Unlike statements of facts, which require no further work on our part, lies must be continuously protected from collisions with reality.
Alexander Pope
On July 29, 2010, Dr. Mary Westcott‘s technician asked Ms. T to complete the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 2 RF (MMPI-2-RF). Following the MMPI-2-RF, a technician (or Dr. Westcott) generated and printed MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings (Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Tellegen, A., 2008). The report printed all of the MMPI-2-RF usual profiles and produced two pages of computer generated narrative. The report was entirely within normal limits, and its synopsis stated that there was “no indication of somatic or cognitive complaints, or of emotional, thought, behavioral, or interpersonal dysfunction.” (Ms.T MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report, p. 8).
Astonishingly, after Dr. John Braxton Suffield reviewed Dr. Mary Westcott‘s assessment of Ms. T — including the entirely normal MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report provided to him by Dr. Westcott — Dr. John Braxton Suffield described Ms. T’s protocol/responses as “uninterpretable” (Suffield December 30, 2011 Report, section 2.4.8.2). More than a decade later, while questioned under oath, Dr. John Braxton Suffield testified that Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses were “invalid”, and that Dr. Westcott “was unable to get a report” because, as he testified, “some people do generate profiles that are so defensive or so obviously manipulated by the test taker that they’re uninterpretable… And if the defensiveness or random responding or careless responding are bad enough, the computer program simply states that and says this is an invalid profile and cannot be interpreted.”
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s claims and under oath testimony that Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF protocol/responses were “uninterprettable”, that the MMPI-2-RF protocol was “invalid”, that Ms. T “was so defensive as to make interpretation impossible”, and that Dr. Westcott “was unable to get a report” were all patently false, and an outsize helping of fabrications served to the Tribunal by Dr. John Braxton Suffield.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield knew at all material times the following:
- Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Response were interpretable and were interpreted by the computer software
- There was no evidence that Ms. T was defensive and no evidence that her defensiveness made the interpretation impossible
- Dr. Mary Westcott was able to get a report AND provided it to Dr. John Braxton Suffield
- The entire MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report has been in Dr. John Braxton Suffield possession and control
It is sometimes said that “Lies have short legs”. However, in some cases, lies have no legs at all and the lie is known to be a lie the moment it is uttered by a liar.
In this instance, at the time of Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s under oath testimony, the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report was already identified, under oath, by Dr. Mary Westcott herself, and entered as an exhibit in the proceedings before the BC Human Rights Tribunal. The moment Dr. Suffield spoke it was known he lied under oath.
Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report: Clinical Settings (Ben-Porath, & Tellegn, A, 2008), generated by Dr. Mary Westcott’s assessment, demonstrates that Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s statements and testimony were lies. The MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report existed, the report provided interpretation and was not invalid, and Dr. John Braxton Suffield has had it in his possession for over a decade.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield Lied About Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses Generated by Dr. Westcott’s Assessment
As noted above, Dr. John Braxton Suffield claimed that Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF profile/responses were not interpretable in his December 30, 2011 Report. Dr. Suffield wrote:
2.4.8.2 I can also confirm that Ms. T’s defensiveness on another personality questionnaire, the MMPI-2-RF, rendered her protocol uninterpretable.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield, December 30, 2011 Report
More then a decade later, Dr. John Braxton Suffield was called to a witness stand as an expert witness by the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay and testified as follows:
SD5 COUNSEL: Right. And then [section] 2.4.8.2 says I can also confirm that Ms. T’s defensiveness on another personality questionnaire. The MMPI-2-RF rendered her protocol uninterpretable. What does that mean that it’s been rendered uninterpretable? [emphasis added]
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: This version of the MMPI is. Again, another well-established. Personality test used in psychology. This is perhaps used in counseling. But more typically it’s. It’s used. In. In a broad range of situations. It’s it’s an omnibus personality test. Using as I say a variety of settings including employment selection settings. Her defensiveness was evident in the test protocol and. And the computerized scoring for the MMPI-2-RF. It can be handscored but it is laborious and prone to error when one hand-scores it. So everyone I know and the accepted practice is to have computer scoring of this questionnaire. The computer interpretation is that the defensiveness that she showed in responding to the yes no questions on the MMPI she was so defensive as to make interpretation impossible. [emphasis added] …
Direct Questioning of Dr. John Braxton Suffield by the SD5 Counsel
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s testimony about a psychologist’s inability to get a MMPI-2 report when the responses are obviously manipulated by the test taker was as follows:
… some people do generate profiles that are so defensive or so obviously manipulated by the test taker that they’re uninterpretable. And it’d be a disservice. It’d be a disservice to everybody to try to make sense of this, because it’s just random responding, for example. And the computer program recognizes random responding and other measures of invalidity, including defensiveness. And if the defensiveness or random responding or careless responding are bad enough, the computer program simply states that and says this is an invalid profile and cannot be interpreted.
