Frequently Asked Questions about the Minnesota Reports

Expand all

What is the Minnesota Report?

The Minnesota Report is a computer based interpretation system for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A for psychologists. The Minnesota Report is essentially an "electronic textbook" or resource guide that provides the most likely test interpretations for a particular set of MMPI-2 or MMPI-A scores in a given setting.

Why are there different settings for the Minnesota Report? Do the reports differ for the various settings? What information is used to develop different personality interpretations?

There are setting specific versions of the Minnesota Report for several reasons:

  • The nature and goals of a psychological evaluation differ according to the reason for referral; for example, in clinical settings clinical diagnosis and treatment potential are important considerations while these are not goals in personnel or forensic settings.
  • The client is likely to approach the assessment task very differently in each of these different settings. Thus, the assessment of protocol validity differs according to setting.
  • The typical performance on the scales and indices of the MMPI-2/MMPI-A differ somewhat by type of application. Therefore, the base rates of scores vary according to setting. More specifically, interpretations can be made for MMPI scores if the frequency of typical performance is included in the analysis. For example in correctional facilities there is a high rate of Pd scale elevations and in medical settings Hs and Hy are more prominent.
  • The reports will vary in terms of information provided, relative performance on the different indices, and research information available for each setting. In addition, different scale-behavioral correlates can be found in different settings. For example, the association between the Pd and Sc scales and aggressive acting out behavior are more prominent in correctional settings than in medical settings.

What are the applied psychology settings in which the Minnesota Report is used?

1) The Minnesota Report: Adult Clinical System-Revised, 4th Edition Revised 2005
The Minnesota Report has been an effective, efficient diagnostic and treatment planning tool for over 28 years. The most current system is the 4th edition that was updated in 2005. The Adult Clinical System provides clinicians with assessment information for a variety of mental health settings.
This comprehensive interpretive report series provides clinicians with the information for efficient diagnostic confirmation and effective treatment planning for the following mental health settings:

Cardinal features

  • Profile frequency and profile stability narrative sections give setting-specific comparative data, helping to place the client's profile in the right perspective for treatment planning.
  • A detailed summary of likely behavioral correlates are provided.
  • Response percentages for each scale help the clinician understand the impact of item omissions for a more accurate interpretation.
  • The comprehensive interpretive report series includes base rate information 40,000 mental health cases.
  • Critical item response percentages help put client endorsements in the appropriate context.

Report Format
The reports are tailored for seven different mental health settings with the following narrative sections to help clinicians better understand, compare, and evaluate an individual's profile:

  • Profile Validity
  • Symptomatic Patterns
  • Profile Frequency
  • Profile Stability
  • Interpersonal Relations
  • Diagnostic Considerations
  • Treatment Considerations

The MMPI-2 Adult Clinical System reports also include the following:

  • Validity Pattern Profile (graph)
  • Profile (graph)
  • Content Scales Profile (graph)
  • Critical Items
  • Omitted Items
  • Item Responses

2) The MMPI-2 Minnesota Report Revised Personnel System (3rd Edition) contains two separate reports:

A. Revised Personnel Interpretive Report

The following MMPI-2 scales are included in the report:

  • Validity and Clinical Scales - profiled
  • Validity Pattern Profile (graph)
  • Superlative Self-Presentation Subscales
  • Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes and Social Introversion subscales)
  • Content Scales - profiled
  • Content Component Scales
  • Supplementary Scales

In addition, the report compares the profile data to data from occupation-specific research samples and provides occupation-specific mean profiles. The occupations that are considered in the interpretation are:

The narrative report for occupations not listed above contains the following sections: Profile Validity, Personal Adjustment, Interpersonal Relations, Profile Frequency, Contemporary Personnel Base Rate Information, Profile Stability, Possible Employment Problems, Content Themes, and Work Dysfunction Items.

