Psychological Assessment: Copyright 1991 by the Am :an Psychological Association, Inc.

A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology I040-3590/91/S3.00

1991, Vol.3, No. 1,9-18

Convergent and Discriminant Validity of the MCMI-II

and MMPI Personality Disorder Scales

Joseph T. McCann
Erie County Medical Center and
School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences
State University of New York at Buffalo

Validity of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II) and Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory (MMPI) personality disorder scales was examined using multitrait-multi-
method procedures and factor analyses. Effects of item overlap were also examined by conducting
analyses using both overlapping and nonoverlapping scales. Eighty psychiatric inpatients, most of
whom had an Axis II personality disorder, were administered the MCMI-II and MMPI. Conver-
gent and discriminant validity of the scales was generally established. The MCMI-II Antisocial
and Passive-Aggressive scales performed better than the original MCMI scales, whereas the Obses-
sive-Compulsive scales failed to reach significant convergence. Although item overlap did not have
a general impact on validity, some scales demonstrated better validity in nonoverlapping form,
whereas others performed best in overlapping form. The MCMI-II scales yielded a factor structure
that closely matched Millon's dimensions of personality, whereas MMPI factors reflected the
DSM-IH-R personality disorder clusters. Findings are discussed in terms of their relevance for
future study.

Several substantive reviews have addressed the relative merits
and weaknesses of standardized personality disorder measures
(Reich, 1987; Widiger & Frances, 1987). One general conclu-
sion in these reviews is that comparisons need to be made be-
tween various measures of personality disorders. Moreover, up-
dated research is needed because new versions of tests are devel-
oped, diagnostic criteria undergo revision, and new research
findings identify strengths and weaknesses of existing instru-
ments (Reich, 1989).
Among psychometric inventories, the Millon Clinical Mul-
tiaxial Inventory (MCMI; Millon, 1983) has been a frequently
studied measure of personality disorders. However, Widiger,
Williams, Spitzer, and Frances (1985, 1986) first questioned
whether the MCMI is a valid measure of personality disorders
listed in the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Man-
ualof MentalDisorders(DSM-III; American Psychiatric Associ-
ation, 1980), stating that Millon's description of specific person-
ality styles differed from DSM-lll criteria. Moreover, Widiger
and Sanderson (1987) found greater convergent validity for
MCMI scales measuring personality disorders that are essen-
tially equivalent in the DSM-HI and Millon typologies,
whereas scales assessing personality disorders that Millon de-
fines differently from the DSM-lll were found to have poor
convergent validity. Additionally, MCMI scales were found to
have poor discriminant validity because of excessive item over-
I am grateful to Leslie C. Morey for his assistance with the statistical
analysis and to three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments
during the preparation of this article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Jo-
seph T. McCann, Department of Psychiatry, Erie County Medical
Center, 462 Orider Street, Buffalo, New York 14215.
lap. Another psychometric approach to personality disorder
measurement is the set of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory (MMPI; Hathaway & McKinley, 1983) scales for
DSM-lll personality disorders (Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield,
1985). These scales have been shown to be moderately con-
gruent with the three clusters (i.e., odd, dramatic, and anxious)
of DSM-HI disorders (Morey, 1986), and some have been vali-
dated against clinical diagnoses (Morey, Blashfield, Webb, &
Jewell, 1988).
Several concurrent validity studies have examined relation-
ships between the MMPI and MCMI personality disorder
scales, and a relatively high degree of convergence has been
found (McCann, 1989; Morey & LeVine, 1988; Streiner &
Miller, 1988). Exceptions to these findings are the Antisocial
and Compulsive scales. The MCMI Antisocial scale has shown
consistently low correlations with the corresponding MMPI
scale. One major reason given for this finding is that Millon
(1981) views the antisocial as aggressive, hostile, and impulsive,
whereas the revised DSM-llI(DSM-IIl-R; American Psychiat-
ric Association, 1987) criteria define the disorder in terms of
specific criminal acts (McCann, 1989). With respect to consis-
tently negative correlations between the MCMI Compulsive
scale and its MMPI counterpart, proposed explanations in-
clude poor operating characteristics of the MCMI Compulsive
scale (McCann, 1989) and conceptual differences between Mil-
Ion and DSM-III typologies (Morey & LeVine, 1988).
Streiner and Miller (1988) concluded that because individual
MM PI scales correlated highly with several MCMI scales, valid-
ity of the MMPI scales must be questioned. Because personal-
ity disorder criteria overlap, such findings are expected. More-
over, the large degree of item overlap among MCMI scales
could account for the excessive number of significant correla-
10 JOSEPH T. McCANN
tions obtained. In fact, Retzlaff and Gibertini (1987) noted that
stability in the factor structure of MCMI personality disorder
scales was largely explained by excessive item overlap and did
not coincide with Millon's theoretical typology. The issue of
item overlap has been cited as a weakness of the MCMI in
general (Choca, Peterson, & Shanley, 1986).
In summary, two unresolved issues in this area remain: (a)
Conceptual differences between Millon's theory of psychopa-
thology and DSM-HI call into question the validity of the
MCMI as a measure of some DSM-Hl personality disorders,
and (b) excessive item overlap contributes to poor divergent
validity, artifactual factor structure, and spurious interscale
correlations.
Millon (1985, 1986b) argued that the MCMI-II would be
superior to the original MCMI. In the recently issued MCMI-
II, several substantive changes are evident (Millon, 1987). These
include replacement of 45 items, differential weighting of items
to reduce influences of item overlap, prototypic items that can
be used as "nonoverlapping" scales, three validity scales to as-
sess response sets, and a number of profile adjustments aimed
at modifying profile elevations (Millon, 1987). In addition, two
new personality scales (i.e., Sadistic and Self-Defeating) have
been developed to coincide with proposed additions to the
DSM-III-R. Of importance is the splitting of Scale 6 into the
Antisocial (Scale 6A) and Sadistic/Aggressive (Scale 6B) scales,
and Scale 8 into Scales 8A (Passive-Aggressive) and 8B (Self-De-
feating) on the MCMI-II. These changes seek to bring the Anti-
social and Passive-Aggressive scales more into alignment with
the DSM-HI-R while also preserving Millon's conceptualiza-
tion of these disorders.
Given these revisions, it is possible to study how adequately
these changes address difficulties with the original MCMI just
cited. This investigation examines the personality disorder
scales of the MCMI-II and MMPI. More specifically, conver-
gent and discriminant validity of these scales will be analyzed,
and the effect of item overlap on scale validity will be explored.
Method
Subjects
The subjects were 80 inpatients treated in an 18-bed acute-care psy-
chiatric unit of a large general hospital. Average length of hospitaliza-
tion for patients admitted to the unit was approximately 14 days. A
total of 42 men and 38 women composed the sample. The mean age for
subjects was 30.1 years (SD = 11.8). Although the subject group was
predominantly White (79%), 17% of it was Black, and 4% was Hispanic.
Most of the subjects were single (51 %) and had a mean education level
of 12.2 years (SD= 1.8).
Data were collected over an 18-month period on consecutive admis-
sions who had completed a 566-item MMPI and MCMI-II. Subjects
were included in the sample only if an Axis II personality disorder
diagnosis was present or if the Axis II diagnosis was under consider-
ation (i.e., rule out or deferred). Therefore, subjects represented a sub-
sample of patients typically admitted to the unit, because only those
patients with an Axis II diagnosis were included. All MMPI and
MCM [-11 profi les were considered valid according to cutoffs provided
by Millon (1987) for the MCMI-II and Graham (1987) for the MMPI.
Data from 81 patients were initially examined, however 1 subject pro-
vided invalid MMPI and MCMI-II profiles, resulting in 80 subjects
being used in the final analyses. The instruments were administered
within 1 week of admission. Diagnoses were obtained by chart review,
and MMPI/MCMI-II results were not used in arriving at diagnoses.
On Axis I, subjects received primarily an adjustment-disorder diagno-
sis (34%), whereas 25% were diagnosed with affective disorders, 14% as
psychotic, 10% with substance abuse/dependence, 9% as deferred on
Axis 1,6% with anxiety disorder, and 2% with other diagnoses. Seventy
percent of the sample also carried an Axis II personality disorder,
whereas 30% had their Axis I! diagnosis deferred. The most frequently
occurring personality disorders were borderline, mixed, schizotypal,
histrionic, and antisocial, with representations of avoidant, schizoid,
passive-aggressive, and dependent disorders. Specific personality dis-
order diagnoses were collected as part of another study on the relation-
ship between psychometric instruments and clinical diagnosis of per-
sonality disorders.
Analyses
Two sets of personality disorder scales from both the MCMI-II and
MMPI were used for all analyses. One set consisted of the overlapping
scales, whereas a second set consisted of nonoverlapping scales. Com-
