ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Personality Assessment
ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further from the Nineteenth to the
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including: Early Twenty-First Century:
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles
• Top downloaded articles
Past Achievements and
• Our comprehensive search
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Contemporary Challenges
James N. Butcher
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455;

email: butch001@umn.edu

Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010. 6:1–20 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on assessment history, phrenology, Rorschach, Exner Comprehensive
January 19, 2010
System, TAT, MMPI, MMPI-2, MMPI-2-RF, RC Scales,
The Annual Review of Clinical Psychology is online Restructured Clinical Scales
at clinpsy.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: Abstract

10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.121208.131420
The historical basis of personality assessment that led to the develop-
Copyright  c 2010 by Annual Reviews. ment of today’s approaches and applications is described. The mod-
All rights reserved
ern era of personality assessment began in late nineteenth-century
1548-5943/10/0427-0001$20.00 Europe. Early twentieth-century highlights included the development
of projective techniques like the Rorschach and several early self-report
inventories, culminating in the development of the most widely used
measure, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI).
The most recent 30-year period showed expansions into personnel
screening; clinical assessment, including wide use in forensic settings;
and therapeutic assessment. However, contemporary controversies are
apparent with two of the most widely used measures, the Rorschach and
the MMPI instruments. These controversies are described, including
concerns about the Exner Comprehensive System for the Rorschach
and the last five years of changes to the MMPI-2, including the in-
troduction of the Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales, the adoption of
the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) into the instrument, and the release of the
MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF). Current challenges fac-
ing psychologists in personality assessment are highlighted.

1
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

about him, often life-or-death decisions (Grant

Contents 1956). Tacitus pointed out that in one situation,
“Tiberius had pretended to be hesitant for an-
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
other reason too, in order to detect what leading
NINETEENTH-CENTURY
men were thinking” (Grant 1956, p. 36). Physi-
PRECURSORS TO
cians such as Galen and Soranus used medi-
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT . . 3
cal techniques of the day, particularly observa-
EARLY-TWENTIETH CENTURY
tion, to understand the thinking and behavior
DEVELOPMENTS IN
of people with mental health problems (Gerdz
PERSONALITY
1994). Galen (AD 130–200) believed that a
ASSESSMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
person’s temperament was related to the pre-
USE OF PERSONALITY
dominance of various body fluids. Soranus (AD
INVENTORIES IN
96–138) provided descriptions of different per-
PERSONNEL SETTINGS . . . . . . . 5
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

sonality factors involved in several mental disor-

USE OF PERSONALITY
ders, based on observations and medical exam-
MEASURES IN MENTAL
inations of the day, that are recognizable even
HEALTH AND MEDICAL
today in clinical diagnoses.
SETTINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
During the middle ages, in the fifteenth and
LATTER HALF OF THE
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

into the seventeenth centuries, the assessment

TWENTIETH CENTURY . . . . . . . 8
of mental health problems took a morbid direc-
CONTEMPORARY CONCERNS
tion that led to the accumulation of information
ABOUT TWO ASSESSMENT
that contributed to the execution of thousands
STANDARDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
of people. Beliefs at the time of the Spanish
Criticisms of the Rorschach . . . . . . . . 10
and Roman Inquisitions maintained that some
Recent Public Exposure of the
people were witches who worked on behalf of
Rorschach Blots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
the devil and needed to be identified in or-
Controversial Changes to the
der that they could be stopped. Spanos (1978)
MMPI-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
pointed out that many of the best-educated
CONCLUDING COMMENTS . . . . . . 14
and most intelligent men in Western Europe
during this period believed in the existence of
witches, mostly women, who belonged to an in-
INTRODUCTION ternational satanic conspiracy dedicated to the
People have been interested in appraising the defamation of God. Thousands of people con-
personality of others for as long as our avail- fessed to being witches and to carrying out var-
able records show. The earliest documented ious incredible activities against God during
attempts at understanding personality charac- this period. The evidence that was most com-
teristics can be found in ancient civilizations. monly used by the officials of the day to expose
Both Hathaway (1965) and Sundberg (1977) a person as a witch and mentally unbalanced
pointed out that one of the initial descrip- was the person’s own acknowledgment, usu-
tions of behavioral observation techniques in ally under intense external pressure and torture
assessing personality can be found in the Old (Kieckhefer 1976).
Testament when Gideon used observations of In determining whether a person was a
his men trembling with fear as well as observa- witch, a representative of the church evaluated
tions of how they chose to drink water from a individuals to establish whether they had qual-
stream as a means of selecting soldiers for battle. ities of demonic possession. Church officials,
In ancient Greece and Rome, Tacitus provided who were referred to as witch prickers, would
a number of examples in which the appraisal of stick sharp objects deep in the suspect’s body,
a person’s personality entered into judgments as far as the bone, to determine whether the

2 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

suspect had locations that had been marked by methodological ideas that can indirectly influ-
the Devil (known as Devil’s marks) (Ostermann ence the transformation. In the nineteenth cen-
1629); such areas on the body were considered tury, there were several notable attempts, based
to be insensitive to the pain of torture (Guazzo on scientific thinking of the day, to develop for-
1608/1929). In many cases, the evaluations were mal methods for studying personality and char-
carried out publicly, in situations that resulted acter. Two separate and quite different historic
in extreme fear and embarrassment for the sus- trends emerged in this period. One such intel-
pects. A person who became terrified and con- lectual movement was phrenology, the view that
fused was considered mentally disordered and there was a means of deriving information about
a likely witch. According to writings of author- the character of individuals by examining their
ities of the time (Boguet 1603/1929), most sus- head size and shape. The second approach dur-
pects readily confessed to their sins. However, ing the nineteenth century, begun by Francis
some suspects failed to confess when tortured, Galton, involved careful scientific observation
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

and it was thought that the Devil had provided and mental testing. Galton’s ideas were highly
them with protection, such as drugs or spells influential to later personality assessment
that made them insensitive to pain. developments.
This review addresses the historical roots The “science of phrenology” was explored
of contemporary personality assessment, high- and widely taught by several prominent physi-
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

lighting prominent developments from its ori- cians in Europe. Phrenology appealed to in-
gins in the nineteenth century to current times. tellectuals who accepted the view that bio-
Any view of the history of a field is neces- logical determinism enabled individuals to be
sarily selective given the constancy of change able to read and understand the character of
and broad development of thinking and in- other people by examining their physical ap-
struments. The present review and perspective pearance. This movement was initiated by the
highlights major contributions, describes the Viennese physician Franz Joseph Gall (1758–
more lasting trends, and highlights some cur- 1828) and his student Johan Spurzheim (1776–
rent challenges facing personality assessment. 1832). Gall, was a prominent lecturer who ex-
The scope of this article does not allow for plored and taught, for example, that having
a comprehensive review of all techniques that a powerful memory was a characteristic re-
have been published to measure various aspects sulting from having very prominent eyes; he
of personality. One needs to examine critically thought that other bodily characteristics such
and recognize the limitations of a particular as head size and shape were related to char-
historical perspective. Those interested in fur- acter or special talents for painting or mu-
ther exploration of the historical overviews of sic. Gall and Spurzheim became very popular
personality assessment can find more informa- speakers among upper-class intellectuals and
tion in several resources (e.g., Benjamin 2005, scientists in Europe in the 1820s. They wrote
Boring 1950, Goldberg 1971, Gibby & Zickar and lectured widely on phrenology through-
2008, Paterson et al. 1938, Sundberg 1977). out Europe. Gall and Spurzheim had a dis-
Personality research methods are reviewed by agreement that prompted Spurzheim to start
Craik (1986). his own career in phrenology. Spurzheim later
expanded his theory and established a new and
more complete topography of the skull, filling
NINETEENTH-CENTURY in blanks for areas that had not been established.
PRECURSORS TO He expanded the terminology of phrenology
PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT and continued to lecture on this theory around
Historical trends or precursors may not di- Europe and the United States. His lectures and
rectly contribute to development in a field, but writings influenced some physicians in other
they can reflect social motivation for change or countries, such as the British physician George

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 3
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Combe (1788–1858), who became well known attributes. Galton (1879, 1884) thought that
as a phrenologist. Spurzheim also influenced human character could be studied by observa-
the work of John C. Warren (1778–1856), a pro- tion and experimentation and suggested strate-
fessor of medicine at Harvard who performed gies for making personality-based observations
the first surgery under ether in the United that could be standardized and compared by
States. When Warren returned to Boston, he the use of normative procedures. For example,
developed a series of lectures on phrenology he used Galen’s typology in his studies of tem-
at Harvard and later incorporated these ideas perament (Galton 1874). Galton proposed that
into presentations for a broader audience at the questionnaires could be developed for measur-
Massachusetts Medical Society. ing mental traits, although he did not develop
One of the most widely traveled promot- a specific questionnaire for this purpose. In
ers of phrenology in the United States dur- 1890, James McKeen Cattell, following ideas of
ing the 1820s was Charles Caldwell (1772– Galton, initiated a study of measurements to ap-
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

