Of Fallacies and Errors, New and Repeated: A Rejoinder to Butcher et al. (2018)

Abstract

Butcher, Hass, Greene, Nelson, Nichols, and Williams (2018) responded to my (Ben-Porath, 2018) critique of Butcher, Hass, Greene, and Nelson’s (2015) analysis of Ted Kaczynski’s MMPI–2–RF, purporting to find logical fallacies in my arguments and shortcomings in my interpretation of MMPI–2–RF scales. Butcher et al. (2018) repeated several previously refuted arguments and opinions, while failing to acknowledge, let alone consider, prior responses to their claims. In this rejoinder I refute (again) Butcher et al.’s assertion that empirical data raise questions about the “clinical sensitivity” of MMPI–2–RF scales, identify an extensive literature relevant to forensic use of the MMPI–2–RF that Butcher and colleagues have systematically ignored, and identify a series of logical and factual fallacies along with new and repeated errors of omission and commission in Butcher et al.’s response.

This article refers to:

Using the MMPI-2 in Forensic Assessment: Response to Criticism About a Case Study

Disclosure

Yossef Ben-Porath is a paid consultant to the MMPI publisher, the University of Minnesota, and distributor, Pearson. As coauthor of the MMPI–2–RF he receives royalties on sales of the test.

Notes

1 Butcher et al. (2018) expressed doubts about the psychometric soundness of these scales. A review of the extensive validity literature for these measures is beyond the scope of this rejoinder. The interested reader is encouraged to review the relevant section of my textbook (Ben-Porath, 2012) and the extensive validation data for these scales presented in the MMPI–2–RF Technical Manual (Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008).