MMPI-2 Scores as a Predictor of Outcomes on the Phase II Profile Integrity Inventory

Many personality inventories have been developed and used for clinical assessment purposes as well as pre-employment screening devices. Examples include the Woodworth Personal Data Sheet, the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), the Sixteen Personality Factor Questionnaire (16PF), and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI, MMPI-2) (Kaplan & Saccuzzo, 1993). Sackett and Wanek (1996) reviewed the use of measures of honesty, integrity, conscientiousness, dependability, trustworthiness, and reliability for personnel selection, and found that the criterion-related validity studies are well represented. Using this as a basis, Murray (2000) completed a construct validation study of the Phase II Profile Integrity Inventory, which provided compelling results for its valid use in pre-employment and promotion screening purposes. This study investigated the factorial validity of the Phase II Profile Integrity Inventory by assessing the predictive power of the MMPI-2 scores for outcomes on the Phase II Profile Integrity Inventory using the statistical technique of structural equation modeling, a confirmatory factor analysis procedure. Several goodness-of-fit indices indicate that MMPI-2's Anti-social Practices, Cynicism, and Work Interference Scales are a viable predictor of outcomes on the Phase II Profile's overall confidence scale score. In addition to the equation modeling, a hierarchical cluster analysis was used to examine the underlying relationships of constructs measured by the Phase II Profile Integrity Inventory, yielding cluster structures that are similar to the results of a previous principal components analysis. Analysis of variance statistics reflect that there are gender differences (for this college sample) on the overall confidence scale scores, which is derived from the Phase II Profile. Findings indicate that the use of the Phase II Profile with this younger, inexperienced age group (mean age = 19.5 years) could be inappropriate. It may be that employers have differing screening needs and while one employer may want a full clinical picture of the applicant another may want to focus on only a partial picture of the applicant. If this is true, many employers and human resource specialists may benefit by adding this 117-item inventory to their set of tools.