Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) recently compared the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-A normative sample against two adolescent clinical samples. Results showed that the MMPI-A contains a substantial number of items that do not show a significant difference in item endorsement frequency between normative and clinical samples. The current study extends Archer et al.'s (2001) research in three ways: (1) it examines the item endorsement frequencies of the Supplementary scales, Harris Lingoes subscales, and subtle-obvious items; (2) it examines the Basic, Content, and Supplementary scales, and Harris Lingoes subscales with two homogeneous diagnostic criterion groups (as suggested by Archer, Handel, and Lynch); and finally (3) it reexamines and recalculates Basic scale data using only those items that were shown by Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) to effectively discriminate between the normative and clinical populations. The mean profiles of the normative and clinical groups were contrasted based on these “revised” Basic scales using a newly acquired independent clinical sample to evaluate the extent to which profile sensitivity and specificity is affected by these scale modifications. Results demonstrated that examining the Supplementary scales and Harris-Lingoes subscales, or subtle-obvious items, or when extended to homogeneous criterion groups led to no improvement in item effectiveness from the results of Archer and his colleagues' study. However, results supported the hypothesis in that the overall effectiveness of Basic scale discrimination increased, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power, and hit rate, when the Basic clinical scale items were removed that did not discriminate between normative and clinical groups of adolescents.
","abstract_html":"<p>Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) recently compared the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-A normative sample against two adolescent clinical samples. Results showed that the MMPI-A contains a substantial number of items that do not show a significant difference in item endorsement frequency between normative and clinical samples. The current study extends Archer et al.'s (2001) research in three ways: (1) it examines the item endorsement frequencies of the Supplementary scales, Harris Lingoes subscales, and subtle-obvious items; (2) it examines the Basic, Content, and Supplementary scales, and Harris Lingoes subscales with two homogeneous diagnostic criterion groups (as suggested by Archer, Handel, and Lynch); and finally (3) it reexamines and recalculates Basic scale data using only those items that were shown by Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) to effectively discriminate between the normative and clinical populations. The mean profiles of the normative and clinical groups were contrasted based on these “revised” Basic scales using a newly acquired independent clinical sample to evaluate the extent to which profile sensitivity and specificity is affected by these scale modifications. Results demonstrated that examining the Supplementary scales and Harris-Lingoes subscales, or subtle-obvious items, or when extended to homogeneous criterion groups led to no improvement in item effectiveness from the results of Archer and his colleagues' study. However, results supported the hypothesis in that the overall effectiveness of Basic scale discrimination increased, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power, and hit rate, when the Basic clinical scale items were removed that did not discriminate between normative and clinical groups of adolescents.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Lynch, Kathleen D."],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Psychology (PsyD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Robert P. Archer","Richard Handel","Michelle Kelley","J. D. Ball","Neill Watson"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2003,"date_issued":"2003-07-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2003-07-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:31Z","subjects":["Classification accuracy","Diagnostic category","Item effectiveness","MMPI-A","Clinical Psychology","Quantitative Psychology"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/205","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Robert P. Archer","Richard Handel","Michelle Kelley","J. D. Ball","Neill Watson"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Lynch, Kathleen D."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-04-08T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Psychology (PsyD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Classification accuracy","Diagnostic category","Item effectiveness","MMPI-A","Clinical Psychology","Quantitative Psychology"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/205"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) recently compared the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-A normative sample against two adolescent clinical samples. Results showed that the MMPI-A contains a substantial number of items that do not show a significant difference in item endorsement frequency between normative and clinical samples. The current study extends Archer et al.'s (2001) research in three ways: (1) it examines the item endorsement frequencies of the Supplementary scales, Harris Lingoes subscales, and subtle-obvious items; (2) it examines the Basic, Content, and Supplementary scales, and Harris Lingoes subscales with two homogeneous diagnostic criterion groups (as suggested by Archer, Handel, and Lynch); and finally (3) it reexamines and recalculates Basic scale data using only those items that were shown by Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) to effectively discriminate between the normative and clinical populations. The mean profiles of the normative and clinical groups were contrasted based on these “revised” Basic scales using a newly acquired independent clinical sample to evaluate the extent to which profile sensitivity and specificity is affected by these scale modifications. Results demonstrated that examining the Supplementary scales and Harris-Lingoes subscales, or subtle-obvious items, or when extended to homogeneous criterion groups led to no improvement in item effectiveness from the results of Archer and his colleagues' study. However, results supported the hypothesis in that the overall effectiveness of Basic scale discrimination increased, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power, and hit rate, when the Basic clinical scale items were removed that did not discriminate between normative and clinical groups of adolescents.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Relationship of MMPI-A Item Effectiveness to Item Content, Diagnostic Category, and Classification Accuracy"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Robert P. Archer","Richard Handel","Michelle Kelley","J. D. Ball","Neill Watson"],"dc:creator":["Lynch, Kathleen D."],"dc:date.available":["2019-04-08T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) recently compared the item endorsement frequencies for the MMPI-A normative sample against two adolescent clinical samples. Results showed that the MMPI-A contains a substantial number of items that do not show a significant difference in item endorsement frequency between normative and clinical samples. The current study extends Archer et al.'s (2001) research in three ways: (1) it examines the item endorsement frequencies of the Supplementary scales, Harris Lingoes subscales, and subtle-obvious items; (2) it examines the Basic, Content, and Supplementary scales, and Harris Lingoes subscales with two homogeneous diagnostic criterion groups (as suggested by Archer, Handel, and Lynch); and finally (3) it reexamines and recalculates Basic scale data using only those items that were shown by Archer, Handel, and Lynch (2001) to effectively discriminate between the normative and clinical populations. The mean profiles of the normative and clinical groups were contrasted based on these “revised” Basic scales using a newly acquired independent clinical sample to evaluate the extent to which profile sensitivity and specificity is affected by these scale modifications. Results demonstrated that examining the Supplementary scales and Harris-Lingoes subscales, or subtle-obvious items, or when extended to homogeneous criterion groups led to no improvement in item effectiveness from the results of Archer and his colleagues' study. However, results supported the hypothesis in that the overall effectiveness of Basic scale discrimination increased, in terms of sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive power, and hit rate, when the Basic clinical scale items were removed that did not discriminate between normative and clinical groups of adolescents.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/205"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"dc:subject":["Classification accuracy","Diagnostic category","Item effectiveness","MMPI-A","Clinical Psychology","Quantitative Psychology"],"dc:title":["The Relationship of MMPI-A Item Effectiveness to Item Content, Diagnostic Category, and Classification Accuracy"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Psychology (PsyD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:31Z"}