plete personality disorder scales for both the MCMI-II and MMPI
contain items thai are unique to the particular scale as well as items
that are found on other scales. Morcy et al. (1985) provided information
as to which items compose both overlapping and nonoverlapping
scales for the MMPI. Each MCMI-II scale includesa number of proto-
typic items that constitute a set of scales uncontaminated by item over-
lap (Millon, 1987). Raw scores from both overlapping and nonoverlap-
ping scales for the MCMI-II and MMPI were subjected to two Pearson
product-moment correlation analyses. First, overlapping scales were
correlated with one another, as were the nonoverlapping scales, to pro-
duce an interscale correlation matrix for each instrument. Second,
both sets of MCM 1-11 personality disorder scales were correlated with
the respective overlapping and nonoverlapping personality disorder
scales of the MMPI to assess convergent validity. At this time, there are
no corresponding MMPI scales for the sadistic and self-defeating per-
sonality disorders as there are for the MCMI-II. Additionally, no such
scales are currently in development (L. C. Morey, 1989, personal com-
munication). Thus, convergent validity coefficients and discriminant
validity comparisons could not be calculated for these scales.
Next, the correlation matrices generated by these analyses became
part of two multitrait-multimethod matrices examined according to
procedures described by Hays (1986) and used in a study on the person-
ality disorder scales of the MMPI and original MCMI (Morey & Le-
Vine, 1988). Under this methodology, convergent validity coefficients,
which represent correlations among measures of the same trait using
different methods, are systematically compared with other coefficients
in the matrix, using both hcteromcthod and monomethod procedures.
That is, if discriminant validity is to be established, convergent validity
coefficients should be significantly greater than other coefficients in
the respective row and column in the heterotrait-heteromethod por-
tion of the matrix (i.e., MCMI-II/MMPI correlations) as well as the
heterolrait-monomelhod triangles in the matrix (i.e., MCMI-II/
MCMI-II and MMPI/MMPI intercorrelations).
The T statistic, described by Steiger (1980), was used for testing
whether correlations within the matrix were significantly different
from one another in a positive direction. To make comparisons be-
tween the present results on the basis of the MCMI-II and findings
from previous MCMI studies, the procedure described by Morey and
LeVine (1988) was used. That is, the direction of each coefficient was
considered, for two major reasons. First, the directionality of personal-
ity disorders is viewed as unipolar, because the DSM-III-R makes no
provisions for inverse relationships between various personality dis-
orders (Morey & LeVine, 1988). Second, the MCMI-II scales also tend
to be viewed as unipolar, because Millon (1987) makes no statements
 PERSONALITY DISORDER SCALES
about the interpretability of low scores on particular MCMI-II scales.
Thus, for example, a correlation of .80 was treated as significantly dif-
ferent from a correlation of-.80.
A series of factor analyses was then conducted using principal-com-
ponents analyses followed by varimax rotation. These factor analyses
were performed both separately and jointly for the MCMI-II and
MMPI on raw scores for both complete and nonoverlapping scales. In
this way, both sets of scales could be examined to assess effects of item
overlap on factor structure. In addition, separate factor analyses allow
for an exploration of how well the MCMI-II scales fit Millon's theoreti-
cal model and how well the MMPI scales reflect DSM-IHclusters of
personality disorders, because this latter set of scales was derived ratio-
nally from DSM-I1I criteria. A joint factor analysis was also conducted
to provide a more explicit comparison of these two sets of scales as well
as to assess the impact of method variance of each instrument. The
criteria for accepting a factor were an eigenvalue greater than 1.0 and at
least 5% of the variance being accounted for by each factor.
Results
Scale Correlations
Results from the correlation analysis of the MCMI-II scales
are presented in Table 1, whereas results for the MMP1 scales
are presented in Table 2. In both tables, coefficients above the
diagonal represent intercorrelations among the complete over-
lapping scales, whereas correlations below the diagonal repre-
sent findings for nonoverlapping scales. For these results, as
well as for those of other analyses, correlations greater than .36
are significant at the .001 level, whereas those greater than .28
are significant at the .01 level; correlations greater than .22 are
significant at the .05 level. Although several correlations, both
above and below the diagonal, are significant in these tables, a
visual inspection of Table 1 shows that nonoverlapping MCMI-
II scales yielded much lower off-diagonal correlations. A simi-
lar inspection of Table 2 reveals that MMPI scales correlated to
similar degrees with one another, regardless of whether overlap-
ping or nonoverlapping scales were used. As such, the effects of
item overlap on the degree of interscale relationships is evident
for the MCMI-II, but not for the MMPI. Nevertheless, even
nonoverlapping MCMI-II scales reveal significant correlations
between scales assessing different personality types. For exam-
ple, the Schizotypal/Avoidant, Passive-Aggressive/Borderline,
and Self-Defeating/Passive-Aggressive nonoverlapping corre-
lations in Table 1 are rather high. Such similarities appear to
reflect theoretical convergence among personality styles pro-
posed by Millon (1986a), rather than common-item artifact.
Table 3 consists of the correlation coefficients between the
complete MCMI-II personality disorder scales and the MMPI
overlapping scales. Underlined values represent convergent va-
lidity coefficients. Because the convergent validity coefficients
reported in Tables 3 and 4 were derived from a large number of
analyses that are not independent, experimentwise error was
uncontrolled. To address this matter, a more conservative alpha
level ( p < .00008) was derived by dividing the standard .05 level
by the number of correlations reported in Tables 1 through 4
(.05/576). Correlation coefficients greater than .43 were signifi-
cant at this more conservative level of significance. Overall,
each MCMI-II scale correlated significantly (p < .00008) with
its MMPI counterpart, with the exception of the Obsessive-
Compulsive scale, which bore no relation to the MMPI Com-
11
pulsive scale. A large degree of interscale correlation is noted in
Table 3 because most MCMI-II scales correlated significantly
with several other MMPI scales. Except for the Schizoid and
Obsessive-Compulsive scales, however, no MCMI-II scale had
a correlation with another MMPI scale that exceeded the con-
vergent validity coefficient. With the exception of the Depen-
dent, Passive-Aggressive, and Paranoid scales, the same holds
true for the MMPI. Thus, for example, the .87 correlation be-
tween the two Avoidant scales was the highest for all MCMI-II
Avoidant scale correlations. Nevertheless, a large number of
significant off-diagonal correlations emerged.
To examine effects of item overlap on the configuration and
magnitude of coefficients in Table 3, nonoverlapping MCMI-II
personality scales were correlated with the nonoverlapping
MMPI personality disorder scales. These results are presented
in Table 4. Significance levels cited earlier apply to these results
as well. In general, convergent validity coefficients are similar
in magnitude to those obtained with overlapping scales. All
MCMI-II scales, with the exception of the Obsessive-Compul-
sive and Paranoid scales, correlated significantly (p < .00008)
with their MMPI counterpart, supporting convergent validity.
Again, however, many nonoverlapping MCMI-II and MMPI
personality disorder scales correlated significantly with one an-
other. Examples of this phenomenon arc the MCMI-II Schiz-
oid scale correlating highly with the MMPI Avoidant scale and
the MCMI-II Histrionic scale correlating highly with both the
Histrionic and Narcissistic scales on the MMPI.
Assessment of Discriminant Validity
A summary of the convergent and discriminant validity com-
parisons from the two multitrait-multimethod matrices is
found in Table 5. It should be noted that the correlation matri-
ces in Tables I and 2 represent the heterotrait-monomethod
triangles, whereas Tables 3 and 4 represent the heterotrait-het-
eromethod portion of the multitrait-multimethod matrices.
Numerators in Table 5 represent the number of times a conver-
gent validity coefficient was significantly greater than another
coefficient in the multitrait-multimethod matrix, whereas de-
nominators represent the number of such comparisons made.
For example, the ratio 9/12 for the overlapping MCMI-II
Schizoid scale, under monomelhod procedures, means that the
convergent validity coefficient of .73 for schizoid personality
disorder scales in Table 3 was significantly greater than 9 of the
12 correlations appearing above the diagonal in Table 1, which
were between the MCMI-II Schizoid scale and the other 12
MCMI-II scales.
For overlapping scales, 67% (161 /242) of comparisons involv-
ing the MCMI-II were significant at the .05 level, whereas 66%
(159/242) were significant for the MMPI. In the same way, 68%
(164/242) of the MCMI-II and 62% (150/242) of the MMPI
convergent/discriminant validity comparisons were significant
among nonoverlapping scales.' Thus, elimination of item over-
1
Again, the comparisons are not independent tests, and experi-
mentwise error is uncontrolled. A more conservative level of signifi-
cance, (/; < .0001) derived by dividing the standard alpha level by the
total number of comparisons made (.05/484), would address this error.
Still, only 5% of the comparisons are expected to be significant by
12 JOSEPH T. McCANN