B. Revised Adjustment Rating Report

The Adjustment Rating Report is a second option in the Personnel System. Instead of the narrative summary, it provides a rating of the applicant on five important work-related dimensions:

  • Openness to Evaluation
  • Social Facility
  • Addiction Potential
  • Stress Tolerance
  • Overall Adjustment

It incorporates the following MMPI-2 scales:

  • Validity and Clinical Scales
  • Superlative Self-Presentation Subscales
  • Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes subscales and Social Introversion subscales)
  • Content Scales
  • Content Component Scales
  • Supplementary Scales

The Adjustment Rating Report is available for the following occupations:

3) The MMPI-2 The Minnesota Report for Forensic Settings

The Minnesota Report for Forensic Settings includes the following MMPI-2 scales:

  • Validity and Clinical Scales - profiled
  • Superlative Self-Presentation Subscales
  • Content Scales - profiled
  • Content Component Scales
  • Supplementary Scales (includes the PSY-5 Scales)

Lists of omitted items and Gass Head Injury items (Personal Injury Neurological setting only) are also provided.

In addition, this report series is customized for six forensic settings. Each of the reports provides an objective narrative assessment of your client's responses and compares the profile data to data from setting-specific research samples. Frequency of MMPI-2 patterns in large samples of forensic cases provide base rate comparisons. The settings are:

The narrative includes the following sections: Profile Validity, Symptomatic Patterns, Profile Frequency, Profile Stability, Interpersonal Relations, Mental Health Considerations, and Setting-Specific Considerations.

4) The Minnesota Report: Adolescent Interpretive System The Second Edition of this Report was revised by James N. Butcher and Carolyn Williams in 2007. This report provides a comprehensive psychological picture of the adolescent. It presents the following MMPI-A scales:

  • Validity and Clinical Scales - profiled
  • Clinical Subscales (Harris-Lingoes and social introversion subscales)
  • Content Scales - profiled
  • Supplementary Scales - profiled
  • PSY-5 Scales-- profiled
  • Item-level indicators
  • List of omitted items

In addition, the report provides an objective narrative assessment of the adolescent's responses and compares the profile data to data from other samples. The settings that are considered in the interpretation are:

The narrative report contains the following sections: Validity Considerations, Symptomatic Behavior, Interpersonal Relations, Behavioral Stability, Diagnostic Considerations, and Treatment Considerations.

Is there an educational or reading level requirement that a client should have for the Minnesota Report to be an appropriate interpretive evaluation?

The reading level requirement for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A (sixth grade) applies equally well with the Minnesota Report.
However, the Minnesota Report includes some narrative statements that are triggered by education level. Thus, clients at a lower level of education will likely obtain a somewhat different narrative report than those at higher levels of education.

Are there different norms used for the different settings?

There are different norms used for the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A. The normative sample of the MMPI-2 consists of 2,600 individuals, age 18 or older, who were selected as a representative sample of Americans.

The three Minnesota Reports for adults (Adult Clinical System, Forensic, and Personnel Reports use the same normative sample. However, in some settings (Personnel) data on specific personnel applications are also provided. In all settings, there are specific frequency data provided to aid in the interpretation of the report by providing an empirical perspective with which to compare profiles.

The MMPI-A norms that are used for adolescents were obtained on a national sample of adolescents between 14-18 years of age. There were 805 boys and 815 girls from 8 regions of the United States.

Are the Minnesota Reports based upon gender specific or non-gendered norms?

The MMPI-2 and MMPI-A norms are based upon gender-specific T scores because gender differences occur on several scales. The Minnesota Reports use gender specific T scores for the narrative sections.

Do any of the Minnesota Reports contain non-gendered norms?

Because psychologists in personnel or forensic settings may need information about non-gendered T scores, they are provided in the Revised Personnel System, 3rd Edition and the Reports for Forensic Settings. However, interpretations in the narrative sections of these two Minnesota Reports are based on gendered T scores, as is the classification system in the Adjustment Rating Report of the Revised Personnel System.

Has the Minnesota Report been shown to be valid in research?