1853), who had attended Spurzheim’s lectures praise mental processes that incorporated rig-
in Paris. He lectured on phrenology through- orous standards to evaluate human qualities, for
out the United States and founded organi- example, procedures that “would be valuable in
zations that promoted phrenology. In 1832, the diagnosis of nervous diseases and in study-
after a series of lectures in the United States, ing abnormal states of consciousness” (Cattell
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Spurzheim became ill and died. The most visi- 1890, p. 349). Although his work primarily fo-
ble phrenologists in the United States were two cused upon physical measures, his attention to
brothers, Orson Squire Fowler (1809–1889) accurate observation and quantification and his
and Lorenzo Fowler (1811–1896). The Fowlers coining of the term “mental tests” provided a
lectured and wrote extensively about phrenol- scientific basis and direction for the objective
ogy during the 1840s. They established and op- study of human characteristics.
erated a publishing house, a mail-order busi-
ness, and a museum of human and animal skulls
to promote phrenology as a method for under- EARLY-TWENTIETH CENTURY
standing other people. DEVELOPMENTS IN
Although the phrenology movement was PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT
popular for a time, even among some physi- Benjamin (2005) pointed out that psycholog-
cians, it was not widely accepted in the broader ical assessment was the beginning of clinical
medical scientific community. The high inter- psychology and that between the two world
est in phrenology occurring in both Europe and wars, clinical psychology “was essentially about
the United States is important in the history assessment.” Most work on mental testing at
of assessment in that it reflects the idea that the turn of the century included the use of
there was both a general and professional inter- physical tests in the tradition of Cattell. For
est in the process of evaluating personality char- example, a manual on testing published by
acteristics and character through use of external Whipple (1910) addressed primarily physical,
information. motor, sensory, and perceptual tests. However,
In contrast to the pseudoscientific phrenol- at about the same time, three early publications
ogy fad in the early-nineteenth century, there signaled an interest in using procedures other
were major contributions to the development than physical qualities for understanding psy-
of a science of personality assessment toward chological processes. The first formal use of
the end of the century. In England, Francis a questionnaire to study personal qualities in-
Galton (1822–1911), a relative and contempo- volved the use of a structured rating scale for
rary of Charles Darwin, conducted a number studying human character that was published
of experiments on mental processes and postu- by Heymans & Wiersma (1906). They devel-
lated procedures for measuring psychological oped a 90-item rating procedure and obtained

4 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

the collaboration of 3000 physicians to rate Personality assessment expanded and devel-
people with whom they were well acquainted. oped substantially after the end of World War I,
Other early efforts to evaluate personality can following Woodworth’s groundbreaking publi-
be found in the work of Carl Jung (1907), who cation. Two separate but overlapping tracks of
studied associations to words in order to evalu- development in personality inventories began
ate a person’s thought processes and personality, during the 1920s and 1930s and can be traced
and Kent & Rosanoff (1910), who developed a to the present: (a) personality assessment in
measure to study free association among psy- personnel settings and (b) assessments in men-
chiatric patients. tal health and medical settings. Both of these
The first personality inventory for use in ob- trends are examined below.
taining information through self-report was de-
veloped by Robert Woodworth (1919, 1920) as
part of a U.S. Army program to develop an in- USE OF PERSONALITY
INVENTORIES IN
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

strument to detect psychiatric problems among

draftees. The scale, the Woodworth Personal PERSONNEL SETTINGS
Data Sheet (PDS), included 116 items related to The early personality assessment instruments
physical problems, social behavior, and mental for personnel applications focused, as did the
health symptoms that were thought to address Woodworth Personal Data Sheet, on evalu-
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

the person’s psychological adjustment. Items ating maladjustment. Gibby & Zickar (2008)
included: summarize the extensive history of personality
assessment in personnel selection as an “ob-
“Have you ever seen a vision?” session with adjustment,” although more re-
“Do you have a great fear of fire?” cently measures have attempted to assess other
“Do you feel tired most of the time?” personality dimensions (described below). Ini-
“Is it easy to get you angry?” tially, personality inventories were devoted to
assessing a single personality dimension, such as
The scoring on the scale was the total num- “adjustment”; however, other more complex as-
ber of problem items that the individual ac- sessment strategies evolved. For example, the
knowledged were an indication of adjustment Bernreuter Personality Inventory, published by
problems. In addition, Woodworth thought Robert Bernreuter (1931), provided scores for
that some of the item responses reflected behav- several personality characteristics, including an
ior problems so severe that the person needed appraisal of neurotic tendencies, ascendance-
to be carefully evaluated further. These items submission, and introversion-extraversion. The
were referred to as “starred items” (similar to Bernreuter Inventory came to be widely used
critical items used in assessment today). (See in counseling and clinical settings as well as
Table 1 for a discussion of personality scale for personnel applications. This scale was also
research strategy development.) Woodworth influential in the development of other inven-
conducted a study on a sample of draftees tories. The Humm-Wadsworth Temperament
and returning soldiers with “shell shock” and Scale (Humm & Wadsworth 1934) was a 318-
compared the results with responses of college item inventory (based upon Rosanoff’s theory
students (Woodworth 1919). The PDS was of personality) designed to analyze “tempera-
published after the war and thus was not used as mental mechanisms.” It provided several scores
a means of selecting out maladjusted draftees. on personality attributes such as emotionality,
Interestingly, many of the actual item contents self-interest, and harmony or disharmony with
devised by Woodworth for the PDS found their the environment.
way into the inventories in use today, although The use of personality assessment in screen-
items are now typically formulated as True- ing for personnel applications reached a
False rather than Yes-No questions. high point during World War II with the

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 5
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Table 1 Different methods of scale construction used in the development of personality questionnaires
Theoretically Derived Unidimensional Personality Inventories. Early personality inventories, such as Woodworth’s Personal Data Sheet,
employed a rational composition of items to address characteristics such as “adjustment” (Woodworth 1920). This type of scale
relies upon “face validity” of the items for measuring the construct of interest. The rational approach assumes a direct
correspondence between the item content and the personality attribute evaluated.
Theoretically Derived Multidimensional Personality Inventories. Some developers of early personality inventories (e.g., Bernreuter 1931,
Humm & Wadsworth 1934) followed a rational-theory based scale-construction approach to develop item contents and combine
items into scales to address personality characteristic such as traits or behavior patterns. Multiple personality characteristics were
included in a single inventory. This procedure relies upon the scale developer’s insight into the item-construct relationship. No
empirical validation was included.
Empirically Derived Personality Measures. In contrast to the selection of items based on the test developer’s theory, Paterson et al. (1938)
recommended that a scale should be validated by a rigorous item analysis and that only items that were highly correlated with the
total score should be included. The empirical scale developers for the MMPI, Hathaway & McKinley (1940), followed this strategy
and required that in order for an item to be included on a scale it had to actually discriminate statistically between a criterion group
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

of patients with similar problems, such as depressed patients, and a sample of normal individuals. Because items are selected based
on prediction of criterion variables, the scale may be composed of heterogeneous content. Moreover, empirically derived scales for
multiple clinical or personality constructs can contain items that overlap other scales because, in part, the constructs themselves are
composed of complex content, not simple dimensions.
Factor-Analytic Developed Personality Measures. This approach, often referred to as exploratory factor analysis (Cattell 1946, Gorsuch
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

1963), uses internal statistical methods such as item correlation to develop dimensions or scales. In this approach, homogeneous
item sets are obtained when a pool of items is administered and factored, with the resulting dimensions then named as scales. Since
items for a scale are selected on the basis of item intercorrelation, the scales tend to be homogeneous in content and narrowly
defined.
Sequential System of Construct-Oriented Scale Development. A somewhat modified factorial approach was developed by Jackson (1970)
as a means of constructing construct-oriented measures. Others such as Tellegen et al. (2003), in constructing their Restructured
Clinical Scales, modeled their scale development on this strategy. First, personality constructs are theoretically defined; next, a
relevant item pool to potentially measure these constructs is formed; then factor analysis is used to assure homogeneity of
constructs. This factor-dimensional strategy results in homogeneous content scales that can be recognizable to test takers and
somewhat open to response manipulation.
Content-Based Personality Measures. An effective means of constructing personality scales involves grouping items according to similar
contents as done by Wiggins (1973) following, in part, from Cronbach & Meehl’s construct validity approach or using a
combination of content grouping and statistical refinement. Constructs such as traits serve as the basis for developing an item pool
to measure the personality domains. Some researchers use Alpha coefficients to assure high scale homogeneity once item-scale
membership has been postulated and external validation against behavioral or clinical criteria. (Butcher et al. 1990). This strategy,
as in the sequential system, results in scales that are homogeneous in content, recognizable to test takers, and consequently
somewhat open to response manipulation.

government project for the selection of operations of this extensive assessment program
Special Forces for military duty. The U.S. were described after the war, when the project
Office of Strategic Services (OSS), a predeces- was declassified (Off. Strat. Serv. Assess. Staff
sor to the present Central Intelligence Agency, 1948) [see also a review by Handler (2001) for
performed extensive psychological evaluations a discussion of the OSS]. The military services
on persons who were to be assigned to secret implemented several programs in which tests
overseas missions. The program, supervised by such as the Minnesota Multiphasic Personal-
Henry Murray, evaluated more than 5000 can- ity Inventory (MMPI) were used in personnel
didates for special duty assignment. The assess- selection for positions such as pilots and spe-
ment team used more than one hundred differ- cial services personnel (Altus 1945, Blair 1950,
ent psychological tests and specially designed Fulkerson et al. 1958, Jennings 1949, Melton
procedures to perform the evaluations. The 1955; see discussion by Butcher et al. 2006).