Direct Questioning of Dr. John Braxton Suffield by the SD5 Counsel
Later on, Dr. John Braxton Suffield testified again about Dr. Mary Westcott”s assessment and Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF results:
SD5 COUNSEL: So perhaps you can, I think we had some conversation about this in regards to Dr. Westcott’s test. How different were they and how different were the test results on this personality test? And I guess how distinct were the personality tests that were issued?
JOHN BRAXTON SUFFIELD: Good question. And I’ll actually start with Dr. Kettner. So Dr. Kettner. Dr. Kettner gave a different test, the Personality Assessment Inventory, the PAI. She was defensive in that, but he detected some traits of, I think he might have said, narcissism or self-importance. Dr. Westcott gave the MMPI, a different version of the MMPI [MMPI-2-RF], but it was invalid. So she was unable to get a report. I was talking about that earlier today. [emphasis added]
Direct Questioning of Dr. John Braxton Suffield by the SD5 Counsel
In summary, Dr. John Braxton Suffield
- Claimed Ms.T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses were “uninterpretable”
- Testified that Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report indicated that Ms. T “was so defensive as to make interpretation impossible”
- Testified that Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses “was invalid”
- Testified that Dr. Mary Westcott “was unable to get a [MMPI-2-RF Interpretive] report”
The key problem with Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s claims and under oath testimony is that Dr. Suffield made this stuff up; Dr. Suffield boldly lied to the Tribunal.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s Lies And Non-Disclosure Of Critical Facts
Dr. Suffield’s Big Lie #1: Dr. Mary Westcott “was unable to get a report”
Contrary to Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s under oath testimoy, Dr. Westcott was ABLE to get a report, did get, and did print the report. Moreover, Dr. Mary Westcott forwarded the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report to Dr. John Braxton Suffield to review. Finally, Dr. John Braxton Suffield has had the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report in his possession and control at all material times.
Here is Ms.T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report as generated by Dr. Mary Westcott’s assessment, as authenticated under oath by Dr. Mary Westcott herself, and as entered as an exhibit in ongoing litigation before the BC Human Rights Tribunal: Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report
Clearly, Dr. Mary Westcott was able to get a report, and equally clearly, Dr. Mary Westcott got the report. Inescapable conclusion is that Dr. John Braxton Suffield lied to the Tribunal under oath.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s Big Lie #2: Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses were “invalid”
Contrary to Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s under oath testimony, Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses were valid.
First, Dr. Suffield testified that “if the defensiveness or random responding or careless responding are bad enough, the computer program simply states that and says this is an invalid profile and cannot be interpreted.” The computer program that generated Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Reports DID NOT say that Ms. T’s profile was invalid and DID NOT say that it cannot be interpreted. In fact the computer program did interpret Ms. T’s profile and results.
Second, the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report provided the following Synopsis:
SYNOPSIS
Scores on the MMPI-2-RF validity scales raise concerns about the possible impact of under-reporting on the validity of this protocol. With that caution noted, there is no indication of somatic or cognitive complaints, or of emotional, thought, behavioral, or interpersonal dysfunction.
Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report, generated by Dr. Mary Westcott’s Assessment
In other words, Ms. T’s profile was entirely normal, non-distinguishable from the US 1990 norms; it was not invalid and the computerized report merely noted “a caution” about “possible” under-reporting.
Third, with respect to the “caution” about “under-reporting”, the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report stated the following:
The test taker presented herself in a positive light by denying some minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge. This level of virtuous self-presentation may reflect a background stressing traditional values [emphasis added]. She also presented herself as very well-adjusted. This reported level of psychological adjustment is relatively rare in the general population. Any absence of elevation on the substantive scales should be interpreted with caution. Elevated scores on the substantive scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales.
Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report, generated by Dr. Mary Westcott’s Assessment
The MMPI-2-RF L-r scale is said to measure under-reporting whereas K-r scale is said to measure adjustment.
Ms. T’s L-r score of 66T is entirely consistent with her upbringing stressing traditional values as the Interpretive Report points out (going to church, being a director of church choir, etc.). Similarly, Ms. T’s K-r score of 66T is entirely consistent with her good psychological adjustment, her background, as well as being a performer.
Fourth, to interpret psychological test scores, a competent clinical psychologist (and a “competent” computer program/a “competent” computer program author) must consider reliability of the scores and associated 95% confidence intervals in interpreting the scores. Dr. John Braxton Suffield did not mention unreliability of the MMPI-2-RF scores, did not mention 95% confidence intervals, and appears to be completely oblivious to the well known scientific fact that observed scores are NOT true scores but a composite of a true score plus some amount of error. Similarly, the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report also does not mention test scores reliabilities, does not mention 95% confidence intervals, and just like Dr. John Braxton Suffield appears to be oblivious to the fact that to interpret test scores one must consider their unreliability and associated 95% confidence intervals. Notably, the MMPI-2-RF Administration Manual is similarly silent about MMPI-2-RF scores unreliability, 95% confidence intervals, and various tables providing interpretive guidelines for the MMPI-2-RF scores do not mention 95% confidence intervals even once and assume, falsely, that the observed scores are 100% precise and free of error.
The MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual (Tellegen, A., & Ben-Porath, Y.S., 2011) provides test-retest reliabilities, internal consistency, and standard errors. The table below lists MMPI-2-RF validity scales, test-retest reliabilities, standard errors of measurement (SEm), Ms. T’s score, 95% CI high and low limits around Ms. T’s scores, the 95% CI Span (imprecision), and whether or not the 95% CI falls outside the middle 68% of the US 1990 normative sample (Yes/No). None of the 95% CIs around Ms. T’s scores falls outside of the middle 68% of the US 1990 normative sample (delineated by 40T and 60T with 50T being equal to the average of the normative sample), that is, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever of any invalidity or defensive responding by Ms. T.
| MMPI-2-RF Validity Scale | rxx | SEm | Ms. T T-score | 95% CI high | 95% CI low | 95% CI Span | Diffirent from the Middle 68% |
| VRIN-r | 0.52 | 7 | 48 | 61.72 | 34.28 | 27.44 | No |
| TRIN-r | 0.40 | 8 | 65 | 80.68 | 49.32 | 31.36 | No |
| F-r | 0.82 | 4 | 42 | 49.84 | 34.16 | 15.68 | No |
| Fp-r | 0.71 | 5 | 42 | 51.80 | 32.20 | 19.60 | No |
| Fs | 0.51 | 7 | 42 | 55.72 | 28.28 | 27.44 | No |
| FBS-r | 0.72 | 5 | 54 | 63.80 | 44.20 | 19.60 | No |
| L-r | 0.79 | 5 | 66 | 75.80 | 56.20 | 19.60 | No |
| K-r | 0.84 | 4 | 66 | 73.84 | 58.16 | 15.68 | No |
More specifically, using test-retest reliabilities reported in the MMPI-2-RF Technical Manual, 95% confidence intervals around Ms. T’s observed L-r and K-r scores range from 54T to 78T. Accordingly, there is no scientific evidence that Ms. T engaged in under-reporting or that her level of adjustment was “rare”. The scientific evidence is that Ms. T’s L-r and K-r scores are no different from how the middle 68% of the US 1990 normative sample responded on these scales.
In summary, the MMPI-2-RF report did not say that Ms. T’s profile/responses were “invalid”, and Ms. T’s validity indexes scores were entirely within normal limits and no different from the middle 68% of the US 1990 norms. Dr. John Braxton Suffield claim that Ms. T’s responses were “invalid” is patently false.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s Big Lie #3: Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses were “uninterpretable”
Contrary to Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s claim and his under oath testimony, Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile/Responses were interpretable, were interpreted by the computer program that created the MMPI-2-RF Interpretive Report, and are easily interpretable using the MMPI-2-RF guidelines AND some fundamental psychometric principles such as reliability of observed test scores, associated 95% confidence intervals, test score precision, and multivariate base rates of “elevated” or “abnormal” scores.