The Minnesota Report Adult Clinical System has been used widely since its publication in 1982. Moreland and Onstad (1985) have shown that the report accurately depicted client's personality characteristics and clinical problems. These researchers had clinicians rate Minnesota Report narratives with control reports finding that the client reports were rated more accurate than the control reports. In a more comprehensive comparative study, Eyde et al. (1987, 1991) and Fishburne et al. (1988) reported on an extensive evaluation of seven computer-based MMPI reports. The MMPI answer sheets for six patients three of whom were black and three white, were submitted to seven commercial computerized reporting services. The computer-based reports were then compared for accuracy. The reports were separated into their component statements and coded, the statements from the various reports were intermixed, and clinicians familiar with the cases were asked to rate the accuracy of the statements. The Minnesota Report was consistently found to be the most accurate of the seven MMPI clinical reports compared in the study. In an other study of the capability of the Minnesota Report at detecting malingered test protocols, Shores and Carstairs, (1998) found that the Minnesota Report printouts successfully detected fake-bad protocols 100% of the time and fake-good profiles 94% of the time. The effectiveness of the Minnesota Clinical Report has also been evaluated in international clinical applications. Butcher, Berah, et al. (1998) evaluated the utility of the Minnesota Report in Australia, Norway, France, and the United States. Clients in diverse mental health settings were computer evaluated with the MMPI-2 (translated versions were used in Norway and France ) and the answer sheets were scored and interpreted by the Minnesota Report. The clinicians were provided a printout of their client's protocol and asked to rate the accuracy the various components of the report at depicting the problems of the patient. The clinicians participating in the study were asked to rate the information provided by each MMPI-2 narrative using the following descriptors: Insufficient, Some, Adequate, More than Adequate, and Extensive. The reports were thought be highly accurate. (Recent discussions of the validity of computer reports can be found in Butcher, Perry & Dean, 2009; Williams & Weed, 2004)


  • Butcher, J. N., Berah, E., Ellertsen, B., Miach, P., Lim, J., Nezami, E., Pancheri, P., Derksen, J. & Almagor, M. (1998). Objective Personality Assessment: Computer-based MMPI-2 Interpretation in International Clinical Settings. In C. Belar (Ed). Comprehensive clinical psychology: Sociocultural and individual differences. New York: Elsevier. (pp 277-312)
  • Butcher, J. N., Perry, J. & Dean, B. L. (2009). Computer Based Assessment. In J. N. Butcher (Ed). Oxford Handbook of Personality Assessment. (pp. 163-182). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Eyde, L., Kowal, D., & Fishburne, J. (1991). In T. B. Gutkin & S. L. Wise (Eds.), The computer and the decision-making process (pp. 75-123). Hillsdale , NJ : LEA Press.
  • Fishburne, J., Eyde, L., & Kowal, D. (1988). Computer-based test interpretations of the MMPI with neurologically impaired patients. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Atlanta .
  • Moreland, K. L., & Onstad, J. (1985, March). Validity of the Minnesota Clinical Report I. MENTAL health outpatients. Paper presented at the 20th annual symposium on recent developments in the use of the MMPI, Honolulu .
  • Shores, A. & Carstairs, J. R. (1998). Accuracy of the MMPI-2 computerized Minnesota Report in identifying fake-good and fake-bad response sets. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 101-106.
  • Williams, J. E., & Weed, N. C. (2004). Review of computer-based test interpretation software for the MMPI-2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 83 , 78-83.

Has the Minnesota Report been translated and adapted in another language and culture?

Yes, the narrative report for the Clinical setting was translated into Dutch and made available in 2006 by the Dutch distributor PEN in Nijmegen. The translated version has been well accepted for interpreting protocols of clients by psychologists in Holland and Belgium.

Can the Minnesota Report computer printout serve as a complete and independent psychological report on a client?

No, as noted on each report, the statements contained in the narrative represent a professional-to-professional consultation and do not serve as an independent or stand alone report. The statements represent a "best estimate" or the most likely write-up for a given profile pattern.

The narrative report is based on objectively derived scale indices and scale interpretations that have been developed in diverse groups of patients. The computer simply references the extensive research literature on the MMPI-2 or MMPI-A scores and indexes, evaluates the particular pattern of scores that a client produces, and locates in the data base the most pertinent personality and symptomatic information from the research literature. This MMPI-2 or MMPI-A interpretation can serve as a useful source of hypotheses about clients.