Table 1
Intercorrelations Among the MCMI-H Personality Disorder Scales

MCMI-II scale
MCMI-II
scale 1 2 3 4 5 6A 6B 7 8A 8B S C P

1 78 51 -65 -46 -14 -16 18 29 59 75 44 06

2 44 55 -35 -31 19 08 -13 65 83 95 75 24
3 31 48 -28 -45 -29 -42 26 08 61 50 35 -04
4 -41 -50 -31 81 64 55 -33 27 -11 -32 13 39

5 -06 -11 -14 43 69 68 -18 31 -22 -26 05 66
6A -02 04 -10 40 38 76 -50 73 24 26 54 64
6B 05 09 -03 13 28 33 -25 62 10 10 39 62
7 08 -10 17 08 11 -23 -19 -49 -24 -13 -40 13
8A 17 54 27 -07 17 46 26 -31 71 64 87 53
SB 11 37 36 -10 -10 15 07 -36 55 79 88 20
S 38 71 42 -37 -09 16 -02 -15 50 45 72 31
C 13 42 30 -07 10 40 28 -27 73 60 43 34

P 13 15 -02 18 49 47 26 21 36 -01 17 24

Note. Correlations above the diagonal are for overlapping scales, whereas those below the diagonal arc for nonoverlapping scales. Decimal points
have been eliminated. MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial InventoryII (Millon, 1987).