6 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Personnel selection using personality ad- item selection that had been used effectively
justment questionnaires in industry diminished with other measures (Paterson et al. 1938).
in the 1970s as a result of criticisms that the They developed a large set of items without de-
available measures lacked predictive validity termining in advance which items measured a
for job-related criteria and also discriminated particular characteristic. They next defined sev-
against people or were unfair to persons seek- eral clinical problem areas, such as somatization
ing employment because they addressed qual- of problems, depression, and schizophrenia, by
ities that were not job related (Butcher et al. grouping homogeneous sets of patients with
2009). However, the use of personality assess- similar problems and symptoms. They then
ment instruments in personnel selection has constructed their scales by selecting only items
made a comeback in contemporary psychology, that actually discriminated the clinical group
particularly with respect to evaluating persons from a sample of nonpatients or “normals,” i.e.,
for high-risk occupations. individuals not receiving patient care. The test
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

was widely adapted for both clinical assessment

and research during the 1940s and 1950s and
USE OF PERSONALITY became the most widely used personality instru-
MEASURES IN MENTAL HEALTH ment in psychology. The MMPI was not with-
AND MEDICAL SETTINGS out criticism (see Ellis 1946, Goldberg 1974).
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

A few years after the end of World War I, Ellis (1946) criticized all group-administered
Woodworth & Matthews (1924) adapted the paper-and-pencil questionnaires as being of
Personal Data Sheet approach for children and dubious value in distinguishing between
adolescents. They published a 75-item ver- groups of adjusted and maladjusted individuals.
sion of the inventory that included some of Goldberg (1974) questioned the utility of the
the original items as well as some additional empirical scale-development strategy used in
items they thought would address the prob- the MMPI compared with other methods of
lems of young people, such as “Are you troubled scale development.
with dreams about your play?” and “Do you Parallel to the development of paper-and-
find school a hard place to get along in?” and pencil inventories in personality assessment,
“Did you ever feel that you were very wicked?” other psychologists were exploring very dif-
The inventories developed by Woodworth and ferent methods of personality appraisal that
his colleagues influenced the development of used more indirect stimuli to obtain responses
a number of clinical personality scales to as- through which personality inferences could be
sess psychological adjustment problems during drawn, for example, ink blots, ambiguous pic-
the 1920s and 1930s. Multidimensional person- tures, and drawings. This approach, referred
ality inventories following the rational scale- to as projective assessment, uses ambiguous
development strategy, such as the Bernreuter stimuli to which a person responds, thereby
and the Humm-Wadsworth, became available providing information about himself or her-
during this period as well. For example, the Bell self through “projecting” his or her own feel-
Adjustment Inventory (Bell 1934) was a 140- ings, thoughts, attitudes, etc. Although some
item scale that included questions dealing with recent theorists (Meyer & Kurtz 2006) have
areas of home, health, and social and emotional explored moving away from the distinction be-
adjustments. tween objective and projective personality as-
Hathaway & McKinley (1940) developed sessment strategies, this conceptualization has
one of the most effective measures in person- a clear historical basis as well as (in my view)
ality assessment, the MMPI, in the late 1930s. pertinent contemporary value.
Hathaway and McKinley, who were critical of A key direction for clinical assessment
the rational strategy of developing personality emerged in the 1920s and 1930s with the de-
inventories, followed an empirical method for velopment of projective techniques. Herman

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 7
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Rorschach (1921) published his monograph, Contemporary criticisms of the Rorschach are
Psychodiagnostik, which detailed the develop- discussed below.
ment of the Rorschach inkblot technique in
1921. This method of assessment was adapted
in the United States by Levy in 1924 (Beck LATTER HALF OF THE
1973). Subsequent developments and refine- TWENTIETH CENTURY
ments of the Rorschach inkblot technique oc- A plethora of clinical personality assessment
curred in the United States when Beck (1938), procedures were explored and developed dur-
Klopfer & Tallman (1938), and Hertz (1938) ing the latter half of the twentieth century,
developed Rorschach interpretation strategies ranging from structured interviews to behav-
to understand personality and emotional char- ioral assessment instruments to projective tests
acteristics of patients in a movement that was such as sentence completion, sensory appraisal
to see the publication of thousands of arti- tasks, and drawing of objects such as figures or
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

cles and recruitment of countless advocates. the hand (see handbooks surveying various per-
Beck, Klopfer, and Hertz also developed sep- sonality assessment measures by Butcher 2009,
arate interpretation systems for the inkblots in Graham & Naglieri 2003, Weiner & Greene
the 1940s. The most widely used contemporary 2008). The sheer number of research articles
Rorschach interpretive system was developed and journals devoted to personality assessment
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

by John Exner (1974). methods makes it difficult to keep current in

Henry Murray and Christiana Morgan de- more than a few techniques. A number of rea-
veloped the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; sons can be found for the increased rates of
Murray 1938, 1943). The TAT is a projective research publication and clinical application of
measure made up of a series of pictures that personality assessment methods. For example,
portray human figures in a variety of activi- personality assessment devices are often used
ties and situations, to which a client is asked as criterion measures for psychological research
to make up a story describing the events go- into abnormal behavior and psychological pro-
ing on in the picture. The client’s responses cesses. Psychological tests have become a re-
allow the clinician to develop a picture of the spected and engaging task for clinical practi-
client’s thought patterns, attitudes, beliefs, ob- tioners today, with diverse applications such as
servational capacity, and emotional responses. psychological screening in health care settings
The TAT has been administered to individu- as well as traditional mental health assessment.
als in a variety of settings, such as clinical as- In addition, there is an increased acceptance
sessment, personnel screening, and research in of personality assessment in forensic settings.
personality, to gain a picture of what a client Psychological tests are more frequently re-
thinks and feels. It has been shown to be an ef- quested and admitted as evidence in court today
fective means of eliciting information about a than they were even a decade ago (see Pope et al.
person’s view of others as well as his or her at- 2006). Moreover, psychological assessment is
titudes toward the self and expectations of rela- widely accepted in industrial applications, both
tionships with peers, parents, or other authority for conducting fitness-for-duty evaluations and
figures. for personnel screening (Butcher et al. 2006).
Lilienfeld et al. (2001) criticized the TAT In personnel or industrial settings today,
as being unreliable and invalid in describ- two distinct types of personality assessments
ing personality attributes and noted a lack of are conducted that differ in terms of goals, de-
an effective scoring system for use in assess- mands of government rules, and the measures
ment. Although the TAT is still used exten- used. The first is selection for management po-
sively in clinical evaluations, its use in re- sitions, and the second is evaluation of individ-
search has diminished significantly compared uals in high-risk occupations, such as police,
with the Rorschach and MMPI instruments. firefighters, and airline pilots. In management

8 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

selection, the use of personality scales to assess they consider to be the major personality trait
positive personal qualities involves the appraisal dimension often referred to as the “Big Five”
of more general personality factors such as the or Five-Factor Model of personality. The NEO
“Big Five” personality dimensions that are used was published in 1985 to measure these major
in management appraisal. Some research has in- dimensions in normal personality, referred to as
dicated that personality assessment in personnel openness, agreeableness, neuroticism, extraver-
and industrial applications is making a come- sion, and conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae
back (Hough 2001). 1985). This instrument has been widely used as
One of the most widely used instruments in a measure of general personality characteristics
personnel selection was developed shortly after (Costa & McCrae 2009).
the end of World War II by using factor anal- Evaluating potentially detrimental person-
ysis as the primary mode of scale construction. ality characteristics for high-risk occupations
Cattell & Stice (1957) published the Six- is an important activity today. Such assess-
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

teen Personality Factors Questionnaire (16-PF) ments are now conducted posthire, as are pre-
based upon a number of factor analyses con- employment medical examinations to assure fit-
ducted on a large pool of adjectives they used to ness for duty. A more extensive evaluation that
construct trait names. The 16-PF included a set involves the assessment of personality or emo-
of fifteen personality trait scales and one scale tional stability is required for personnel evalu-
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

