The Millon™ Clinical Multiaxial Inventory Testing The Use And Validity Of The MCMI-III™ In Court Cases

By Eric Marcy |   Feb. 4, 2016

The Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory III (“MCMI-III”™) is a popular assessment tool used by clinical psychologists, that has been in use since approximately 1977. This instrument has been the subject of many articles and books.[1] The theoretical basis derives from Millon’s theory of personality development, personality types, and personality disorders. The instrument relies on 175 “self-report” true false questions, which are dependent upon a subject’s self awareness and providing accurate responses to the questions. [2] Similar to other testing instruments the Millon attempts to build in validity scales to account for any misrepresentation of symptoms and attempts to “detect” "invalid profiles.”[3] The MCMI-III Manual itself specifically acknowledges “limitations and qualifications” regarding its use. The data derives from clinical sampling and “are applicable only to individuals who evidence problematic emotional and interpersonal symptoms or who are undergoing professional psychotherapy or a psycho diagnostic evaluation” and “the samples employed for such purposes are best drawn only from comparable clinical populations.” (T. Millon, R. Davis, P. Millon, , MCMI-III Manual, 2nd ed. (1997), at p. 6.[4] It “is not a general personality instrument to be used with normal populations or for purposes other than diagnostic screening or clinical assessment.”[5] Similar to the MMPI-2, the MCMI-III results may generate computer generated report, the manual itself cautions that “reading a computerized report is no substitute for clinical judgment. Only those trained in the limits of psychological tests are qualified to interpret them."[6] Read More

Topics : Criminal Defense, Division of Youth and Family Services (DYFS), Scientific Evidence, Criminal Law, Psychological Test, discovery, Eric Marcy, Parole, Domestic Violence, Division of Child Protection and Permanency (DCPP), Evidence, Healthcare, experts | 0 Comments Read More

MISUSE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TESTS IN COURT

By Eric Marcy |   Jul. 7, 2015

THE MINNESOTA MULTIPHASIC PERSONALITY INVENTORY (“MMPI-2”)

CHALLENGING THE MMPI-2

The use of the MMPI-2 is not designed for specific forensic evaluations (i.e. evaluations for legal issues). The MMPI-2 is what is called “broad-band test.” That means it is a tool for general diagnosis. It is based upon test results taken from populations of individuals with already determined psychiatric diagnoses and personality traits to enable psychologists to test a subject and assist in rendering a diagnosis. Without a proper and fair clinical evaluation, the use of MMPI-2 by itself is an unreliable tool for forensic evaluations that present serious legal consequences.

Read More

Topics : Criminal Defense, Scientific Evidence, Criminal Law, Parole, Health Care, Evidence | 0 Comments Read More

The Use And Abuse Of The LSI-R In Parole Evaluations Challenging So-Called "Objective" Testing

By Eric Marcy |   Apr. 15, 2015

The Erroneous Use of and Reliance on the LSI-R

The Level of Service Inventory-Revised “LSI-R” is frequently misused in the context of parole evaluations. Providing an air of scientific reliability, its application in the forensic setting is actually unreliable, subjective, and highly dependent on factors that may be decades old, failing to take into consideration, relevant facts relating to maturity and rehabilitation for which it is not designed to account. While there is authority that supports the efficacy of the LSI-R for determining security risk, classification, programming and custodial placement at the time of initial incarceration, the LSI-R was never designed for and is not appropriate to predict an inmate’s prognosis on parole after years of incarceration.

Read More

Topics : Scientific Evidence, Mental Health, Criminal Law, Psychological Test, discovery, Eric Marcy, Parole, Health Care | 0 Comments Read More

Challenging So-Called "Objective" Psychological Tests: The Use And Abuse Of Psychological Testing In Trials, Sentencing, Parole Consideration, And Custody Disputes

By Eric Marcy |   Apr. 1, 2015

Criminal and civil courts and the New Jersey State Parole Board have accepted the use of psychological testing as an important component of making legal and factual determinations in both the civil and criminal litigation and for considerations as to whether a person is suitable for release on parole. Such testing may add an air of scientific authority resulting in an over reliance on conclusions drawn from the instrument. While psychological testing does add value, the courts recognize and it must be emphasized that the ultimate determinations involving psychological issues reside with the court and/or fact finder. The “objective test” result and related “expert” opinion may be considered, but are not binding on the court and/or fact finder. Given the stakes in establishing defenses in criminal law, sentencing, whether someone may be returned to society in parole determinations, and family law custody disputes, counsel must understand the benefits and limitations of psychological testing in the forensic context.

Read More

Topics : Litigation, Scientific Evidence, Mental Health, Criminal Law, discovery, Parole, Health Care | 0 Comments Read More

    All Blog Posts

    Subscribe to Email Updates

    Featured Blogger

    Eric Marcy

    Eric Marcy

    Click Here to Read My Latest Blog Post

    Categories

    see all