How are Minnesota Report narratives used in clinical evaluations?

The practitioner is encouraged to review the narratives and the particular scores of the client and determine if the protocol is an appropriate match for the client. The narrative descriptions are considered to be important hypotheses to incorporate into the client's report and used in the case evaluation. In many cases, the narrative report will provide a valuable "second opinion" about the essential features of the patient in the clinical evaluation.

Are the interpretations in the Minnesota Reports actuarial statements?

The information contained in the interpretive reports are data-based personality descriptions. The personality symptoms and descriptions have been reported in the research literature in numerous studies.

How does the Minnesota Report deal with invalid records?

The Minnesota Reports are designed to interpret only protocols that meet well-established validity criteria. Invalid protocols are dealt with in two ways: Extremely elevated and clearly invalid records are not interpreted but the scores are provided on profile sheets clearly marked INVALID. Protocols that are possibly invalid (e.g. overly defensive or exaggerated) are discussed in a section in the report called Validity Considerations. The utility of the particular evaluation is described and estimated contingent upon the level of performance on all the validity scales. The cut-offs for different settings will vary depending upon the research available.

Can the Minnesota Report be used in situations where the client has been administered the test in uncontrolled settings, such as taking the MMPI-2 or MMPI-A at home?

No. The MMPI-2 or MMPI-A should only be completed in a controlled environment and monitored in order to assure that the client has taken the test under appropriate conditions. Therefore, the results of the Minnesota Report may be invalid in this situation.

Should the patient be given a copy of his/her Minnesota Report to keep for their records?

The information contained in these reports should be used only by trained and qualified test interpreters. The information in the reports is technical and was developed to aid professional interpretation. They were not designed or intended to be provided directly to clients. The reports contain trade secrets and are not to be released in response to requests under HIPAA (or any other data disclosure law that exempts trade-secret information from release). Further, release in response to litigation discovery demands should be made only in accordance with profession's ethical guidelines and under an appropriate protective order.

How are the MMPI-2/MMPI-A scales or variables selected for inclusion into the Minnesota Report? Why are some MMPI-2 scales, such as the Fake Bad Scale (FBS; renamed Symptom Validity Scale or SVS in 2007) and the Restructured Clinical Scales not includ

Scales are included in the Minnesota Reports based on research and clinical experience of the system authors with the MMPI measures. Scales must have a sufficient research base and an established interpretive contribution before I use them to make predictions about an individual's mental health status. In my opinion, the current suggested interpretive guidelines for the FBS (aka SVS) and the RC Scales are problematic for several reasons, including:

Fake Bad Scale (aka Symptom Validity Scale). This measure was not included in the Minnesota Report because it tends to over predict malingering (See discussions by Arbisi & Butcher, 2004; Bury & Bagby, 2002; Butcher, Arbisi, Atlis, & McNulty, 2003; Butcher, Gass, Cumella, Kally & Williams, 2008; Gass, Williams, Cumella, Butcher, & Kally, 2010; Pope, Butcher & Seelen, 2006; Rogers , 2003; Williams, Butcher, Gass, Cumella, & Kally, 2009). The FBS (SVS) is comprised of a large number of actual physical symptoms that appear on clinical scales such as Hs and Hy and on the content scale HEA. Consequently, people accurately reporting their physical problems or somatoform symptoms (e.g., headaches; hot flashes) on the MMPI-2 will likely obtain elevated scores on the FBS (SVS) and risk being mislabeled as malingerers.


  • Arbisi, P. A. & Butcher, J. N. (2004). Failure of the FBS to predict malingering of somatic symptoms: Response to critiques by Greve and Bianchini and Lees Haley and Fox. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology. Vol 19 (3), 341-345.
  • Arbisi, P. A. & Butcher, J. N. (2004). Psychometric perspectives on detection of malingering of pain: The use of the MMPI-2. The Clinical Journal of Pain, 20, 383-398. Bury, A. S., & Bagby, R. M. (2002). The detection of feigned uncoached and coached posttraumatic stress disorder with the MMPI-2 in a sample of workplace accident victims. Psychological Assessment. Vol 14(4), 472-484.
  • Butcher, J. N., Arbisi, P. A., Atlis, M., & McNulty, J. (2003). The construct validity of the Lees-Haley Fake Bad Scale (FBS): Does this scale measure malingering and feigned emotional distress? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychiatry.18, 473-485.
  • Butcher, J. N., Gass, C. S., Cumella, E., Kally, Z. & Williams, C. L. (2008). Potential for bias in MMPI-2 assessments using The Fake Bad Scale (FBS). Psychological Injury and the Law, 1, 191-209
  • Gass, C. S., Williams, C. L., Cumella, E., Butcher, J. N. & Kally, Z. (2010). Ambiguous measures of unknown constructs: The MMPI-2 Fake Bad Scale (aka Symptom Validity Scale, FBS, FBS-r). Psychological Injury and the Law, Published on line: 22 January, 2010. DOI 10.1007/s 12207-009-9063-2
  • Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court (3rd edition). Washington D.C. : American Psychological Association.
  • Williams, C. L., Butcher, J. N., Gass, C. S., Cumella, E., & Kally, Z.(2009). Inaccuracies about the MMPI-2 fake bad scale in the reply by Ben-Porath, Greve, Bianchini, and Kaufmann (2009). Psychological Injury and Law, 2, 182-197.

The Restructured Clinical Scales or RC scales

The RC Scales, created by Tellegen and first reported in Tellegen et al. (2003), were designed to capture major distinctive core components of the clinical scales. However, the RC scales are controversial in design and construction (see discussions by Butcher, 2005; Caldwell, 2006; Gordon, 2006; Nichols, 2005; Ranson, Nichols, Rouse & Harrington, 2009; Rogers & Sewell, 2006). The RC scales are more closely associated with existing, long-standing MMPI-2 content-based scales than the empirically derived Clinical Scales (Greene, Rouse, Butcher, Nichols & Williams, 2009; Rouse, Greene, Butcher, Nichols & Williams, 2008). Given that, they are inadequate replacements for the Clinical Scales, nor do they provide interpretive refinements that are not already available in the MMPI-2 measures used in the Minnesota Reports.

In addition, the RC scales have been shown to have low sensitivity to psychopathology in a number of settings (e.g., Binford, & Liljequist, 2008; Cumella, Kally, & Butcher, 2009; Gucker, Kreuch, & Butcher, 2009, McCullaugh, Pizitz, Stolberg & Kropp, 2009; Megargee, 2006; Wallace & Liljequist, 2005).


  • Binford, A. & Liljequist, L (2008). Behavioral Correlates of Selected MMPI-2 Clinical, Content, and Restructured Clinical Scales Journal of Personality Assessessment, 90, 608 - 614
  • Butcher, J. N. (Ed.) (2005). MMPI-2: A practitioner's guide. Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
  • Butcher, J. N. (2011). MMPI-2: A beginner's guide (Third Edition). Washington DC : The American Psychological Association.
  • Caldwell, A. B. (2006). Maximal measurement or meaningful measurement: The interpretive challenges of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 193-201.
  • Cumella, E., Kally, Z. & Butcher, J. N. (2009, March). MMPI-2 Restructured (RC) Scales with Eating Disorder Patients. Society for Personality Assessment, Chicago, Ill.
  • Gordon, R. M. (2006). False assumptions about psychopathology, hysteria and the MMPI-2 restructured clinical scales. Psychological Reports, 98, 870-872.
  • Greene, R. L., Rouse, S. V., Butcher, J. N., Nichols, D. S., & Williams, C. L. (2009). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales and Redundancy: Response to Tellegen, Ben-Porath, and Sellbom. Journal of Personality Assessment, 91(3), 1-5.
  • Gucker, D. K., Kreuch, T. & Butcher, J. N. (2009, March). Insensitivity of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales. Society for Personality Assessment, Chicago, Ill.
  • McCullaugh, J. M., Pizitz, T. D., Stolberg, R. & Kropp, J. (2009, March). A comparison study between the MMPI-2-RF profiles of convicted stalkers. Society for Personality Assessment, Chicago, Ill.
  • Megargee, E. I. (2006). Using the MMPI-2 in criminal justice and correctional settings. Minnapolis, MN.: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Nichols, D. S. (2005, March). The MMPI-2: Contemporary and Perennial Issues . Workshop given at the Midwinter Meeting of the Society for Personality Assessment. Chicago , Ill.
  • Pope, K. S., Butcher, J. N., & Seelen, J. (2006). The MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A in Court (3rd edition). Washington D.C. : American Psychological Association.
  • Ranson, M., Nichols, D. S., Rouse, S. V. & Harrington, J. (2009). Changing or Replacing an Established Personality Assessment Standard: Issues, Goals, and Problems, with Special Reference to Recent Developments in the MMPI-2. In J. N. Butcher (2009). Handbook of personality assessment. (112-139). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Rogers, R., & Sewell, K.W. (2006). MMPI-2 at the crossroads: Aging technology or radical retrofitting? Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 175-78
  • Rouse, S. V., Greene, R. L, Butcher, J. N., Nichols, D. S. & Williams, C. L (2008). What do the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical Scales reliably measure? Answers from multiple research settings. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 435-442.
  • Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y.S., Graham, J.R., Arbisi, P.A., & Bagby, R.M. (2005). Susceptibility of the MMPI-2 Clinical, Restructured Clinical (RC), and Content Scales to overreporting and underreporting. Assessment, 12, 79-85.
  • Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham, J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). The MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Development, Validation, and Interpretation . Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
  • Wallace, A., & Liljequist, L. (2005). A comparison of the correlational structures and elevation patterns of the MMPI-2 Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales. Assessment, 12, 290-294.

Does the Minnesota Report use non-K corrected scores for interpretations?

Some research has questioned the use of K corrected T scores in interpretation (Barthlow, Graham, Ben-Porath, Tellegen & McNulty, 2002). With the development of the K scale as a means of detecting and correcting for defensiveness on the MMPI-2 (Meehl & Hathaway, 1946) K corrected T scores have been used in most clinical applications and research on the MMPI. Although, the K correction has added little to the discrimination of psychological problems it has continued to be used-even after the revision of the test in 1989 (Butcher, et al., 1989) because the research base on the clinical scales has largely incorporated K corrected scores. Even though several authors have suggested that researchers build a non K corrected data base in future research (Butcher & Tellegen, 1978; Butcher, Graham, & Ben-Porath, 1995) it is my view that the research on non K corrected scores has not provided a sufficient data base to replace the K corrected scales in interpretation. The Minnesota Report uses K corrected scores for interpretation because of their extensive data base.


  • Barthlow, D. L., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., & McNulty, J. L. (2002). The appropriateness of the MMPI-2 K correction. Assessment. Vol 9(3) , 219-229.
  • Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W.G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2): Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis : University of Minnesota Press.
  • Butcher, J. N., & Tellegen, A. (1978). MMPI research: Methodological problems and some current issues. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 620-628.
  • Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). Methodological problems and issues in MMPI/MMPI-2/MMPI-A research. Psychological Assessment, 7, 320-329.
  • Meehl, P.E., & Hathaway, S.R. (1946). The K factor as a suppressor variable in the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30 , 525 - 564.

Has the Minnesota Report been tested in cross-cultural settings?

The Minnesota Report has been shown to be effectively transportable to other countries in several studies. Shores and Carstairs (1998), using the American norms for the MMPI-2, reported that the Minnesota Report was effective at identifying fake good and fake bad response patterns in Australia. A number of other studies have found the narrative reports of the Minnesota Report (for both the MMPI-2 and MMPI-A) to provide valuable interpretive hypotheses on patients in Australia, Belgium, China, Holland, Korea, Norway, Italy, Israel, France, Greece, and Russia.