to assess intelligence, which were designed to ations of applicants for positions of high risk or
assess the full range of normal personality func- public safety, such as police and fire department
tioning (Cattell & Stice 1957). Another person- workers, airline pilots, and nuclear power plant
ality inventory that attained broad acceptance, employees. In such settings, there is a need to
but was based on a different scale-construction closely assess personality using clinical instru-
methodology, was the California Psychologi- ments such as the MMPI for positions of high
cal Inventory (CPI) by Harrison Gough (1956). public responsibility.
Gough, who had studied with Starke Hathaway The MMPI became the most widely used
at the University of Minnesota, began work on adjustment-oriented personality scale, in part
a set of personality trait scales that would as- as a result of its wide use in military screen-
sess general personality characteristics or traits ing during and after World War II. However,
in nonclinical populations. The CPI contained during the 1960s and 1970s, the MMPI was in-
489 items (over 200 of which were from the creasingly criticized because of some awkward
original MMPI). He included an additional item wording and content given changes in lan-
group of items to address personality traits that guage usage over time; an item pool that did not
were not dealt with by MMPI items. The CPI address relevant contemporary problems; and
scales were grouped into four categories that limited and out-of-date norms (Butcher 1972,
addressed different personality constructs: (a) Butcher & Owen 1978). In 1982, the MMPI re-
poise; (b) socialization; (c) achievement poten- vision and data collection began. The MMPI-2
tial; and (d ) intelligence and interest modes. Revision Committee was composed of James
The CPI scales used both a rational and an Butcher and W. Grant Dahlstrom. Within the
empirical scale-development strategy to assess first year, they invited John Graham to par-
personality attributes found in “normal” pop- ticipate in the revision. Auke Tellegen joined
ulations. The CPI became a standard measure the Committee in the data analysis stage, after
for assessing personality in personnel selection the research protocol had been developed and
and in conducting psychological research (see the data collected. The MMPI-2 was published
discussion by Megargee 2009). in 1989 and the MMPI-A (for adolescents) in
The NEO-Personality Inventory (NEO- 1992 (Butcher et al. 1992).
PI) was developed by Paul Costa & Robert Research on the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A
McCrae (1985) as a means of assessing what continues to this day. More than 19,000 articles

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 9
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

and books have been published on the MMPI, System has been used for scoring and inter-
the MMPI-2, and MMPI-A. The MMPI-2 pretation for almost 35 years. The Rorschach
manual was revised in 2001 (Butcher et al. and the Exner Comprehensive System are
2001). This revision added new validity and considered by many assessment psychologists
supplementary scales to the instrument. as effective means of identifying personality
In addition to the developments on the characteristics, assessing progress in treatment,
MMPI-2 and MMPI-A, several personality appraising cognitive and behavioral dysfunc-
questionnaires were developed in the 1970s and tion, and evaluating posttraumatic stress dis-
1980s to address clinical problems. The two order and many other behavioral features or
most widely used of these newer measures for problems (Weiner & Greene 2008, Weiner &
clinical settings, the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Meyer 2009). The Rorschach is also widely used
Inventory (MCMI) and the Personality Assess- in forensic evaluations, particularly family cus-
ment Inventory (PAI), illustrate these develop- tody cases, as well as in clinical settings (Archer
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

ments. In 1977, Theodore Millon developed et al. 2006).

the MCMI (see Millon 1977) to assess person- One of the more innovative and recent ap-
ality problems among clients in psychotherapy. plications of personality assessment in clin-
Millon based his test development strategy ical settings is the use of test feedback to
upon his theory of psychopathology. Item clients as a means of bringing about behavioral
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

development followed a rational strategy, and change. Several researchers have demonstrated
his comparison samples were patients in psy- that providing sensitive test feedback to clients
chotherapy rather than a “normal” population. based upon the MMPI-2 or the Rorschach
The MCMI largely addresses the Diagnostic and can have powerful effects. Finn & Tonsager
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) (1992), in what has been called therapeutic
Axis II dimensions of personality rather than assessment, have shown that patients in psy-
symptom disorders on AXIS I of DSM that chological treatment can gain substantial self-
are addressed by other more general measures. esteem, understanding of their problems, and
However, the most recent version, MCMI-III, reduced adjustment difficulties if they have a
does have a number of scales that are specific clear picture of their MMPI-2-measured per-
to DSM-IV-TR Axis I disorders (e.g., alcohol sonality factors. For a more extensive discussion
dependence, bipolar manic, major depression, of psychological assessment and client feed-
dysthymia, somatoform disorder, and drug back, see Finn & Kamphuis (2006) and Fischer
dependence). (1994).
Leslie Morey developed the PAI in 1991.
Very similar to the MMPI, the PAI was de-
signed to address the major clinical syndromes, CONTEMPORARY CONCERNS
such as depression (Morey 1991) and the per- ABOUT TWO ASSESSMENT
sonality disorders. Other personality measures STANDARDS
addressing personality disorders are also avail- Progress in the personality assessment field
able (see Widiger & Boyd 2009). In addi- over the past century has been accompanied
tion, many personality scales have been devised by controversies surrounding two of the most
to address more focal problems such as anxi- widely used instruments, the Rorschach and the
ety (Spielberger et al. 1972), depression (Beck MMPI-2. In the case of the Rorschach, the con-
1973, Hamilton 1960), and psychopathic be- troversies center around the Exner Compre-
havior (Hare 2003), to mention a few. hensive System for interpreting the Rorschach,
The Rorschach technique has been widely introduced 35 years ago. The MMPI-2 contro-
used in clinical and forensic assessment for al- versies involve changes to the instrument made
most 90 years, and the Exner Comprehensive in the past five years.

10 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Criticisms of the Rorschach Meyer 2009) despite the limitations on its use,
in particular the amount of time required for
The norms underlying the Exner Comprehen-
administration, scoring, and interpretation—
sive System have been described as problematic
which makes it difficult for contemporary
in that they are from small and unrepresenta-
managed-care programs to support (Piotrowski
tive samples, suffer redundancy of subjects, and
et al. 1998)—as well as the fact that a reduced
are considered an inaccurate reference popu-
number of graduate training programs offer
lation (Garb et al. 2005, Wood et al. 2001).
Rorschach training (Viglione & Hilsenroth
In response to this criticism, the generality of
2001). The current controversy over the ade-
Rorschach norms has been more broadly sup-
quacy of Rorschach score norms and predictive
ported in a cross-cultural normative study of
validity continues in the literature.
21 samples in 17 different countries. An inter-
national normative study showed that the re-
sponses of the normative population across cul- Recent Public Exposure
of the Rorschach Blots
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

tures was similar regardless of the language the

subjects spoke. These results show congruence A recent controversy has emerged with the
with scoring relationships across international Rorschach that could, over time, have a sig-
samples (Shaffer et al. 2007). nificant impact on clinical use of the test. The
The Rorschach has also been criticized as entire set of 10 inkblots was recently placed on
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

an instrument that overpathologizes people the Wikipedia Web site along with a listing of
(Wood et al. 2001). The norms have been crit- possible responses to the test, which some have
icized as characterizing test takers, even nor- referred to as a “cheat sheet” (Cohen 2009). Al-
mal individuals, as having emotional problems though efforts have been made to have the pic-
(Shaffer et al. 1999). This situation is consid- ture of the blots removed from the site, they
ered to result in excessive false positives. This have not been successful because the copyright
criticism has been countered by others (see for the test has expired and the pictures are con-
Ganellen 2001, Weiner 2009, Weiner & Meyer sidered to be in the public domain. The open-
2009), including two meta-analyses that re- ness and pervasiveness of the Internet make
ported the Rorschach predictive power is com- the general distribution of the cards on other
parable to other personality assessment mea- sites likely, for example, on YouTube, Facebook,
sures (Grønnerød 2004, Hiller et al. 1999). comedy shows, and so forth. The familiarity
The use of the Rorschach in forensic eval- that people can gain about the Rorschach cards
uations has been questioned by Wood et al. could have an impact on their assessment if they
(2001) and Grove et al. (2002). They suggest are scheduled for an evaluation.
that “common knowledge” about the test is ei- The widespread availability of the card stim-
ther incorrect or in dispute and that psycholo- uli can have a significant influence on the util-
gists who use the test in forensic cases can be ity of the test in clinical applications. One of
successfully challenged. Rorschach proponents the basic assumptions of the test is that clients
have countered this argument. Meloy (2008) re- are presented with a vague stimulus upon which
ported that in the years 1996 to 2005, 150 cases they project their own interpretation, including
involved the Rorschach, with only 2% being attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, motivations, and
challenged by opposing attorneys. An earlier re- feelings.
view reported that the Rorschach had been used Although some psychologists who re-
in 247 cases between 1945 and 1995 and ac- sponded on the Web site have considered the
cepted into evidence without challenge in 90% Wikipedia exposure to be of minimal impor-
of the cases (Meloy et al. 1997). tance, it is unclear as to what the actual impact
The Rorschach is still widely used in both of this availability will have on patients’ per-
clinical assessment and research (Weiner & ceptions over time. Further consideration and

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 11
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

empirical research are needed to evaluate the by Jackson (1970) using rational-factor-analytic
impact of this potential problem on the test procedures rather than the empirical tradition
norms and interpretations. used to establish the MMPI and MMPI-2. The
RC scales are not the first attempt to remake
the MMPI clinical scales through factor analy-
Controversial Changes to the MMPI-2 sis. Welsh (1956), using scale-level factor anal-
Since 2003, several controversial changes have ysis, recommended a system of interpretation
been made to the MMPI-2, including the re- based on combining results from the factor
lease of a new set of scales, the addition of a scales Anxiety (A) and Repression (R). This in-
controversial validity measure to the standard terpretive approach was not widely accepted.
scoring of the MMPI-2 and its recommended The Tellegen et al. (2003) factor approach used
use in all settings, and the release of a new essentially the same main Welsh factor (A), re-
version of the instrument. naming it Demoralization (RCd),1 to determine
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

