Equivalence between computer and booklet administrations of the new Japanese version of the MMPI

Educational and Psychological Measurement

Volumn 56, Issue 4, 1996, Pages 570-584

  Sukigara, Masune ^a  

^a NAGOYA CITY UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0030491671     PISSN: 00131644     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0013164496056004002     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Biskin, B. H., & Kolotkin, R. L. (1977). Effects of computerized administration on scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 543-549.
2. Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (Rev. ed.). New York: Academic Press.
3. Dunn, T. G., Lushene, R. E., & O'Neil, H. F. (1972). Complete automation of the MMPI and a study of its response latencies. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 39, 381-387.
4. Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. San Diego: Academic Press.
5. Honaker, L. M. (1988). The equivalency of computerized and conventional MMPI administration: A critical review. Clinical Psychology Review, 8, 561-577.
6. Honaker, L. M., Harrell, T. H., & Buffaloe, J. D. (1988). Equivalency of microtest computer MMPI administration for standard and special scales Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 323-337.
7. Kanji, G. K. (1993). 100 statistical tests. London: Sage.
8. Lambert, M. E., Andrews, R. H., Rylee, K., & Skinner, J. R. (1987). Equivalence of computerized and traditional MMPI administration with substance abusers. Computers in Human Behavior, 3, 139-143.
9. Lushene, R. E., O'Neil, H. F., & Dunn, T. G. (1974). Equivalent validity of a completely computerized MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 353-361.
10. Research Group on the New Japanese Version of MMPI. (1993). New Japanese MMPI manual (in Japanese). Kyoto: Sankyou-Bou.
11. Rogers, J. L., Howard, K. I., & Vessey, J. T. (1993). Using significance tests to evaluate equivalence between two experimental groups. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 553-565.
12. Russell, G. K., Peace, K. A., & Mellsop, G. W. (1986). The reliability of a micro-computer administration of the MMPI. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 120-122.
13. Schuldberg, D. (1988). The MMPI is less sensitive to the automated testing format than it is to repeated testing: Item and scale effects. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 285-298.
14. Sukigara, M. (1994). Estimation of difference in scores between computerized administration and the booklet form administration of MMPI by means of meta-analysis of effect size (in Japanese). Bulletin of Clinical Psychology, 9, 19-25.
15. Watson, C. G., Manifold, V., Klett, W. G., Brown, J., & Thomas, D. (1990). Comparability of computer-and booklet-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories among primarily chemically dependent patients. Psychological Assessment: Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2, 276-280.
16. Watson, C. G., Thomas, D., & Anderson, P. E. (1992). Do computer-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventories underestimate booklet-based scores? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 744-748.
17. White, D. M., Clements, C. B., & Fowler, R. D. (1985). A comparison of computer administration with standard administration of the MMPI. Computers in Human Behavior, 1, 153-162.
18. Yoshimoto, H., & Yamano, S. (1984). Computer application for MMPI administration and scoring (in Japanese). Bulletin of Clinical Psychology, 3, 38-48.