Since the MMPI–2 restandardization, we have not witnessed the same frequency of scale development that was observed for the MMPI, and efforts to develop new MMPI–2 scales (such as the RC Scales and the PSY–5 Scales) have generally had clear strategic goals. Nevertheless, it cannot be assumed that an effort to create a new scale resulted in a truly novel end product, and those working to create new scales should systematically consider whether the new scales measure a content domain that is already being measured. The recent development of metaanalytic approaches such as reliability generalization (VachaHaase et al., 2002) and the use of diverse data sets allows for the systematic evaluation of a newly developed scale in comparison with an extant scale, providing valuable information about their comparable reliability and interrelationships. Although the RC scales were developed to assess a more precisely focused construct than can be assessed with the MMPI–2 Clinical scales, the results of this study suggest that in many cases, this need was already being met by other MMPI–2 scales, and data have yet to be provided demonstrating that the set of RC Scales outperforms comparable preexisting scales.
출처: Rouse, S. V., Greene, R. L., Butcher, J. N., Nichols, D. S., & Williams, C. L. (2008). What Do the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales Reliably Measure? Answers From Multiple Research Settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(5), 435–442.
RC 척도의 유용성이 아주 없는 것은 아니지만(참고) MMPI-2에 추가적으로 기여하는 바가 적을 수 있다는 내용입니다. 그런데 이번 MMPI-3의 주축이 RC 척도를 만드는 데 중요하게 기여한 Ben-Porath네요. 뚜껑을 열어봐야 알겠지만, 기존에 축적된 수십년 간의 연구 성과를 무시하는 방식으로 검사도구가 진화하는 것은 좀 이해할 수가 없네요. 이에 대해 이미 2017년에 Alan Friedman과 David Nichols 등이 미심쩍은 부분을 공론화한 바 있네요. 이들의 글을 일부 옮겨 옵니다. 출처: https://nationalpsychologist.com/2017/11/mmpi-3-revision-of-mmpi-2-or-marketing-hype/104097.html
An MMPI-3 based on the MMPI-2-RF is not an authentic successor to the MMPI and MMPI-2 and their 70-year history of research and successful clinical use. Whereas the MMPI-2 relies upon a code type approach to interpretation in which its scales are examined in configural patterns based upon empirically validated code types, the MMPI-2-RF relies upon a scale-by-scale interpretive approach, and just as the empirical correlates for the MMPI-2 code types are not applicable to the MMPI-2-RF, neither will they be to the MMPI-3.
(중략)
If the University Press follows through with its plans to release an MMPI-3 based on the controversial methodology underlying the MMPI-2-RF, the reader should be aware that “MMPI-3” is a misnomer and an attempt to capitalize on the MMPI brand by hijacking the name. In essence, any revision of the MMPI-2-RF is just that and should be labeled appropriately as a version of the latter instrument. Eliminating “RF” in its name by calling it an MMPI-3 is a masquerade, for the ostensible purpose of having users discontinue using the MMPI-2 in favor of an MMPI-3 imposter. A more honest title would be the “MMPI-2-RF-Revised (RF-R),” because the methodology underlying the MMPI-2-RF is not remotely similar in construction, scales or interpretation to the MMPI-2. To put the matter simply with a quote attributed to Abraham Lincoln, “How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”
개의 꼬리를 개의 다리라고 볼 수 있겠느냐는 말이 참 적절하네요.
Ben-Porath 본인도 MMPI-2-RF가 MMPI-2의 대체가 아니라 대안이라고 했다 하는데 왜 미네소타 대학 출판부가 Ben-Porath에게 몰아주기 하는지 알 수 없는 노릇입니다. 아마도 이권 문제겠죠.
도구가 별로면 안 쓰면 되는 것 아니냐고 반문할 수 있는데, 어떤 도구가 자본과 마케팅에 의해서 표준으로 자리매김하면 그 도구를 안 쓰기가 어려울 수도 있다는 점에서 MMPI-3 출시가 우려스럽네요.
댓글