The MMPI-2 community of researchers which items to delete from the Clinical Scales.
and practitioners is sharply divided about these Many of the RC Scale constructs, such as RCd,
changes. Each of these changes is described RC1, and RC3, were also reported in an earlier
below. Perhaps the most significant change is item factor analysis by Johnson et al. (1984).
the release of a shortened MMPI-2, called the The MMPI-2 RC Scales (Tellegen et al.
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

MMPI-2 Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF; re- 2003, p. 2) were introduced in a 2003 mono-
leased in August 2008) (Ben-Porath & Tellegen graph with the following statement: “At this
2008, Tellegen & Ben-Porath 2008). This in- point, the RC Scales can be used as aids in the
strument uses a portion of the MMPI-2 item interpretation of the Clinical Scale profile. It
pool (338 items, a reduction of 40% of the item will be necessary to conduct additional studies
content of the MMPI-2), eliminates the Clini- to determine what other roles these new scales
cal Scales and their code-type data derived over may ultimately play. In the final chapter we re-
the past 70 years, and uses the normative data turn to these possible future developments.”
collected during the MMPI Restandardization The final chapter of the RC monograph
Project (Butcher et al. 1989) to develop non- concluded, “The RC Scales hold promise both
gendered norms, all significant departures from as research tools and as clinical instruments”
the historical research foundation of this instru- (Tellegen et al. 2003, p. 85). The RC devel-
ment. The MMPI-2-RF replaces the MMPI-2 opers identified the following areas for future
Clinical Scales with the Restructured Clinical research:
(RC) Scales, a set of measures that was in-  Exploration of the utility of the RC Scales
troduced in the previous four years for use in a wider variety of settings than those
as supplementary scales (Tellegen et al. 2003). included in the 2003 manual (i.e., sub-
Although the developers of the RC Scales pub- stance abuse, general medical, correc-
lished a series of articles about their scales sub- tional, forensic, and personnel screening).
sequent to their release in 2003 (see Pearson  Comparisons of the predictions from the
Assessments 2009 for a bibliography of research RC Scales with code-type descriptors
on the RC Scales), critics of the RC Scales, in- including psychopathology, personality
cluding the current author, have been resolute characteristics, and behavioral propensi-
in descriptions of their limitations and the un- ties associated with the code types.
derlying theory and methodology that led to  Additional investigations and analyses of
their creation (see Butcher & Williams 2009).
the construct validity of the RC Scales.

The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales.

The MMPI-2 RC Scales and MMPI-2-RF 1
Welsh A and RCd are correlated at 0.90 (see Rouse et al.
were developed following the model described 2008).

12 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

 Additional MMPI-2 scale development argued that the RC Scales are new measures
following the theoretical and method- distinct from the Clinical Scales, and their
ological strategies of Tellegen et al. validity needs to be established independent of
(2003) to eliminate “demoralization” as the past 70 years of research on the Clinical
a confounder in other important MMPI- Scales and their code-type descriptors. For ex-
2 scales in addition to the Clinical ample, Simms et al. (2005, p. 357) pointed out
Scales. that, “Also, despite the temptation to do so, it
also is apparent that the RC scales cannot be
Tellegen et al. (2003, p. 86) indicated, interpreted on the basis of previous empirical
“Through such efforts it may be possible studies of the original scales; the RC scales rep-
to eventually capture the full range of core resent new measures whose meanings now must
attributes represented by the large body of be determined empirically.”
MMPI-2 constructs with a set of new scales Several problems have been reported with
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

more transparent and effective than those cur- the RC Scales. The theoretical model to de-
rently available.” velop the scales has been questioned (Butcher
However, before the above program of re- & Williams 2009, Gordon 2006, Nichols 2006,
search was undertaken, a project was initiated Ranson et al. 2009). In addition, the majority
to develop a shortened version of the MMPI-2, of the RC scales do not address the personal-
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

based on the RC Scales (and funded by the test ity constructs from the original MMPI clinical
publisher), in 2002, a year prior to the publi- scales but are simply redundant measures of sev-
cation of the RC Scales monograph. Not sur- eral other MMPI-2 Content and Supplemen-
prisingly, given its methodological departure tal Scales (Caldwell 2006, Greene et al. 2009,
from the empirical tradition of Hathaway and Nichols 2006, Rogers et al. 2006, Rouse et al.
McKinley, the developmental approach in this 2008). The RC Scales show a low sensitivity to
restructuring effort resulted in measures that mental health problems (Binford & Liljequist
were highly different from those of the Clini- 2008, Butcher et al. 2006, Cumella et al. 2009,
cal Scales (Rogers et al. 2006). Making drastic Gucker et al. 2009, Megargee 2006, Rogers &
changes to a standard in personality assess- Sewell 2006, Wallace & Liljequist 2005). For
ment like the MMPI-2 with over 70 years example, Binford & Liljequist (2008, p. 613),
of research support is a risky venture, as de- in a study of outpatient mental health clients
tailed by Ranson et al. (2009), especially when concluded, “RC2 appears to predict fewer be-
those changes are based on a substantially al- haviors conceptually related to depression than
tered test-development strategy with a limited its Clinical Scale counterpart or Content Scale
research base. There can be no coattails ef- DEP reflecting the more narrow focus of RC2.
fect in establishing the validity and utility of Removal of the general distress component
personality assessment instruments. A new in- changes the strength of the empirical correlates
strument should be thoroughly vetted by the of two Clinical Scales measured in this study
field before widespread adoption for clinical and may do so for the other scales not assessed
assessment. in this study, possibly to the benefit of some and
Development of this alternate form of the the detriment of others.”
MMPI-2, with the RC Scales as its core, con-
tinued even with growing criticism in the re-
search literature about the utility and validity The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale. Another re-
of these new scales (e.g., Binford & Liljequist cent and controversial decision by the MMPI-
2008, Butcher et al. 2006, Gordon 2006, 2 publisher and distributor was the addition
Nichols 2006, Ranson et al. 2009, Rogers of the Fake Bad Scale (FBS) to the Extended
& Sewell 2006, Rouse et al. 2008, Simms Score Report for the MMPI-2 in January 2007
et al. 2005, Wallace & Liljequist 2005). Critics and the inclusion of a shortened version of the

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 13
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

scale (FBS-r) in the MMPI-2-RF.2 The FBS any—psychometric studies conducted by in-
was developed originally by Lees-Haley et al. dependent researchers. A number of these
(1991) to assess malingering of symptoms in measures, as acknowledged by Tellegen &
personal injury cases. It has been shown to Ben-Porath (2008), show very low reliability
result in high false-positive rates among per- coefficients for personality measures perhaps,
sons in mental health treatment (Butcher et al. in part, because of their scale length (e.g., four
2003, 2008). For example, 62% of inpatient to six items). For example, the reliability coeffi-
women with eating disorders would be consid- cient for the Helplessness or HLP scale (five
ered malingering based upon Lees-Haley et al.’s items) was only 0.39 for men and 0.50 for
(1991) original recommended cutoff scores, and women in the normative sample; the Behavior-
11% would be considered to be malingering Restricting Fears or BRF scale (nine items)
based on the currently used cutoff scores on had reliability coefficients of only 0.44 for men
the FBS (Butcher et al. 2008). This inher- and 0.49 for women; and scale Suicidal/Death
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

ent bias in the FBS results, in part, from the Ideation or SUI (five items) had correlations of
fact that the developers of the scale include only 0.41 for men and 0.34 for women (Tellegen
a large portion (one-third) of items on the & Ben-Porath 2008).
scale that were used by Hathaway and McKin- The well-established gender response dif-
ley to identify somatic problems that occur ferences in personality item responding (e.g.,
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

frequently in psychiatric patients and another Cattell 1948, Hathaway & McKinley 1940,
large portion (again, one-third) of items that Nichols et al. 2009) were not sufficiently ad-
were used to assess a defensive response style. dressed in the development of MMPI-2-RF
The FBS scale has been excluded from use as (see discussion by Butcher & Williams 2009).
part of psychologist’s expert witness testimony Unlike the original MMPI and MMPI-2, in
in court cases through six recent Frye hearings which separate gender norms were provided,
(Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al. 2007, the MMPI-2-RF authors combined genders
Stith v. State Farm Insurance 2008, Vandergracht into one comparison sample. This situation may
v. Progressive Express et al. 2007, Williams result in different standards being applied for
v. CSX Transportation, Inc., 2007, Limbaugh- men and women in assessment and prediction.
Kirker & Kirker v. Dicosta 2009, Anderson v. Further study of this potential bias needs to be
E & S Enterprises 2009). Butcher et al. (2008) conducted. However, the MMPI-2-RF manu-
provide descriptions about the limitations of use als do not provide the information necessary for
of the FBS. Ben-Porath et al. (2009) provided a exploring this question because raw score data
response to these concerns, and Williams et al. by gender are not reported.
(2009) answered their response.

