New Versions of the MMPI and Rorschach: How Have Training Programs Responded?

References

• Adams, K. M. (2000). Practical and ethical issues pertaining to test revisions. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 281–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.281
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, National Council on Measurement in Education, & Joint Committee on Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (U.S.) (Eds.). (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing. American Educational Research Association.
   Google Scholar
• American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 57(12), 1060–1073. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.12.1060
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Archer, R. P., & Newsom, C. R. (2000). Psychological test usage with adolescent clients: Survey update. Assessment, 7(3), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/107319110000700303
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaujean, A. A. (2015). Adopting a new test edition: Psychometric and practical considerations. Research and Practice in the Schools, 3(1), 51–57. https://www.txasp.org/assets/docs/tasp-journal/vol%203%20issue%201%20complete%20issue.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Belter, R. W., & Piotrowski, C. (2001). Current status of doctoral-level training in psychological testing. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 57(6), 717–726. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.1044
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2008/2011). MMPI-2-RF: Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A. (2020). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3): Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2017). An update to Williams and Lally’s (2016) analysis of MMPI-2-RF acceptance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(4), 275–278.https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000115
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bush, S. S. (2010). Determining whether or when to adopt new versions of psychological and neuropsychological tests: Ethical and professional considerations. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 24(1), 7–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854040903313589
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bush, S. S., Sweet, J. J., Bianchini, K. J., Johnson-Greene, D., Dean, P. M., & Schoenberg, M. R. (2018). Deciding to adopt revised and new psychological and neuropsychological tests: An inter-organizational position paper. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 32(3), 319–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2017.1422277
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butcher, J. N. (2000). Revising psychological tests: Lessons learned from the revision of the MMPI. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 263–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). MMPI–2 (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2): Manual for administration and scoring. University of Minnesota Press.
   Google Scholar
• Callahan, J. L. (2015). Evidence-based technical skills training in pre-practicum psychological assessment. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9(1), 21–27.https://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000061
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Childs, R. A., & Eyde, L. D. (2002). Assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs: What should we teach? What do we teach? Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_08
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2019). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (3rd ed.). Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Exner, J. E. (2003). The Rorschach: A comprehensive system (4th ed.). John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Eyde, L. D., & Childs, R. A. (2000). Qualifications of assessment faculty in clinical psychology doctoral programs: An analysis of American Psychological Association membership data. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 31(2), 165–169.https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.31.2.165
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Knauss, L. K. (2017). Response to article by Williams and Lally: What is the best test to use? Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(4), 279–281. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000114
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lally, S. J., & Williams, C. L. (2017). Response to Ben-Porath’s update to Williams and Lally (2017). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(4), 282–285.https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000157
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meyer, G. J., Viglione, D. J., Mihura, J. L., Erard, R. E., & Erdberg, P. (2011). Rorschach Performance Assessment System: Administration, coding, interpretation, and technical manual. Rorschach Performance Assessment System, LLC.
   Google Scholar
• Mihura, J. L., & Weinle, C. A. (2002). Rorschach training: Doctoral students’ experiences and preferences. Journal of Personality Assessment, 79(1), 39–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA7901_03
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihura, J. L., Bombel, G., Dumitrascu, N., Roy, M., & Meadows, E. A. (2019). Why we need a formal systematic approach to validating psychological tests: The case of the Rorschach Comprehensive System. Journal of Personality Assessment, 101(4), 374–392. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2018.1458315
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihura, J. L., & Meyer, G. J. (2023). The Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) in multimethod assessment. In J. L. Mihura (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of personality and psychopathology assessment. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190092689.013.16
   Google Scholar
• Mihura, J. L., Meyer, G. J., Dumitrascu, N., & Bombel, G. (2013). The validity of individual Rorschach variables: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the comprehensive system. Psychological Bulletin, 139(3), 548–605. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029406
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mihura, J. L., Roy, M., & Graceffo, R. A. (2017). Psychological assessment training in clinical psychology doctoral programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 99(2), 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2016.1201978
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moreland, K. L., & Dahlstrom, W. G. (1983). A survey of MMPI teaching in APA-approved clinical training programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 47(2), 115–119. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4702_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Piotrowski, C., & Keller, J. W. (1984). Psychodiagnostic testing in APA-approved clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 15(3), 450–456.https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.15.3.450
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ready, R. E., & Veague, H. B. (2014). Training in psychological assessment: Current practices of clinical psychology programs. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 45(4), 278–282.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037439
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ready, R. E., & Veague, H. B. (2016). Training in psychological assessment: Current practices of clinical psychology programs”: Correction to Ready and Veague (2014). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 47(3), 223–223.https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000085
   Google Scholar
• Ritzler, B. A., & del Gaudio, A. C. (1976). A survey of Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs. Journal of Personality Assessment, 40(5), 451–453. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4005_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ritzler, B., & Alter, B. (1986). Rorschach teaching in APA-approved clinical graduate programs 10 years later. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50(1), 44–49. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5001_6
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosso, A. M., & Camoirano, A. (2022). The effect of administration skills on Rorschach protocols. Acta Psychologica, 227, 103607. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2022.103607
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Siddaway, A. P., Wood, A. M., & Hedges, L. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silverstein, M. L., & Nelson, L. D. (2000). Clinical and research implications of revising psychological tests. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 298–303. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.298
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Smith, M., & Glass, G. (1977). Meta-analysis of psychotherapy outcome studies. The American Psychologist, 32(9), 752–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.32.9.752
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Strauss, E., Spreen, O., & Hunter, M. (2000). Implications of test revisions for research. Psychological Assessment, 12(3), 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.3.237
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Villanueva van den Hurk, A., McCord, D., Jowers, C. E., Ales, F., Keene, A., & Mihura, J. L. (2022, March 9–13). When test revisions disrupt our lives, what’s a psychologist to do? Updates to Mihura et al.’s (2017) survey of doctoral training in adult personality tests [Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment, Chicago, IL.
   Google Scholar
• Wright, A. J., Chávez, L., Edelstein, B. A., Grus, C. L., Krishnamurthy, R., Lieb, R., Mihura, J. L., Pincus, A. L., & Wilson, M. (2021). Education and training guidelines for psychological assessment in health service psychology. The American Psychologist, 76(5), 794–801. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000742
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright, C. V., Beattie, S. G., Galper, D. I., Church, A. S., Bufka, L. F., Brabender, V. M., & Smith, B. L. (2017). Assessment practices of professional psychologists: Results of a national survey. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 48(2), 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/pro0000086
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar