Hagan and Schauer (1985)criticized our earlier study on methodological and conceptual grounds. This reply clarifies our methodology and responds to their conceptual critiques. Many of Hagan and Schauer's concerns were addressed in the original article. Despite obvious limitations of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Depression scale (MMPI D) and the Beck Depression Inventory, these instruments are the most widely used measures of adult depression in the research literature, and their comparability to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III; American Psychiatric Association, 1980) criteria is warranted. Examples of contradictory findings stemming from the use of these assessment devices interchangeably are discussed. Finally, we take issue with Hagan and Schauer's recommendations for interpreting MMPI profiles in relation to depression.
All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes
- Clinical Psychology
- Psychiatry and Mental health