The MMPI-2-RF. A number of inherent

CONCLUDING COMMENTS
weaknesses have emerged with the MMPI-2- In contrast to its emerging status at the begin-
RF in addition to the above concerns about ning of the twentieth century, the field of per-
the RC Scales and the Fake Bad Scale. Scales sonality assessment holds a generally respected
must have solid validity and reliability be- and dynamic position as we go forward in the
fore they are depended upon in making de- twenty-first century. Much has transpired over
cisions about individuals. The majority of the the past century to make this advancement pos-
scales in MMPI-2-RF are new, with limited—if sible. The use of personality tests to assist in
making decisions and conclusions about peo-
ple has gained a strong acceptance. At present,
2
The name Fake Bad Scale was changed to Symptom Valid- psychological assessment has strong public
ity Scale by the publisher at the end of 2007, although the
abbreviation remains the same. See Williams et al. (2009) for support from clinical administrators, person-
a discussion of the name change. nel managers, and the courts. An impressive

14 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

array of personality assessment instruments is the confidence of the public. It is imperative

available today—often creating a challenge for that new psychological measures that are
assessment psychologists attempting to choose introduced for professional use are developed
appropriate instruments. The next generation according to the highest standards and that
of assessment psychologists has a great many they actually perform as promised (Geisinger
resources that can lead to positive growth and & Carlson 2009, Ranson et al. 2009). Test
development. users must fully understand the instruments
In addition to support in the United States, and demand that tests actually measure what
there exists a growing worldwide network of they are supposed to measure (that is, have
psychologists who are interested in and quali- demonstrated validity) and perform in a
fied to conduct research in assessment. For ex- reliable manner. Newly introduced measures,
ample, Butcher & Williams (2009) highlight such as MMPI-2-RF, that appear to rely ex-
the international use of the MMPI-2. There tensively upon the reputation of the traditional
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

are numerous opportunities for developing and MMPI instruments, need to be independently
conducting cross-cultural assessment research evaluated by psychologists, including care-
today, given the expansion of the profession of ful consideration and understanding of the
psychology in other countries and the generally criticisms in the published literature.
broad understanding of psychological assess- Assessment psychologists need to be aware
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

ment methodology and instruments. Research that many of the available personality assess-
communication and project decisions can be ment measures are owned and managed by
immediately conveyed to distant sites in most commercial rather than scientific organizations
countries through the Internet. In this era of and need to be alert that commercial interests
globalization of intellectual interests and tech- can sometimes “prevail over scientific needs”
nology assessment, psychology has the oppor- (Adams 2000). Campbell (1972) and Ranson
tunity to contribute substantially to broadened et al. (2009) describe important steps that need
understanding of cross-cultural personality pat- to be taken in test development and revisions.
terns. One imperative in this globalization of Both called for transparency in test develop-
personality assessment is that instruments must ment if consumer confidence is to be assured.
be carefully evaluated and tested for utility and Personality assessment researchers and
validity in other cultures (Cheung 2009, Zapata practitioners have, in the past, shown a strong
et al. 2009). capacity to deal with methodological challenges
The future advance of personality assess- and missteps. A resilience for developing instru-
ment will likely have some uneven steps and ments that work is evident in our history. I hope
misdirections given the controversial issues that the present and next generations of assess-
facing the field, some of which are described ment psychologists will pursue objective and
above. Assessment psychology faces a number effective assessment methods and rigorously
of challenges requiring careful attention if the validate traditional, redeveloped, and new in-
tradition is to continue to develop and maintain struments to assure confident application.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is one of the developers of the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. He, like the other authors of the
MMPI-2 and MMPI-A, declined royalties on the sales of those instruments and their scales. He
authored a computer interpretation system for the original MMPI in the 1980s, the Minnesota
Reports, and continues to keep it updated for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. He receives royal-
ties from the University of Minnesota for the Minnesota Reports. The author’s comprehensive
disclosure statement appears at http://www1.umn.edu/mmpi/disclosure.php.

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 15
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The author acknowledges the valuable comments on a draft of this article by Carolyn L. Williams
and David S. Nichols.

LITERATURE CITED
Adams KM. 2000. Practical and ethical issues pertaining to test revisions. Psychol. Assess. 12:281–86
Altus WD. 1945. The adjustment of Army illiterates. Psychol. Bull. 42:461–76
Anderson v. E & S Enterprises. 2009. Case RG05-211076, Superior Court of Alameda Co., CA
Archer RP, Buffington-Vollum JK, Stredny RV, Handel RW. 2006. A survey of psychological test use patterns
among forensic psychologists. J. Personal. Assess. 87:84–94
Beck AT. 1973. The Diagnosis and Management of Depression. Philadelphia: Univ. Penn. Press
Beck SJ. 1938. Personality structure in schizophrenia: a Rorschach investigation in 81 patients and 64 controls.
Nerv. Ment. Dis. Mon. Ser. 63:ix–88
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Bell H. 1934. The Bell Adjustment Inventory. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
Benjamin LT Jr. 2005. A history of clinical psychology as a profession in America (and a glimpse at its future).
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 1:1–30
Ben-Porath YS, Greve KW, Bianchini KJ, Kaufman PM. 2009. The MMPI-2 Symptom Validity Scale (FBS)
is an empirically validated measure of overreporting in personal injury litigants and claimants: reply to
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Butcher et al. 2008. Psychol. Injury Law 2:62–85

Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A. 2008. MMPI-2RF: Manual for Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Bernreuter RG. 1931. The Personality Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press
Binford A, Liljequist L. 2008. Behavioral correlates of selected MMPI-2 clinical, content, and Restructured
Clinical Scales. J. Personal. Assess. 90:608–14
Blair WRN. 1950. A comparative study of disciplinary offenders and non-offenders in the Canadian Army,
1948. Can. J. Psychol. 4:49–62
Boguet H. 1603/1929. Discours des sorciers (An examen of witches). Ed. and transl. M Summers. London:
Rodker
Boring EG. 1950. A History of Experimental Psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 2nd ed.
Butcher JN, ed. 1972. Objective Personality Assessment: Changing Perspectives. New York: Academic
Butcher JN, ed. 2009. Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Butcher JN, Arbisi PA, Atlis M, McNulty J. 2003. The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale
(FBS): Does this scale measure malingering and feigned emotional distress? Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol.
18:473–85
Butcher JN, Dahlstrom WG, Graham JR, Tellegen A, Kaemmer B. 1989. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Butcher JN, Gass CS, Cumella E, Kally Z, Williams CL. 2008. Potential for bias in MMPI-2 assessments
using the Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Psychol. Injury Law 1:191–209
Butcher JN, Graham JR, Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen YS, Dahlstrom WG, Kaemmer B. 2001. Minnesota Multi-
phasic Personality Inventory-2: Manual for Administration and Scoring. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press. Rev.
ed.
Butcher JN, Graham JR, Williams CL, Ben-Porath YS. 1990. Development and Use of the MMPI-2 Content
Scales. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Butcher JN, Gucker DK, Hellervik LW. 2009. Clinical personality assessment in the employment context.
See Butcher 2009, pp. 588–609
Butcher JN, Hamilton CK, Rouse SV, Cumella EJ. 2006. The deconstruction of the Hy scale of MMPI-2:
failure of RC3 in measuring somatic symptom expression. J. Personal. Assess. 87:199–205
Butcher JN, Ones DS, Cullen M. 2006. Personnel screening with the MMPI-2. In MMPI-2: The Practitioner’s
Handbook, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 381–406. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Butcher JN, Owen P. 1978. Survey of personality inventories: recent research developments and contemporary
issues. In Handbook of Clinical Diagnosis, ed. B Wolman, pp. 475–546. New York: Plenum

