A comparison of the pencil-and-paper and computer-administered Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Adolescent

Psychology in the Schools

Volumn 42, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 605-613

  Hays, Shannon ^a   McCallum, R Steve ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 22544459090     PISSN: 00333085     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pits.20106     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. American Psychological Association. (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.
2. Archer, R.P. (1997). MMPI-A: Assessing adolescent psychopathology (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Ben-Porath, Y.S., & Butcher, J.N. (1986). Computers in personality assessment: A brief past, an ebullient present, and an expanding future. Computers in Human Behavior, 2, 167-182.
4. Biskin, B.H., & Kolotkin, R.L. (1977). Effects of computerized administration on scores of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 543-549.
5. Bugbee, A.C., Jr. (1996). The equivalence of paper-and-pencil and computer-based testing. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 28(1), 282-299.
6. Butcher, J.N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Archer, R.P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., et al. (1992). MMPI-A: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents. Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.
7. Butcher, J.N., Williams, C.L., Graham, J.R., Archer, R.P., Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y.S., et al. (2001). MMPI-A: Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory for Adolescents. Manual for administration, scoring, and interpretation. Minneapolis, MN: The University of Minnesota Press.
8. Eggen, P., & Kauchak, D. (2001). Educational psychology: Windows on classrooms (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
9. Hofer, P.J., & Green, B.F. (1985). The challenge of competence and creativity in computerized psychological testing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 826-838.
10. Honaker, L.M., Harrell, T., & Buffaloe, J.D. (1988). Equivalency of microtest computer MMPI administration for standard and special scales. Computers in Human Behavior, 4, 323-337.
11. Lushene, R.E., O'Neil, H.F., Jr., & Dunn, T. (1974). Equivalent validity of a completely computerized MMPI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 38, 353-361.
12. Pinsoneault, T.B. (1996). Equivalency of computer-assisted and paper-and-pencil administered versions of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2. Computers in Human Behavior, 8, 291-300.
13. Sukigara, M. (1996). Equivalence between computer and booklet administrations of the new Japanese version of the MMPI. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(4), 570-584.
14. Watson, C.G., Manifold, V., Klett, W.G., Brown, J.K., Thomas, D., & Anderson, D. (1990). Comparability of computer- and booklet-administered MMPIs among primarily chemically dependent patients. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 2(3), 276-280.
15. Watson, C.G., Thomas, D., & Anderson, P. (1992). Do computer-administered MMPIs underestimate booklet-based scores? Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48(6), 744-748.
16. Webster, J., & Compeau, D. (1996). Computer-assisted versus paper-and-pencil administration of questionnaires. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28, 567-576.