281). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Williams, C. L., & Butcher, J. N. (1989a). An MMPI study of adolescents: I.
Empirical validity of standard scales. Psychological Assessment: A Jour-
nal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1, 251259.
Williams, C. L., & Butcher, J. N. (1989b). An MMPI study of adolescents:
II. Verification and limitations of code type classifications. Psychological
Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1,
260265.
Robert P. Archer
Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences
Eastern Virginia Medical School
Hofheimer Hall
825 Fairfax Avenue
Norfolk, VA 235071972
Email: archerrp@evms.edu
Received May 16, 2005