lap did not result in any increase of validity for either the
MCMI-II or MMPI scales, in general. However, specific
MCMI-II scales performed either equally well or slightly better
when common-item variance was eliminated. Of particular
note, the Passive-Aggressive and Borderline scales on the
MCMI-I1 improved most in their relative performance when
item overlap was removed. The MCMI-II Paranoid scale per-
formed better, however, in overlapping form, suggesting that
the complete MCMI-II scale may be more valid than the non-
overlapping scale. Among MMPI scales, the Schizoid and
Schizotypal measures exhibited slightly better discriminant va-
lidity in overlapping form, whereas the Dependent and Para-
noid scales were relatively weak, overall, in their discriminant
validity. The Obsessive-Compulsive scale performed very
poorly in demonstrating convergent and discriminant validity
for both the MCMI-II and MM PI, whereas the MCMI-II Anti-
social scale yielded much better results when compared with
the results obtained by Morey and LeVine (1988). In all, these
findings reveal improvements in validity for the MCMI-II An-
tisocial scale as a result of splitting Scale 6 into two different
measures.
MCMI-II Factor Analyses
Results from the factor analysis of MCMI-II overlapping
scales, presented in Table 6, yielded a three-factor solution with
85% of the total variance being explained. To simplify report-
ing, those factors formed by analysis of the complete overlap-
ping scales are followed by the suffix -OL, whereas those factors
from the nonoverlapping scales carry the -NOL suffix. Factor
I -OL in Table 6 has high loadings on the Schizotypal, Avoidant,
Self-Defeating, Schizoid, and Borderline scales, with moder-
ately high loadings on the Dependent and Passive-Aggressive
scales. The characteristics of this factor appear to be a combina-
tion of social isolation and detachment, along with interper-
sonal ambivalence and dependence. In many respects, this fac-
tor bears similarity to the general maladjustment factor found
in previous factor analyses of the original MCMI (Choca et al,
1986). Factor 2-OL consists of high loadings by the Narcissistic,
Sadistic, Paranoid, Antisocial, and Histrionic scales, with mod-
erate loading on the Passive-Aggressive scale. This factor can
be characterized by grandiosity, impulsivity, acting-out, and
angry affect. A third factor, Factor 3-OL, with a single high
negative loading by the Obsessive-Compulsive scale, appears to
represent a proclivity toward denying difficulties, striving to-
ward perfection, and endorsement of moralistic ideas.
Table 7 presents results from the factor analysis of nonover-
lapping MCMI-II scales. This solution yielded three factors,
accounting for 63% of the variance. Factor I -NOL bears similar-
ity to Factor 1 -OL, with some differences. High loadings on the
Avoidant, Schizotypal, Schizoid, and Dependent scales, with a
moderate loading on the Passive-Aggressive scale, and a nega-
tive loading on the Histrionic scale were found. Although Fac-
tor 1-NOL in Table 7 appears to represent social isolation and
detachment, as well as dependence, the interpersonal ambiva-
lence found in high loadings by the Self-Defeating and Border-
line scales on Factor 1 -OL is absent. Factor 2-NOL is equivalent
in structure to Factor 2-OL, representing grandiosity, impulsi-
vity, acting-out, and angry affect as well. Factor 3-NOL finds
high loadings on the Passive-Aggressive, Self-Defeating, and
Borderline scales, with high negative loading by the Obsessive-
Compulsive scale. In general, interpersonal ambivalence ap-
pears to be addressed by this factor, with ambivalence and
anger represented on the positive end and denial of such ambiva-
lence found on the negative end.

chance alone at the .05 alpha value used, and 62% to 68% greatly ex- MMPI Factor Analyses
ceeds this level. The .05 level was maintained so the reader can com-
pare the present findings with those of other authors who use a similar Table 8 presents results from the factor analysis of MMPI
level. overlapping scales. A three-factor solution, accounting for 82%
 PERSONALITY DISORDER SCALES 13

Table 2
Intercorrelalions Among the MM PI Personality Disorder Scales

MMPI scale
MMPI
scale SZD AVD DEP HST NAR ANT CPS PAG STY BDL PAR
_
Schizoid 79 37 -78 -53 23 34 54 74 -05 38
Avoidant 69 76 -80 -82 25 52 66 87 25 52

Dependent 42 73 -47 -74 14 49 56 61 36 42

Histrionic -52 -55 -40 73 04 -24 -35 -64 16 -21
Narcissistic -37 -61 -60 51 03 -31 -35 -55 -18 -14
Antisocial 29 22 21 15
05 33 47 41 45 59
Obsessive-
Compulsive 28 50 45 -10 -22 28 58 52 45 57

Passive-
Aggressive 54 62 57 -19 -26 48 47 73 44 68

Schizotypal 47 60 46 -19 -11 47 41 66 33 78

Borderline 23 52 52 -04 -40 37 46 58 49 44
Paranoid 36 55 46 -04 -06 58 38 65 79 49

A'ote. MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway AMcKinley, 1983); SZD = Schizoid; AVD = Avoidant; DEP= Dependent;
HST = Histrionic; NAR = Narcissistic; ANT = Antisocial; CPS = Obsessive-Compulsive; PAG = Passive-Aggressive; STY = Schizotypal; BDL =
Borderline; PAR - Paranoid. Correlations above the diagonal are for overlapping scales, whereas those below the diagonal are for nonoverlapping
scales. Decimal points have been eliminated.

of the variance, was obtained. Factor 1-OL in Table 8 contains
high positive loadings by the Schizoid, Avoidant, and Schizo-
typal scales, with moderate loading by the Dependent scale and
high negative loading by the Histrionic and Narcissistic scales.
Bearing some resemblance to MCMI-II Factors I-OL and 2-
NOL, the primary characteristics of this factor are social isola-
tion, detachment, and anxious dependence. Factor 2-OL in Ta-
ble 8 possesses high positive loading on the Antisocial, Para-
noid, Passive-Aggressive, and Schizotypal scales, with
moderate loading by the Obsessive-Compulsive and Borderline
scales. This factor resembles MCMI-II Factors 2-OL and 2-
NOL and can be characterized by paranoid ideation, impulsi-
vity, and angry mood. A third factor in Table 8, Factor 3-OL is
not similar to any MCMI-II factors and has high loadings by
the Dependent and Borderline scales, with moderate loading
on the Obsessive-Compulsive and Avoidant scales. Character-
istics associated with this factor are primarily interpersonal
dependence and social anxiety.
Results from the factor analysis of nonoverlapping MMPI
scales are presented in Table 9. Again, a three-factor solution
was obtained with 74% of the variance being explained. Factor
1-NOL in Table 9 contains high loadings on the Paranoid, Schi-
zotypal, Antisocial, and Passive-Aggressive scales, with moder-
ate loading by the Schizoid scale. This factor is similar to
MMPI Factor 2-OL, with prominant features of paranoid ide-
ation, impulsivity, and angry mood being evident. Factor 2-

