The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-IV (MCMI-IV) and Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory-II (MACI-II) in Legal Settings

Abstract

The MCMI-IV and MACI-II are the most recent iterations of the primary Millon clinical inventories and have become well-established instruments over the course of multiple editions. The MCMI, in particular in its prior editions, and to a lesser extent, the original MACI, have joined the canon of commonly-used psychological instruments in several forensic settings, though they have been met with significant controversy. This controversy is due in large part to complicated and sometimes questionable psychometric and normative referencing qualities that evaluators may find difficult to defend in a court setting. On balance, the instruments, unlike many others, are also supported by a rich though often less-than-understood theoretical backbone which lends depth and explanatory power, but which also can further complicate addressing psycho-legal questions. The authors, representing a mixed perspective on the inventories, generally conclude that while the MCMI-IV and MACI-II rely on a rich theoretical framework, the peer-reviewed literature is virtually non-existent, the need to rely on their predecessor instruments’ research literatures are limiting, and the modifying indices have questionable utility in the detecting of response bias. In addition, the normative data and underreporting response styles in family court evaluations cause problems for the MCMI-IV’s use in such contexts.

Author note

Authorship order beyond the first and senior authors appears in alphabetical order to reflect approximately equal contributions.

Seth Grossman is a coauthor of the MCMI-IV and MACI-II instruments, which are the topics of this manuscript. Robert Tringone is a coauthor of the MACI-II. These authors receive royalties from sales of the MCMI-IV and MACI-II, respectively.

The authors wish to thank Marc Ackerman, Ph.D., Chris Mulchay, Ph.D., Sol Rappaport, Ph.D., Jeff Seigel, Ph.D., and Bud Dale, JD., Ph.D. for their comments on the Family Court Evaluations section.

Notes

1 According to Lally (2003), “tests or techniques in which at least half of respondents did not rate them as “acceptable,” “unacceptable,” or “no opinion” were placed in this category” (p. 492).

2 There was no information about what sorts of forensic evaluations (e.g., criminal, civil, family court) these psychologists conducted, so these findings are of limited value for our purposes.