16 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Butcher JN, Williams CL. 2009. Personality assessment with the MMPI-2: historical roots, international
adaptations, and current challenges. Appl. Psychol. Health Well-Being 1:105–35
Butcher JN, Williams CL, Graham JR, Tellegen A, Ben-Porath YS, et al. 1992. Manual for Administra-
tion, Scoring, and Interpretation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents: MMPI-A.
Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Caldwell AB. 2006. Maximal measurement or meaningful measurement: the interpretive challenges of the
MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales. J. Personal. Assess. 87:193–201
Campbell DP. 1972. The practical problems of revising an established psychological test. In Objective Personality
Assessment: Changing Perspectives, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 117–30. New York: Academic
Cattell JM. 1890. Mental tests and measurements. Mind XV:373–80
Cattell RB. 1946. The Description and Measurement of Personality. New York: Harcourt Brace & World
Cattell RB. 1948. The primary personality factors in women compared with those of men. Br. J. Psychol.
1:114–30
Cattell RB, Stice GE. 1957. The Sixteen Personality Factors Questionnaire. Champaign, IL: Inst. Personal. Ability
Test.
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Cheung FM. 2009. The cultural perspective in personality assessment. In Oxford Handbook of Clinical and
Personality Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 44–58. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Cohen N. 2009. A Rorschach cheat sheet on Wikipedia. NY Times. July 28:A1
Costa PT Jr, McCrae RE. 1985. The NEO Personality Inventory Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychol. Assess. Serv.
Costa PT Jr, McCrae RE. 2009. The Five-Factor Model and the NEO Inventories. In Oxford Handbook
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Personality Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 305–28. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Craik KH. 1986. Personality research methods: an historical perspective. J. Personal. 54:18–51
Cumella E, Kally Z, Butcher JN. 2009. MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales with eating disorder patients. Paper
presented at Soc. Personal. Assess., Chicago
Davidson v. Strawberry Petroleum et al. 2007. Case #05-4320 (Hillsborough County, FL)
Ellis A. 1946. The validity of personality questionnaires. Psychol. Bull. 43:385–440
Exner JE Jr. 1974. The Rorschach: A Comprehensive System. New York: Wiley
Finn SE, Kamphuis JH. 2006. Therapeutic assessment with the MMPI-2. In Practitioner’s Guide to the MMPI-2,
ed. JN Butcher, pp. 165–92. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Finn SE, Tonsager M. 1992. Therapeutic effects of providing MMPI-2 test feedback to college students
awaiting therapy. Psychol. Assess. 4:278–87
Fischer CT. 1994. Individualizing Psychological Assessment. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Fulkerson SC, Freud SL, Raynor GH. 1958. The use of the MMPI in the psychological evaluation of pilots.
J. Aviat. Med. 29:122–29
Galton F. 1874. English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. New York: D. Appleton & Co.
Galton F. 1879. Psychometric experiments. Brain 2:179–85
Galton F. 1884. Measurement of character. Fortnightly Rev. 42:179–85
Ganellen RJ. 2001. Weighing evidence for the Rorschach’s validity: a response to Wood et al. 1999. J. Personal.
Assess. 77:1–15
Garb HN, Wood JM, Lilienfeld SO, Nezworski MT. 2005. Roots of the Rorschach controversy. Clin. Psychol.
Rev. 25:97–118
Geisinger KF, Carlson JF. 2009. Standards and standardization. In Oxford Handbook of Personality and Clinical
Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 99–111. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Gerdz J. 1994. Mental illness and the Roman physician: the legacy of Soranus. Hosp. Community Psychiatry
45:485–87
Gibby RE, Zickar MJ. 2008. A history of the early days of personality testing in American industry: an obsession
with adjustment. Hist. Psychol. 11:164–84
Goldberg LR. 1971. A historical survey of personality scales and inventories. In Advances in Psychological
Assessment, ed. P McReynolds, 2:293–339. Palo Alto, CA: Sci. Behav. Books
Goldberg LR. 1974. Objective diagnostic tests and measures. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 25:343–66
Gordon RM. 2006. False assumptions about psychopathology, hysteria and the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical
Scales. Psychol. Rep. 98:870–72

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 17
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Gorsuch RL. 1963. Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: LEA Press. 2nd ed.
Gough HG. 1956. California Psychological Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consult. Psychol. Press
Graham JR, Naglieri JA. 2003. Handbook of Psychology: Volume 10. Assessment Psychology. New York: Wiley
Grant M. 1956. Tacitus: The Annals of Imperial Rome. Transl. Michael Grant. New York: Penguin
Greene RL, Rouse SV, Butcher JN, Nichols D, Williams CL. 2009. The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC)
Scales and redundancy: response to Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and Sellbom. J. Personal. Assess. 91:1–5
Grønnerød C. 2004. Rorschach assessment of changes following psychotherapy: a meta-analytic review.
J. Personal. Assess. 83:256–76
Grove WM, Barden RC, Garb HN, Lilienfeld SO. 2002. Failure of Rorschach-Comprehensive-System-based
testimony to be admissible under the Daubert-Joiner-Kumho standards. Psychol. Public Policy Law 8:216–
34
Guazzo F. 1608/1929. Compendium Maleficarum. Transl. M Summers, EA Ashwin. London: Rodker
Gucker DK, Kreuch T, Butcher JN. 2009. Insensitivity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales in personnel
assessment. Paper presented at Soc. Personal. Assess., Chicago
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Hamilton M. 1960. A rating scale for depression. J. Neurol. Neurosurg. Psychiatry 23:56–62
Handler L. 2001. Assessment of men: personality assessment goes to war by the Office of Strategic Services
assessment staff. J. Personal. Assess. 76:558–78
Hare RD. 2003. Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems. 2nd ed.
Hathaway SR. 1965. Personality inventories. In Handbook of Clinical Psychology, ed. BB Wolman, pp. 451–76.
New York: McGraw-Hill
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Hathaway SR, McKinley JC. 1940. A multiphasic personality schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the
schedule. J. Psychol. 10:249–54
Hertz MR. 1938. Scoring the Rorschach test with specific reference to “normal detail” category. Am. J.
Orthopsychiatry 8:100–21
Heymans G, Wiersma E. 1906. Beitrage zur spezillen psychologie auf grund einer massen-unterschung.
Z. Fur Psychol. 43:81–127
Hiller JB, Rosenthal R, Bornstein RF, Berry DTR, Brunner-Neuleib S. 1999. A comparative meta-analysis of
Rorschach validity. Psychol. Assess. 11:278–96
Hough LM. 2001. I/Owes advance to personality. In Personality Psychology in the Workplace, ed. BW Roberts,
R Hogan, pp. 19–44. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc.
Humm DG, Wadsworth GW Jr. 1934. The Humm-Wadsworth Temperament Scale: preliminary report.
Personal. J. 12:314–23
Jackson D. 1970. A sequential system for personality scale development. In Current Topics in Clinical and
Community Psychology, Vol. 2, ed. CD Spielberger, pp. 61–96. New York: Academic
Jennings LS. 1949. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory: differentiation of psychologically good and
poor combat risks among flying personnel. J. Aviat. Med. 19:222–26
Johnson JH, Butcher JN, Null C, Johnson K. 1984. Replicated item level factor analysis of the full MMPI.
J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 47:105–14
Jung CG. 1907. On psychological relations of the association experiment. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 31:249–57
Kent GH, Rosanoff A. 1910. A study of association in insanity. Am. J. Insanity 67:37–96
Kieckhefer R. 1976. European Witch Trials: Their Foundations in Popular and Learned Culture, 1300–1500.
Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Klopfer B, Tallman G. 1938. A further Rorschach study of Mr. A. Rorschach Res. Exchange 3:31–36
Lees-Haley PR, English LT, Glenn WT. 1991. A Fake Bad Scale on the MMPI-2 for personal injury claimants.
Psychol. Rep. 68:203–310
Lilienfeld SO, Wood JM, Garb HN. 2001. What’s wrong in this picture? Sci. Am. 284(5):81–87
Limbaugh-Kirker & Kirker v. Dicosta. 2009. Case 06-CA-00706, Florida 20th Circuit in and for Lee County, FL
Megargee EI. 2006. Using the MMPI-2 in Criminal Justice and Correctional Settings. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press
Megargee EI. 2009. The California Psychological Inventory. See Butcher 2009, pp. 329–41
Meloy JR. 2008. The authority of the Rorschach: an update. In The Handbook of Forensic Rorschach Psychology,
ed. CB Gacono, FB Evans, pp. 79–88. New York: Routledge

