ust include familiarity with structural and ecological aspects of collectivity. Despite restandardization of the MMPI, as with the MMPI-2, interpretations of group differences must also include cultural and ethnic relevance of these differences, such as tendencies toward collectivity.
In addition to the possibility of the test being biased against a minority ethnic group, there are differences in the definition of ethnicity or the degree that a minority individual identifies with their ethnic heritage. Effects of ethnic identification are not clear. Some studies show that a stronger ethnic identification results in increased psychological functioning, however, the opposite has also been demonstrated in cases where a lessor identification with ethnic heritage is associated with increased depression. Cultural differences also affect test results when measuring psychopathology. Again it is pointed out that ethnic groups tend to be more collectivist in orientation, compared to the individualism approach. For example, Mexicans and other ethnic minority groups favor attending to others, interpersonal harmony, and fitting in, which may affect test outcomes and interpretations (Hall, Bansal, & Lopez, 1999).
Some have found the MMPI-2 to be culturally biased and others have found that it is not. Differences in findings may be due in part to the fact that the same measures of extra-test behaviors are not consistent in all studies. In addition, this extra-test criteria may not be reliable or valid or may not be culturally sensitive. The MMPI/MMPI-2 has been compared with the use of different ethnic groups, to determine if scores are similar in similar settings. For example, studies of different cultures in psychiatric inpatient settings, would assume that all patients had similar degrees of psychopathology since they were all hospitalized. Thus it would be concluded that ethnicity would be the cause of differences in clinical sc...