Table 3
Correlation Coefficients for Overlapping Scales

MMPI scale
MCMI-II
scale SZD AVD DEP HST NAR ANT CPS PAG STY BDL PAR

1. Schizoid 73 79 58 -74 -70 07 42 49 64 -01 31

2. Avoidant 68 87 74 -63 -68 31 56 67 82 34 63
3. Dependent 18 42 56 -34 -41 -13 27 27 34 08 24
4. Histrionic -59 -56 -32 74 60 23 -01 -06 -35 42 09
5. Narcissistic -35 -48 -43 58 65 25 07 02 -23 26 16
6A. Antisocial -04 03 04 26 18 57 26 39 19 57 43
6B. Sadistic 03 -03 -06 21 27 38 26 39 16 50 39
7. Obsessive-Compulsive 01 -07 -16 -14 07 -43 -04 -17 -12 -40 -21
8A. Passive-Aggressive 31 48 52 -12 -28 46 57 70 56 63 64
8B. Self-Defeating 40 69 77 -35 -59 25 54 66 66 50 56
S. Schizotypal 68 84 69 -60 -61 39 55 70 86 32 69
C. Borderline 33 60 67 -22 -46 39 56 65 59 68 55
P. Paranoid 09 06 -05 08 25 38 40 37 27 37 50

Note. Decimal points were eliminated. Convergent validity coefficients are italicized. MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
(Hathaway & McKinley, 1983); MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (Millon, 1987); SZD = Schizoid; AVD = Avoidant; DEP =
Dependent; HST = Histrionic; NAR = Narcissistic; ANT = Antisocial; CPS = Obsessive-Compulsive; PAG = Passive-Aggressive; STY =
Schizotypal; BDL = Borderline; PAR = Paranoid.
14 JOSEPH T. McCANN

Table 4
Correlation Coefficients for Nonoverlapping Scales

MMPI scale
MCMI-I1
scale SZD AVD DEP HST NAR ANT CPS PAG STY BDL PAR

1. Schizoid 50 50 22 -47 -35 05 30 29 22 08 07

2. Avoidant 67 flO 64 -53 -38 24 39 56 60 37 57
3. Dependent 24 45 56 -37 -32 -03 28 34 33 32 32
4. Histrionic 65 -57 -39 66 53 06 -13 -21 -14 05 -04
5. Narcissistic -13 -19 -26 39 50 13 16 12 20 07 22
6A. Antisocial -11 00 -03 41 26 54 06 27 32 29 39
6B. Sadistic 09 15 06 18 09 25 26 35 27 32 30
7. Obsessive-Compulsive -13 -23 -18 -03 20 -32 06 -17 -16 -25 -21
8A. Passive-Aggressive 33 55 61 -07 -26 39 45 69 54 63 55
SB. Self-Defeating 23 46 61 -07 -46 20 29 51 40 48 38
S. Schizotypal 60 67 52 -36 -38 39 33 58 68 37 62
C. Borderline 26 47 58 02 -33 40 44 53 45 75 49
P. Paranoid 08 06 -07 11 30 34 27 28 34 26 35

Note. Decimal points were eliminated. Convergent validity coefficients are italicized. SZD= Schizoid; AVD = Avoidant; DEP = Dependent; HST =
Histrionic; NAR = Narcissistic; ANT = Antisocial; CPS = Obsessive-Compulsive; PAG = Passive-Aggressive; STY =- Schizotypal; BDL =
Borderline; PAR = Paranoid; MMPI Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983); MCMI-II = Millon Clinical
Multiaxial Invcntory-11 (Millon, 1987).

NOL in Table 9 bears some similarity to MMPI Factor 3-OL
with evidence of dependence and social anxiety. One difference
to note is that the MMPI Obsessive-Compulsive scale loads
highly on a factor associated with social anxiety and depen-
dence when nonoverlapping items are considered. Factor 3-
NOL contains positive loadings on the Schizoid, Avoidant, and
Dependent scales, with high negative loadings on the His-
trionic and Narcissistic scales. Similarities between this factor
and Factor 1 -OL in Table 8 are noted, except for the Schizotypal
scale which, in nonoverlapping form, is more closely related to
paranoid ideation found in Factor 1-NOL. Overall, Factor 3-
NOL appears to represent social isolation and anxious depen-
dence on the positive end, with gregariousness and self-center-
edness on the negative end.
Combined MCMI-II/MMPI Factor Analyses
Two combined factor analyses, which entered MCMI-II and
MMPI scores simultaneously into the same analysis, were con-
ducted for overlapping and nonoverlapping scales. As noted by
Morey and Levine (1988), such a set of computations allows for
the examination of method variance. That is, if the two mea-
sures possess idiosyncratic representations of the personality
disorder constructs, large factors will emerge with high load-
ings from one set of scales, and lower factor loadings will
emerge from the other scale set. Table 10 contains results from
the factor analysis for overlapping scales, whereas Table 11 pres-
ents the factor analysis results for nonoverlapping scales; only
loadings greater than .40 are reported. A four-factor solution
was obtained for both analyses, with 81.6% of the total variance
explained for overlapping scales, and 67.3% of the total vari-
ance explained for nonoverlapping scales. Several aspects of
these two analyses arc worthy of comment. For example, the
four overlapping factors are highly convergent with the four
factors derived from nonoverlapping scales. Factor 1-OL and
2-NOL are essentially equivalent, as are Factors 2-OL and 1-
NOL and Factors 3-OL and 3-NOL. Factors 4-OL and 4-NOL
are inverse equivalents of one another. Additionally, corre-
sponding scales from the two different instruments generally
load highly on the same factor. The only exception to this obser-
vation is the Obsessive-Compulsive scales which, in keeping
with previous analyses, show poor convergence. Consistent
with the results of Morey and Levine (1988), the present find-
ings reveal that no factors emerged for either overlapping or
nonoverlapping scales that appear to reflect method variance.
However, although nearly all MCMI-II and MMPI scales show
convergence, there appear to be some aspects of the personality
disorder constructs that are measured by one scale and not the
other. For example, although the Dependent scales load highly
on the same factor, the MCMI-II Dependent scale loads moder-
ately on an additional factor as well, whereas the corresponding
MMPI scale loads moderately on a different additional factor.
In general, this trend for several scales suggests that there may
be a large degree of congruence between Millon's theoretical
typology of personality disorders, as represented here by the
MCMI-II, and the DSM-IH-R, as represented by the MMPI,
as well as some idiosyncratic differences between the two mod-
els of personality pathology.
Discussion
In general, convergent and discriminant validity of each scale
was demonstrated. Contrary to previous findings, the MCMI-
II Antisocial scale correlated significantly with its MMPI coun-
terpart, demonstrated fair discriminant validity, and converged
with its corresponding MMPI scale in combined factor analy-
ses. Dividing Scale 6 appears to have served the purpose of
improving validity of the MCMI-II Antisocial scale as a mea-
sure of DSM-HI-R antisocial personality disorder, while pre-
serving Millon's description of the aggressive/sadistic style in
Scale 6A (Sadistic). Similarly, the combined-factor analysis re-
vealed greater convergence between the Passive-Aggres-
 PERSONALITY DISORDER SCALES 15

