Piotrowski & Keller, 1989; Watkins, Campbell, Nieberding, & Hallmark,
1995). One survey found nearly universal agreement among directors of grad-uate programs in clinical psychology that the MMPI-2 should be part of a
clinical student ’s training (Piotrowski & Zalewski, 1993). The scale has also
been used in an enormous amount of research (Butcher, 2006). However,
this does not mean the MMPI-2 is without its critics. Psychologists continue
to debate the validity of some scales, the appropriateness of some of the
norm data provided by the test makers, and the nature of some of the con-structs the test is designed to measure, among other issues (Helmes &
Reddon, 1993). As you will see in the following section, scores from self-
report inventories are not as easy to interpret as the seemingly precise and ob-jective numbers generated from these tests sometimes suggest.
Problems with Self-Report Inventories
Despite their widespread use, self-report inventories have several limitationsthat need to be considered when constructing a scale or interpreting testscores. Researchers who use self-report inventories still must depend on parti-
cipants ’ability and willingness to provide accurate information about them-
selves. Sometimes these inaccuracies can be identified and test scores
discarded, but more often the misinformation probably goes undetected.
Clinical psychologists who rely too heavily on self-report measures run the
risk of making inaccurate assessments of their clients ’mental health (Shedler,
Mayman, & Manis, 1993).
Faking
Sometimes test takers intentionally give misleading information on self-report
inventories. Some people “fake good ”when taking a test. This means they try
to present themselves as better than they really are. This strategy is not un-
common when scales are used to make employment decisions (Rosse,
Stecher, Miller, & Levin, 1998). Why would applicants admit something neg-
ative about themselves if an employer is using that information to decidewhom to hire? On the other hand, sometimes people are motivated to “fake
bad.”These test takers want to make themselves look worse than they really
are. A person who wants to escape to a “safe”hospital environment might
try to come across as someone with psychological problems.
What can a tester do in these cases? Basically, important decisions proba-
bly should not be made on test data alone. An employer would be foolish topromote a worker who scores high on a leadership measure if that person has
never shown leadership qualities in 5 years of employment. Beyond this, test
makers sometimes build safeguards into tests to reduce faking. If possible,
the purpose of a test can be made less obvious, and filler items can be added
to throw the test taker off track. However, these efforts are probably, at
most, only partially successful. Another option is to test for faking directly
(Bagby, Rogers, Nicholson, Buis, Seeman, & Rector, 1997; Nelson, Sweet, &
Demakis, 2006; Nicholson, Mouton, Bagby, Buis, Peterson, & Buigas, 1997).
Like many large personality inventories, the MMPI contains scales designed
to detect faking. To create these scales, test makers compare responses ofAssessment: Self-Report Inventories 175