18 Butcher
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Meloy JR, Hansen T, Weiner IB. 1997. Authority of the Rorschach: legal citations in the past 50 years.
J. Personal. Assess. 69:53–62
Melton RS. 1955. Studies in the evaluation of the personality characteristics of successful naval aviators.
J. Aviat. Med. 25:600–4
Meyer GJ, Kurtz JE. 2006. Advancing personality assessment terminology: time to retire “objective” and
“projective” as personality test descriptors. J. Personal. Assess. 87:223–25
Millon T. 1977. Millon Clinical Multiaxial Personality Inventory (MCMI). Minneapolis, MN: Natl. Comput.
Syst.
Morey LC. 1991. The Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychol.
Assess. Resourc.
Murray HA. 1938. Explorations in Personality. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Murray HA. 1943. Manual for the Thematic Appreciation Test. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
Nichols DS. 2006. The trials of separating bath water from baby: a review and critique of the MMPI-2
Restructured Clinical Scales. J. Personal. Assess. 87:121–38
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Nichols DS, Greene R, Williams CL. 2009. Gender bias in the MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (FBS) and FBS-r in
MMPI-2-RF. Paper presented at Soc. Personal. Assess., Chicago
Off. Strat. Serv. Assess. Staff. 1948. Assessment of Men. New York: Rinehart
Ostermann P. 1629. Commentarius Juridicus. Cologne: Petrum Metternich. 172 pp.
Paterson DG, Schneidler GG, Williamson EG. 1938. Personality Tests and Questionnaires 1938 Student Guidance
Techniques: A Handbook for Counselors in High Schools and Colleges. New York: McGraw-Hill
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Pearson Assessments. 2009 ( Jan.). Selected Bibliography: MMPI-2 RF References by Topic. http://
www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/rdonlyres/8A2248FA-32D3-46B696DB-FD166D59B434/0/
MMPI2RF bib.pdf
Piotrowski C, Belter RW, Keller JW. 1998. The impact of “managed care” on the practice of psychological
testing: preliminary findings. J. Personal. Assess. 70:441–47
Pope K, Butcher JN, Seelen J. 2006. The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court: Assessment, Testimony, and
Cross-Examination for Expert Witnesses and Attorneys. Washington, DC: Am. Psychol. Assoc. 3rd ed.
Ranson M, Nichols DS, Rouse SV, Harrington J. 2009. Changing or replacing an established personality
assessment standard: issues, goals, and problems, with special reference to recent developments in the
MMPI-2. See Butcher 2009, pp. 112–39
Rogers R, Sewell KW. 2006. MMPI-2 at the crossroads: aging technology or radical retrofitting? J. Personal.
Assess. 87:175–78
Rogers R, Sewell KW, Harrison KS, Jordan MJ. 2006. The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales: a paradig-
matic shift in scale development. J. Personal. Assess. 87:139–47
Rouse SV, Greene RL, Butcher JN, Nichols DS, Williams CL. 2008. What do the MMPI-2 Restructured
Clinical Scales reliably measure? J. Personal. Assess. 90:435–42
Rorschach H. 1921. Psychodiagnostik. Bern, Germany: Hans Huber
Shaffer TW, Erdberg P, Haroian J. 1999. Current nonpatient data for the Rorschach, WAIS-R and MMPI-2.
J. Personal. Assess. 73:305–16
Shaffer TW, Erdberg P, Meyer GJ, eds. 2007. International reference sample for the Rorschach comprehensive
system [Special issue]. J. Personal. Assess. 89(Suppl. 1):entire issue
Simms LJ, Casillas A, Clark LA, Watson D, Doebbeling BN. 2005. Psychometric evaluation of the Restruc-
tured Clinical Scales of MMPI-2. Psychol. Assess. 17:345–58
Spanos NP. 1978. Witchcraft in histories of psychiatry: a critical analysis and an alternative conceptualization.
Psychol. Bull. 85:417–39
Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene RE. 1972. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consult. Psychol. Press
Stith v. State Farm Mutual Insurance. 2008. Case No. 50-2003 CA 010945AG, Palm Beach County, FL
Sundberg ND. 1977. Assessment of Persons. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall
Tellegen A, Ben-Porath YS. 2008. MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Tellegen A, Ben-Porath YS, McNulty J, Arbisi P, Graham JR, Kaemmer B. 2003. MMPI-2: Restructured Clinical
(RC) Scales. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press

www.annualreviews.org • Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to the Early Twenty-First Century 19
 ANRV407-CP06-01 ARI 22 February 2010 14:55

Vandergracht v. Progressive Express et al. 2007. Case 02-04552, Hillsborough County, FL

Viglione DJ, Hilsenroth MJ. 2001. The Rorschach: facts, fictions, and future. Psychol. Assess. 11:251–65
Wallace A, Liljequist L. 2005. A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the
MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales. Assessment 12:290–94
Weiner IB. 2010. Rorschach inkblot method. In Corsini’s Encyclopedia of Psychology, ed. IB Weiner, WE
Craighead. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 4th ed. In press
Weiner IB, Greene RL. 2008. Handbook of Personality Assessment. New York: Wiley
Weiner IB, Meyer GJ. 2009. Personality assessment with the Rorschach inkblot method. In Oxford Handbook
of Personality Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 277–98. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Welsh GS. 1956. Factor dimensions A and R. In Basic Readings on the MMPI in Psychology and Medicine, ed. GS
Welsh, WG Dahlstrom, pp. 264–81. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Whipple GM. 1910. Manual of Mental and Physical Tests. Baltimore, MD: Warwick & York
Widiger TA, Boyd SE. 2009. Personality disorders: assessment instruments. In Oxford Handbook of Personality
Assessment, ed. JN Butcher, pp. 336–63. New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Wiggins JS. 1973. Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Williams v. CSX Transportation, Inc. 2007. Case 04-CA-008892, Hillsborough County, FL

Williams CL, Butcher JN, Gass CS, Cumella E, Kally Z. 2009. Inaccuracies about the MMPI-2 Fake Bad
Scale in the reply by Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, and Kaufman 2009. Psychol. Injury Law 2:182–97
Wood JM, Nezworski MT, Garb HN, Lilienfeld SO. 2001. The misperception of psychopathology: problems
with the norms of the comprehensive system. Clin. Psychol. Sci. Pract. 8:350–73
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Wood JM, Nezworski MT, Stejskal WJ, McKinzey RK. 2001. Problems of the comprehensive system for the
Rorschach in forensic settings: recent developments. J. Forensic Psychol. Pract. 1:89–103
Woodworth RS. 1919. Examination of emotional fitness for war. Psychol. Bull. 15:59–60
Woodworth RS. 1920. Personal Data Sheet. Chicago, IL: Stoelting
Woodworth RS, Matthews E. 1924. Personal Data Sheet (Children and Adolescents). Chicago, IL: Stoelting
Zapata A, Kreuch T, Landers RN, Hoyt T, Butcher JN. 2009. Clinical personality assessment in personnel
settings using the MMPI-2: a cross-cultural comparison. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 9:287–98

20 Butcher
 AR407-FM ARI 6 March 2010 12:23

Annual Review of
Clinical Psychology

Volume 6, 2010
Contents

Personality Assessment from the Nineteenth to Early Twenty-First

Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Century: Past Achievements and Contemporary Challenges

James N. Butcher p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1
Prescriptive Authority for Psychologists
Robert E. McGrath p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p21
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

The Admissibility of Behavioral Science Evidence in the Courtroom:

The Translation of Legal to Scientific Concepts and Back
David Faust, Paul W. Grimm, David C. Ahern, and Mark Sokolik p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p49
Advances in Analysis of Longitudinal Data
Robert D. Gibbons, Donald Hedeker, and Stephen DuToit p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p79
Group-Based Trajectory Modeling in Clinical Research
Daniel S. Nagin and Candice L. Odgers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 109
Measurement of Functional Capacity: A New Approach to
Understanding Functional Differences and Real-World Behavioral
Adaptation in Those with Mental Illness
Thomas L. Patterson and Brent T. Mausbach p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 139
The Diagnosis of Mental Disorders: The Problem of Reification
Steven E. Hyman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 155
Prevention of Major Depression
Ricardo F. Muñoz, Pim Cuijpers, Filip Smit, Alinne Z. Barrera, and Yan Leykin p p p p p p 181
Issues and Challenges in the Design of Culturally Adapted
Evidence-Based Interventions
Felipe González Castro, Manuel Barrera Jr., and Lori K. Holleran Steiker p p p p p p p p p p p p 213
Treatment of Panic
Norman B. Schmidt and Meghan E. Keough p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Psychological Approaches to Origins and Treatments of Somatoform
Disorders
Michael Witthöft and Wolfgang Hiller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 257

vi
 AR407-FM ARI 6 March 2010 12:23

Cognition and Depression: Current Status and Future Directions

Ian H. Gotlib and Jutta Joorman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 285
The Genetics of Mood Disorders
Jennifer Y.F. Lau and Thalia C. Eley p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 313
Self-Injury
Matthew K. Nock p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 339
Substance Use in Adolescence and Psychosis: Clarifying the
Relationship
Emma Barkus and Robin M. Murray p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 365
Systematic Reviews of Categorical Versus Continuum Models in
Annu. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2010.6:1-20. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Psychosis: Evidence for Discontinuous Subpopulations Underlying

a Psychometric Continuum. Implications for DSM-V, DSM-VI,
and DSM-VII
Richard J. Linscott and Jim van Os p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 391
by HINARI on 05/19/11. For personal use only.

Pathological Narcissism and Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Aaron L. Pincus and Mark R. Lukowitsky p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 421
Behavioral Treatments in Autism Spectrum Disorder:
What Do We Know?
Laurie A. Vismara and Sally J. Rogers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 447
Clinical Implications of Traumatic Stress from Birth to Age Five
Ann T. Chu and Alicia F. Lieberman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469
Emotion-Related Self-Regulation and Its Relation to Children’s
Maladjustment
Nancy Eisenberg, Tracy L. Spinrad, and Natalie D. Eggum p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 495
Successful Aging: Focus on Cognitive and Emotional Health
Colin Depp, Ipsit V. Vahia, and Dilip Jeste p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 527
Implicit Cognition and Addiction: A Tool for Explaining Paradoxical
Behavior
Alan W. Stacy and Reineout W. Wiers p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 551
Substance Use Disorders: Realizing the Promise of Pharmacogenomics
and Personalized Medicine
Kent E. Hutchison p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 577
Update on Harm-Reduction Policy and Intervention Research
G. Alan Marlatt and Katie Witkiewitz p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 591
Violence and Women’s Mental Health: The Impact of Physical, Sexual,
and Psychological Aggression
Carol E. Jordan, Rebecca Campbell, and Diane Follingstad p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 607

Contents vii