Table 5
Convergent/Discriminant Validity Comparisons

Overlapping scales" Nonoverlapping scales6

Scale Monomethod Heteromethod Monomethod Heteromethod

Schizoid
MCMI-II 9/12 7/10 9/12 8/10
MMPI 8/10 10/12 3/10 8/12
Avoidant
MCMI-II 10/12 9/10 11/12 10/10
MMPI 9/10 11/12 9/10 12/12
Dependent
MCMI-II 8/12 10/10 10/12 9/10
MMPI 2/10 6/12 3/10 7/12
Histrionic
MCMI-II 10/12 10/10 12/12 9/10
MMPI 9/10 12/12 9/10 12/12
Narcissistic
MCMI-II 8/12 9/10 8/12 8/10
MMPI 9/10 11/12 9/10 11/12
Antisocial
MCMHI 6/12 7/10 6/12 8/10
MMPI 6/10 10/12 4/10 9/12
Sadistic
MCMI-II
MMPI
Obsessive-Compulsive
MCMI-II 0/12 2/10 0/12 0/10
MMPI 0/10 0/12 0/10 0/12
Passive-Aggressive
MCMI-II 6/12 7/10 9/12 7/10
MMPI 4/10 8/12 4/10 10/12
Self-De (eating
MCMI-II
MMPI
Schizotypal
MCMI-II 10/12 9/10 11/12 5/10
MMPI 8/10 12/12 7/10 10/12
Borderline
MCMI-II 9/12 4/10 11/12 10/10
MMPI 10/10 9/12 10/10 12/12
Paranoid
MCMI-II 6/12 5/10 1/12 2/10
MMPI 2/10 3/12 0/10 1/12
Total
MCMI-II 82/132 79/110 88/132 76/1 10
MMPI 67/110 92/132 58/110 92/132

Note. Numerators represent the number of significant differences, whereas denominators represent the
total number of comparisons. MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (Millon, 1987);
MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983).
" Convergent validity coefficients from Table 3 were used in comparison.
" Convergent validity coefficients from Table 4 were used in comparison.

sive scales than was found with the original MCMI by Morey
and LeVine (1988). The Obsessive-Compulsive scales for both
instruments, however, failed to demonstrate convergent and
discriminant validity, suggesting that changes in the MCMI-II
have not resolved the problem of poor concordance between
these measures. Finally, validity of the MCMI-II Self-Defeating
and Sadistic scales was not assessed and should be examined in
future studies.
Results also suggest that common-item artifact affects spe-
cific personality disorder scales differently. Item overlap did not
appear to affect convergent/discriminant validity in general.
However, results from factor analyses of MCMI-II scales
showed the Passive-Aggressive, Self-Defeating, and Borderline
scales to be most affected by item overlap, because these three
scales loaded differently when nonoverlapping scales were
used. Additionally, the MCMI-II Passive-Aggressive and Bor-
derline scales improved most in their discriminant validity
when prototypic items were examined. For the MMPI, discrim-
inant validity was affected minimally by item overlap, except
for the Schizoid scale, which exhibited better discriminant valid-
ity in overlapping form. The convergent and discriminant valid-
ity of the MCMI-II Paranoid scale decreased when non-
16 JOSEPH T. McCANN

Table 6 Table 8
Factor Loadings of the MCMI-II Overlapping Factor Loadings of the MMPI Overlapping
Personality Disorder Scales Personality Disorder Scales

Factor Factor

MCMI-II scale 1-OL 2-OL 3-OL MMP1 scale 1-OL 2-OL 3-OL

1. Schizoid 81 -26 -27 Schizoid 87 33 -07

2. Avoidant 97 -01 04 Avoidant 83 30 44
3. Dependent 63 -34 -26 Dependent 48 14 76
4. Histrionic -34 73 31 Histrionic -95 03 -08
5. Narcissistic -31 89 04 Narcissistic -72 14 -60
6A. Antisocial 18 85 37 Antisocial -05 84 01
6B. Sadistic 07 86 16 Obsessive-Compulsive 20 52 52
7. Obsessive-Compulsive -08 15 -94 Passive-Aggressive 39 68 35
8A. Passive-Aggressive 67 sa 39 Schizotypal 68 60 27
8B. Self-Defeating 91 05 21 Borderline -26 49 70
S. Schizotypal 94 06 01 Paranoid 23 85 21
C. Borderline 81 33 36 Percentage of variance 52.9 19.3 9.6
P. Paranoid 26 85 -35
Percentage of variance 40.8 33.9 10.2 Note. Decimal points were eliminated. Factor loadings greater than .40
are italicized. MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
Note. Decimal points were eliminated. Factor loadings greater than .40 (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983).
are italicized. MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II
(Millon, 1987).

