EVALUATING THE SIMILARITY OF MMPI-2 AND MMPI PROFILES - REPLY

We review issues that have arisen in exchanges with Dahlstrom and Hump hrey (Dahlstrom & Humphrey, 1996; Humphrey & Dahlstrom, 1995) about as sessing the comparability of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inv entory-2 (MMPI-2) and the MMPI. We point out the limitations of Q corr elations (without contending that D-2 is ''the only legitimate functio n of profile comparability,'' as Dahlstrom and Humphrey, 1996, p. 350, claim we do), and explain why Dahlstrom and Humphrey's (1996) new e-c orrelational results, correctly interpreted, are consistent with our o wn previous observations and conclusions. We stress again the importan ce of both overall profile elevation and profile ''definition'' in mak ing code-type assignments. Nonrestrictive code types ignore these prof ile characteristics, and their use needlessly lowers MMPI-2/MMPI code- type congruences and raises the incidence of profile misinterpretation s. Our recommendation of well-defined MMPI-2 code types stands.