Tables for "The German Language MMPI-3: Psychometric Evaluation of a Developmental Translation Using a Single-Group Bilingual Study Design"

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–3 (MMPI-3; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020) describes individual differences in maladaptive traits across hierarchical scale sets and is a standard instrument used in research and applied settings. As part of a larger adaptation, standardization and validation procedure, this study employed a single-group bilingual design (N = 35) to assess translation quality of the German MMPI-3 (Engel & Proyer, in prep.) in comparison to the English original. Following international test adaptation guidelines (Afonso et al., 2024; Butcher, 1996; International Test Commission, 2017), we used a classical test theory approach to evaluate item- and scale-level equivalency, further informing item revisions. Analyses included a criterion approach by Afonso et al. (2024), coefficients for item endorsement, discriminant functioning, reliability, intraclass correlations and inspection of mean level differences. Results indicated comparable psychometric item functioning between versions and that 12 items (3.6% of all 335 items) needed revision. Limitations and implications are discussed.

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–3 (MMPI-3; Ben-Porath & Tellegen, 2020) describes individual differences in maladaptive traits across hierarchical scale sets and is a standard instrument used in research and applied settings. As part of a larger adaptation, standardization and validation procedure, this study employed a single-group bilingual design (N = 35) to assess translation quality of the German MMPI-3 (Engel & Proyer, in prep.) in comparison to the English original. Following international test adaptation guidelines (Afonso et al., 2024; Butcher, 1996; International Test Commission, 2017), we used a classical test theory approach to evaluate item- and scale-level equivalency, further informing item revisions. Analyses included a criterion approach by Afonso et al. (2024), coefficients for item endorsement, discriminant functioning, reliability, intraclass correlations and inspection of mean level differences. Results indicated comparable psychometric item functioning between versions and that 12 items (3.6% of all 335 items) needed revision. Limitations and implications are discussed.