contains high loadings on the Schizoid, Avoidant, and Schizo-

overlapping items were used, whereas the MMPI Paranoid
scale exhibited rather poor discriminant validity in both over-
lapping and nonoverlapping forms. This finding supports
McCann's (1989) hypothesis that content of items from the
MCMI-II Paranoid scale more broadly samples personality
characteristics, such as moralistic and rigid patterns of thought,
which often accompany paranoid personality disorder.
Factor structure of the MCMI-II personality scales varied
somewhat as a function of item overlap. Nonoverlapping scales
yielded results that are consistent with many of Mi lion's dimen-
sions of personality (Millon, 1986a). For example, Factor 1 -NOL
typal scales, all of which represent Millon's detached dimen-
sion. Moreover, a high positive loading on the Dependent scale
and high negative loading by the Histrionic scale correspond to
the passive and active dependent styles, respectively. Factor 2-
NOL, with high positive loadings by the Narcissistic, Antiso-
cial, and Paranoid scales represent Millon's independent di-
mension. As noted earlier, Factor 3-NOL, with high positive
loadings on the Borderline and Passive-Aggressive scales and
negative loadings on the Obsessive-Compulsive scale, repre-
sent Millon's dysfunctional, active, and passive levels, respec-
tively, of the ambivalent style. What did not readily emerge from
the factor analysis was the discordant dimension (i.e., sadistic

Table 7
Factor Loadings of the MCMI-II Nonoverlapping
Personality Disorder Scales Table 9
Factor Loadings of the MMPI Nonoverlapping
Factor Personality Disorder Scales

MCMI-II scale 1-NOL 2-NOI. 3-NOL Factor

1. Schizoid 70 04 -14 MMPI scale 1-NOL 2-NOL 3-NOL

2. Avoidant 82 03 29
3. Dependent 69 -09 07 Schizoid 44 06 76
4. Histrionic -63 50 -02 Avoidant 37 54 66
5. Narcissistic -14 77 -14 Dependent 23 71 43
6A. Antisocial -10 72 37 Histrionic 10 -08 -89
6B. Sadistic -05 49 25 Narcissistic 23 -66 -56
7. Obsessive-Compulsive 21 14 -79 Antisocial 78 10 -13
8A. Passive-Aggressive 42 44 64 Obsessive-Compulsive 34 63 04
8B. Self-Defeating 32 -01 73 Passive-Aggressive 69 42 27
S. Schizotypal 73 06 36 Schizotypal 80 24 26
C. Borderline 36 35 68 Borderline 38 78 -04
P. Paranoid 22 81 -14 Paranoid 84 26 10
Percentage of variance 30.3 20.7 12.1 Percentage of variance 47.6 17.6 9.1

Note. Decimal points were eliminated. Factor loadings greater than .40 Note. Decimal points were eliminated. Factor loadings greater than .40
are italicized. MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (Mil- are italicized. MMPI - Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
Ion, 1987). (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983).
 PERSONALITY DISORDER SCALES 17