  • Berah, E., Butcher, J., Miach, P., Bolza, J., Colman, S. & McAsey, P. (1993). Computer-based interpretation of the MMPI-2: An Australian evaluation of the Minnesota Report. Paper presented at the Australian Psychological Association Meetings, Melbourne, October.
  • Berah, E., Miach, P. & Butcher, J. N. (1995, June). The MMPI-2 downunder: Validation of computer-based interpretive reports in Australia. Paper given at the 15th International Conference on Personality Assessment. Haifa, Israel.
  • Butcher, J. N., Derksen, J., Sloore, H., & Sirigatti, S. (2003). Objective personality assessment of people in diverse cultures: European adaptations of the MMPI-2. Behavior Research and Therapy, 41, 819-840.
  • Butcher, J. N., Berah, E., Ellertsen, B., Miach, P., Lim, J., Nezami, E., Pancheri, P., Derksen, J., & Almagor, M. (1998). Objective personality assessment: Computer-based MMPI-2 interpretation in international clinical settings. In C. Belar (Ed). Comprehensive clinical psychology: Sociocultural and individual differences. (pp 277-312). New York: Elsevier.
  • Butcher, J. N., Ellertsen, B., Ubostad, B., Bubb, E, Lucio, E., Lim, J., Ophir, M., Almagor, M., Kokkevi, A., Gillet, I., Castro, D., Cheung, F., Tsang, M., Pongpanich, L. O., Atlis, M. M., Atlas, M., Derksen, J., Scott, R., Mamani, W., Aroztegui Valez, J., Parabera, S., Sirigatti, S., Massai, V., Graziani, G., Tanzella, M. & Elsbury, S. (2000). International case studies on the MMPI-A: An objective approach. Minneapolis, MN: MMPI-2 Workshops. Retrieved october 8, 2008, from
  • Cheung, F. & Butcher, J. N. (2008). Cross-Cultural Application of the MMPI-2 and the Adaptation of the Minnesota Report Computer System for the MMPI-2 in Hong Kong. Hong Kong, China: Chinese University of Hong Kong.
  • Shores, A. & Carstairs, J. R. (1998). Accuracy of the MMPI-2 computerized Minnesota Report in identifying fake-good and fake-bad response sets. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 12, 101-106.

Who is qualified to use the Minnesota Report?

Pearson Assessments is the licensed distributor for the Minnesota Reports. Purchase of the Minnesota Reports requires that users be at their Qualification Level C.

The Minnesota Reports are written for professional use only, not intended for those without expertise in the MMPI-2 or MMPI-A. An individual’s Minnesota Report is an automatically generated scoring and interpretation of an individual’s responses to the MMPI-2 or MMPI-A. It is based on empirical data, as well as the expert judgment and experience of its authors. Information in it is technical and requires expertise in psychometrics and personality assessment.

The professional receiving the report is responsible for evaluating the quality of the computer-generated interpretations of the test data. That requires the user to be familiar with information about the reliability and validity of the MMPI-2 or MMPI-A described in their test manuals. The interpretive strategy used by the authors to develop an automatically generated Minnesota Report is based on over 70 years of research on the MMPI, MMPI-2, and MMPI-A. The following books can be consulted for further understanding of the underlying interpretative strategy followed in the Minnesota Reports (Butcher, 2011; Butcher, Graham, Williams, & Ben-Porath, 1990; Butcher, Hass, Greene & Nelson, 2015; Butcher & Williams, 1992; Friedman, Bolinskey, Levak & Nichols; 2015; Gilberstad & Duker, 1965; Graham, 2012; Marks, Seeman, & Haller, 1974; Williams & Butcher, 2011; Williams, Butcher, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 1992).

An individual’s Minnesota Report is not a substitute for the clinical judgment of a professional working directly with the individual who completed the MMPI-2 or MMPI-A. The statements in the narrative section of the Minnesota Report are based on group mean data, not necessarily specific to the test-taker. They serve as a useful source of independently generated hypotheses to follow-up with other information during the course of a psychological evaluation. Such information may include interviews, behavioral observations, and results from other psychological tests.

Where can I find further information about the Minnesota Report?

Pearson Assessments is the official distributor of the MMPI-2, MMPI-A, and Minnesota Reports (Adult Clinical SystemPersonnel System, Forensic System, and Adolescent Interpretive System). Pearson Assessment representatives can be reached as follows: P: 800.627.7271 F: 800.232.1223