2013). “Approximately 52% of participants had a primary diagnosis in Axis I, and approximately 48 % had a primary diagnosis on Axis II (Zennaro, et al., 2013, p. 49).” The purpose of this study was to verify the validity data of the MCMI-III, then to compare the data to other relative literature (including the manual). Axis I outcomes indicate that the sensitivity values are not adequate, meaning that none of the syndrome scales clearly distinguish between true positives and false negatives. Meanwhile the specificity results were better than the sensitivity values with the exception of the Anxiety scale with a value of .57. All over values ranged from .80 to .99 indicating that the MCMI-III is extremely adequate in correctly identifying false
…show more content…
Million et al (1997) closely analyzed item production through DSM criteria to ensure high structural validity. High structural validity was confirmed by Van der Heuden et al. (2012). Concurrent validity of the MCMI-III was founded using the PPP values, which were generally higher than those of the MCMI-II meaning the MCMI-III has better predictive power (Hsu, 2002; Million et al., 1997). Both convergent and construct validity was assessed through comparing the MCMI-III to the MMPI-2, results indicated that the MCMI-III was more closely related to the DSM-IV criteria, and that the MCMI-III had higher personality scale scores overall (Million et al., 1997). Additional studies support the convergent validity of the MCMI-III’s clinical syndrome and personality scales to other tests with similar constructs (Hesse et al, 2012; Van der Heuden, 2012). However, mixed results remain for convergence with DSM-IV criteria (Million et al., 2001; Zennaro et al, 2013). Discriminant validity was determined by Million et al. (1997), throughout item selection and by using a clinical population as a norming sample, in hopes of developing a method of differentiating diagnoses. However, as determined by subsequent research, the accuracy of distinguishing categories is as good as chance (Hsu, 2002; Zennaro et al., 2013). In efforts to improve the validity of
Million et al (1997) closely analyzed item production through DSM criteria to ensure high structural validity. High structural validity was confirmed by Van der Heuden et al. (2012). Concurrent validity of the MCMI-III was founded using the PPP values, which were generally higher than those of the MCMI-II meaning the MCMI-III has better predictive power (Hsu, 2002; Million et al., 1997). Both convergent and construct validity was assessed through comparing the MCMI-III to the MMPI-2, results indicated that the MCMI-III was more closely related to the DSM-IV criteria, and that the MCMI-III had higher personality scale scores overall (Million et al., 1997). Additional studies support the convergent validity of the MCMI-III’s clinical syndrome and personality scales to other tests with similar constructs (Hesse et al, 2012; Van der Heuden, 2012). However, mixed results remain for convergence with DSM-IV criteria (Million et al., 2001; Zennaro et al, 2013). Discriminant validity was determined by Million et al. (1997), throughout item selection and by using a clinical population as a norming sample, in hopes of developing a method of differentiating diagnoses. However, as determined by subsequent research, the accuracy of distinguishing categories is as good as chance (Hsu, 2002; Zennaro et al., 2013). In efforts to improve the validity of