Table 10 IIl-R. Factor 1 -NOL in Table 9 accounts for the odd/eccentric

Combined Factor Analysis a/Overlapping Scales cluster of personality disorders, consisting of the schizoid, para-
noid, and schizotypal disorders. For the anxious/fearful cluster,
Factor
consisting of dependent, avoidant, passive-aggressive, and ob-
Scale 1-OL 2-OL 3-OL 4-OL sessive-compulsive disorders, Factor 2-NOL contains positive
loadings on all scales for disorders within the cluster. The dra-
Schizoid matic/emotional cluster was not well represented, however. Al-
MCMI-II 77 40
though Factor 3-NOL contains high negative loading on scales
MMPI 93
Avoidant for two (i.e., histrionic and narcissistic) of the four disorders in
MCMI-II 67 67 this cluster, the remaining two load highly on other factors.
MMPI 83 50 Overall, these results lend support to the construct validity of
Dependent each scale set in that factor structure for nonoverlapping scales
MCMI-II 73 -44
represents the respective model from which each set was de-
MMPI 40 79
Histrionic rived. That is, MCMI-II scales reflect Millon's theoretical di-
MCMI-II -74 55
MMPI -88
Narcissistic
Table 1 1
MCMI-II -47 79
MMPI -62 -51 Combined Factor Analysis of Nonoverlapping Scales
Antisocial
MCMI-II 80 42 Factor
MMPI 56 42
Sadistic Scale 1-NOL 2-NOL 3-NOL 4-NOL
MCMI-II 83
MMPI __ _ _ _ _ _ Schizoid
Obsessive-Compulsive MCMI-II 65
MCMI-II -91 MMPI 85
-
MMPI 53 43 Avoidant
Passive-Aggressive MCMI-II 41 76
MCMI-II 57 61 MMPI 55 74
MMPI 49 48 47 Dependent
Self-Defeating MCMI-II 52 42
MCMI-II 88 MMPI 78 41
MMPI _ _ _ _ _ _ Histrionic
Schizotypal MCMI-II -75 40
MCMI-II 68 60 MMPI 74
MMPI 76 43 Narcissistic
Borderline MCMI-II 72
MCMI-II 79 MMPI -54 54
MMPI 59 44 Antisocial
MCMI-II 70
Paranoid
MCMI-II 88 MMPI 57 -48
MMPI 42 60 Sadistic
MCMI-II 47
Percentage of variance 43.4 24.9 7.4 5.9
MMPI
Note . Decimal points have been eliminated. Only loadings greater than Obsessive-Compulsive
MCMI-II 84
or equal to .40 are reported. MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial
Inventory-II (Millon, 1 987); MMPI = Minnesota Mulliphasic Person- MMPI 52
ality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983). Passive-Aggressive
MCMI-II 72
MMPI 57 46 40
Self-Defeating
and self-defeating). The active-passive dimension for instru- MCMI-II 78
mental style of coping emerged for the dependent and ambiva- MMPI
Schizotypal
lent styles, but not for independent types, because the active-
MCMI-II 40 68
dependent (histrionic) and active-ambivalent (passive-aggres- MMPI 41 50 52
sive) types loaded in a direction opposite to their passive Borderline
counterpart. Millon (1 986a) notes that several personality styles MCMI-II 81
MMPI 79 ~ ~~
may progress into more dysfunctional levels of disturbance
Paranoid
in the schizotypal, borderline, and paranoid disorders; this MCMI-II 76
dysfunctional dimension was represented somewhat by MMPI 45 56
Factor 1-OL. Percentage of variance 36.1 17.3 8.1 5.8
In the same way, the factor structure of the MMPI scales
Nole. Decimal points have been eliminated. Only loadings greater than
varied as a function of item overlap. Nonoverlapping MMPI or equal to .40 are reported. MCMI-II = Millon Clinical Multiaxial
scales yielded a three-factor solution that was consistent with Inventory-II (Millon, 1987); MMPI = Minnesota Multiphasic Person-
two of the three personality-disorder clusters outlined in DSM- ality Inventory (Hathaway & McKinley, 1983).
18 JOSEPH T. McCANN
mensions, whereas MMPI scales correspond to DSM-III-R
clusters.
Although the present findings highlight improvements in per-
formance for some MCMI-II scales, they also suggest that the
issue of item overlap might be examined differently in future
studies. It would be interesting to explore how item overlap
affects operating characteristics for specific MCMI-1I scales,
rather than viewing item overlap as a weakness of the MCMI-II
in general. For example, several attempts have been made to
establish the diagnostic power of MCMI scales (Dubro,
Wetzler, & Kahn, 1988; Gibertini, Brandenburg, & Retzlaff,
1986; Widiger & Sanderson, 1987). In light of the present find-
ings, it would be useful to determine if operating characteristics
could be improved if prototypic item cutoffs are used for some
scales.
Another important finding that requires further exploration
is poor convergent and discriminant validity of the Obsessive-
Compulsive measures. Because MCMI-II and M MP1 personal-
ity disorder scales are closely tied to their respective models, the
MCMI-II Obsessive-Compulsive scale may assess components
of Millon's dimension of interpersonal ambivalence, whereas its
MMPI counterpart may assess such aspects of the disorder as
constricted affect, conscientiousness, and perfectionism, which
are outlined in DSM-III-R. More information is needed to
determine whether this hypothesis is true or whether other fac-
tors can account for the lack of congruence.
Finally, although the present findings shed some light on the
effects of item overlap and scale validity, they require cross-vali-
dation with other samples. The use of psychiatric inpatients
tends to include those individuals whose self-reports are in-
fluenced by affective states; nevertheless, patients in the present
sample were selected on the basis of an Axis II diagnosis. Addi-
tionally, use of other methods such as structured interviews and
collateral ratings of personality would be extremely useful in
creating a more robust multitrait-multimethod design.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (1980). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of menial disorders. (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: Author.
American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical
manual of mental disorders. (3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.
Choca, J., Peterson, C, & Shanley, L. (1986). Factor analysis of the
Millon clinical multiaxial inventory. Journal of Consulting and Clini-
cal Psychology, 54, 253-255.
Dubro, A. F, Wetzler, S., & Kahn, M. W (1988). A comparison ofthree
self-report questionnaires for the diagnosis of DSM-III personality
disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 2, 256-266.
Gibertini, M., Brandenburg, N. A, & Retzlaff, P D. (1986). Theoperat-
ing characteristics of the Millon clinical multiaxial inventory. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 50, 554-567.
Graham, J. R. (1987). The MMPI: A practical guide (2nd ed.). New
York: Oxford University Press.
Hathaway, S. R, & McKinley, J. C. (1983). The Minnesota Multiphasic
Personality Inventory manual. New York: Psychological Corpora-
tion.
Hays, R. (1986). MTMMBAS: A program for analyzing multitrait-
multimethod matrices. Bulletin of the Society of Psychologists in Ad-
dictive Behaviors, 10, 333-344.
McCann. J. T. (1989). MMPI personality disorder scales and the
MCMI: Concurrent validity. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45, 365-
369.
Millon, T. (1981). Disorders of personality: DSM-HI: Axis II. New
York: Wiley.
Millon, T. (1983). MillonClinical Muttiaxial Invenlorymanua/(3rded).
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Millon, T. (1985). The MCMI providesa good assessment of DSM-III
disorders: The MCMI-II will prove even better. Journal of Personal-
ity Assessment, 49, 379-391.
Millon, T. (I986a). A theoretical derivation of pathological personali-
ties. InT. Millon &G. L. Klerman (Eds.), Contemporary directions in
psychopaihology: Toward the DSM-iy (pp. 629-669). New York:
Guilford Press.
Millon, T. (1986b). The MCMI and DSM-III: Further commentaries.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 205-207.
Millon, T. (1987). Manual for the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-
11 (MCMI-II). Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Morey, L. C. (1986). A comparison ofthree personality disorder assess-
ment approaches. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral As-
sessment, 8, 25-30.
Morey, L. C, Blashfield, R. K., Webb, W W, & Jewell, J. (1988). MMPI
scales for DSM-III personality disorders: A preliminary study. Jour-
nal of Clinical Psychology, 44, 47-50.
Morey, L. C.. & LeVine, D. J. (1988). A multitrait-multimethod examina-
tion of Minnesota multiphasic personality inventory (MMPI) and
Millon clinical multiaxial inventory (MCMI). Journal ofPsychopa-
thology and Behavioral Assessment. 10, 333-334.
Morey, L. C, Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI scales
for DSM-III personality disorders: Their derivation and correlates.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 245-256.
Reich, J. H. (1987). Instruments measuring DSM-III and DSM-III-R
personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, I, 220-240.
Reich, J. H. (1989). Update on instruments to measure DSM-III and
DSM-III-R personality disorders. Journal of Nervous and Mental
Disease. 177, 366-370.
RetzlafT, P. D., & Gibertini, M. (1987). Factor structure of the MCMI
basic personality scales and common-item artifact. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 51, 588-594.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation
matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245-251.
Streiner, D. L., & Miller, H. R. (1988). Validity of the MMPI scales for
DSM-III personality disorders: Whatare they measuring? Journalof
Personality Disorders, 2, 238-242.
Streiner, D. L., & Miller, H. R. (1989). The MCMI-II: How much better
than the MCMI? Journal of Personality Assessment, 53, 81-84.
Widiger, T. A., & Frances, A. (1987). Interviews and inventories for the
measurement of personality disorders. Clinical Psychology Review,
7, 49-75.
Widiger, T. A., & Sanderson, C. (1987). The convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of the MCMI as a measure of the DSM-III personality
disorders. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51, 228-242.
Widiger, T. A., Williams, J. B. W, Spitzer, R. L., & Frances, A. (1985).
The MCMI as a measure of DSM-III. Journalof Personality Assess-
ment, 49, 366-378.
Widiger, T. A., Williams, J. B. W, Spitzer, R. L., & Frances, A. (1986).
The MCMI and DSM-III: A brief rejoinder to Millon (1985). Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 50, 198-204.
Received October 2,1989
Revision received April 3,1990
Accepted April 27,1990