About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


17 Psych. Inj. & L. 1 (2024)

handle is hein.journals/psyinjl17 and id is 1 raw text is: Psychological Injury and Law (2024) 17:1-11 https://doi.org/l0.1007/s2207-023-09493-1 Applying the Daubert Factors to MMPI-3-Based Testimony Megan R. Whitman1• Yossef S. Ben-Porath' Received: 9 October 2023 / Accepted: 4 December 2023 / Published online: 4 January 2024 ©The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2024 Abstract A new version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) family of instruments, the MMPI-3, was pub- lished in 2020, and with its release as with any updated instrument, forensic practitioners must be prepared to address poten- tial challenges to MMPI-3-based testimony. The US Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) explicated a set of factors that could be considered by trial judges when gauging the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. The same issues can be raised during cross-examination designed to limit the weight of MMPI-3-based evidence in testimony at trial or in deposition. We briefly describe the rationale for, methods used in, and outcome of the revision of the MMPI. Then, we consider the use of the MMPI-3 in the context of the Daubert factors. We conclude that the MMPI-3 has been subject to empirical testing and peer review, information is available about the potential rate of error associated with MMPI-3 scores, the test manual details standard procedures for administering and scoring the test as well as interpreting MMPI-3 scores, and several indicators of general acceptance of the MMPI-3 can be cited. Keywords Daubert - MMPI-3 - Forensic psychological assessment According to an international survey conducted by Neal and Grisso (2014), the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven- tory (MMPI) family of instruments is the most commonly used tool in several types of forensic evaluations. A new ver- sion of the test, the MMPI-3 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020a, b), was released in 2020, posing a challenge for forensic prac- titioners. Experts who use the newer version of the test can be challenged for relying on a new, unproven device whereas experts who use the older version can be challenged for rely- ing on an old, antiquated device. This dilemma could be avoided by never updating instruments. However, with chang- ing norms in the general population, improvements in con- ceptualizing personality and psychopathology, and advance- ments in test construction techniques, this solution would be unreasonable. Rather, as Ben-Porath (2012a) has previously described, forensic practitioners can respond to test revisions by (a) becoming familiar with the rationale, methods, and outcomes of the updates; (b) making informed decisions about whether to use the revised test; and (c) preparing to defend their decision. Megan R. Whitman mwhitma5@kent.edu Department of Psychological Sciences, Kent State University, 800 E. Summit St, Kent, OH 44242, USA To assist practitioners with this response, we provide a very brief overview of the rationale for, methods used in, and out- comes of the test revision and refer readers to the MMPI-3 Technical Manual (Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020b), which provides more detail on this topic. Other available sources provide detailed descriptions of forensic applications of the MMPI-3 and its earlier version, the MMPI-2 restructured form (MMPI-2-RF; Tellegen & Ben-Porath, 2008/2011; Ben-Porath et al., 2021; Mulchay, 2022; Sellbom et al., 2022; Sellbom & Wygant, 2018). For example, Sellbom et al. (2022) pro- vide a chapter focused on practical uses of the MMPI-3 in forensic evaluations, while Sellbom and Wygant are updating their 2018 case book on the applications of the MMPI-2-RF in forensic contexts. Ben-Porath et al. (2021) provide a broad review of how the MMPI-3 can and cannot be used in a range of forensic evaluations, and Mulchay (2022) focused on the MMPI-3 in child custody evaluations. The primary purpose of this article is to aid practitioners in preparing to defend their decision using the framework outlined by the US Supreme Court in its Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993; henceforth Daubert) deci- sion. Although the standards outlined in Daubert apply to the admissibility of testimony in federal and most state court proceedings, these or similar issues can be raised in cross- examinations or deposition-taking in other jurisdictions. Springer