Dr. John Braxton Suffiel’s claims and testimony that Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF Profile /Responses were “uninterpretable” were lies.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield Did Not Disclose to the Tribunal That MMPI-2-RF Norms Were (a) over 20 Years Outdated and (b) Foreign (US) Norms
Dr. John Braxton Suffield did not disclose in his December 30, 2011 Report that the MMPI-2-RF norms were at least 20 years outdated and obsolete in 2011, and that they were established in a different country/culture (US) in mid 1980s and not in Canada.
Similarly, testifying more than a decade later, Dr. John Braxton Suffield again did not disclose to the Tribunal that the MMPI-2-RF Norms were outdated and obsolete, and that they were established in a different country/culture (US) in the mid 1980s and not in Canada.
In summary, Dr. John Braxton Suffield did not disclose to the Tribunal that there was no scientific evidence as to whether the US mid 1980s norms were appropriate or inappropriate for use in Canada in 2010.
Dr. John Braxton Suffield Formed and Disseminated His Opinions About Ms. T’s Personality Without Ever Meeting Her or Talking To Her
Notably, Dr. John Braxton Suffield formed his opinions about Ms. T’s personality already prior to October 19, 2011. Although Dr. Suffield did not mention it in his December 30, 2011 Report, Dr. Suffield issued nearly verbatim identical report already on October 19, 2021 (Dr. Suffield Oct. 19, 2021 Report) and faxed it to the School District No. 5 Sotheast Kootenay, to Ms. Cythia Stuart. At that time, Dr. Suffield had not met Ms. T, did not talk to her over the phone, and all of his opinions were based on (a) prior reports including Dr. Kettner June 14 Report and Dr. Westcott Sep. 15, 2011 Report, and (b) numerous secret ex-parte phone calls with the School Disctrict No. 5 administrators, including Ms. Cynthia Stuart and Mr. Brent Reimer.
A few days later, Dr. John Braxton Suffield had an epiphany and, as he stated in an email to Ms. Cynthia Stuart on October 26, 2011, Dr. John Braxton Suffield “reminded” himself of the College of Alberta Psychologists Standards of Practice 8.2 which made it clear that Dr. Suffield could not render opinions about Ms. T “without a direct and substantial professional contact with or a formal assessment of” Ms. T — read: Epic ethics fail? Dr. J. Braxton Suffield opined Ms. T was unable to do her job without ever meeting her in his October 19, 2011 Report.
Comparison of Dr. Suffield October 19, 2011 Report and Dr. Suffield December 30, 2011 Report demonstrates that Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s about Ms. T’s personality were, in large part, lifted verbatim from his earlier “secret” Suffield October 19, 2011 Report without any disclosure that he had done so.
Conclusions
Dr. Mary Westcott administered the MMPI-2-RF to Ms. T, and the resulting report was entirely within normal limits. The report indicated no signs of emotional, cognitive, or behavioral dysfunction. While it did include a caution about possible under-reporting, it did not invalidate the results; rather, it provided a clear interpretation of the findings. In stark contrast, Dr. John Braxton Suffield, both in his report and under oath testimony, made several false and misleading claims about the MMPI-2-RF report. Specifically, he falsely testified that the profile was “uninterpretable,” “invalid,” and that Dr. Westcott was “unable to get a report.”
Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s claims are directly contradicted by the facts: Dr. Westcott did generate and provide the report to him for review. Furthermore, the validity scales of Ms. T’s MMPI-2-RF profile were well within normal limits, as evidenced by the test scores and their associated 95% confidence intervals, which showed no indication of manipulation or defensive responding on Ms. T’s part.
Moreover, Dr. John Braxton Suffield failed to disclose critical information regarding the outdated nature of the MMPI-2-RF norms, which were based on a U.S. sample from the 1980s. These norms were not current nor validated for Canadian populations, such as Ms. T. Dr. Suffield’s failure to provide a full and accurate disclosure about these limitations undermines the credibility and reliability of his testimony.
So, what best explains Dr. John Braxton Suffield‘s false claims, misleading testimony, and failure to disclose critical information? There are three possible explanations:
1. Professional Incompetence
One possible explanation is that Dr. John Braxton Suffield was simply incompetent. This would assume that he either misunderstood or failed to adequately read the MMPI-2-RF report provided to him by Dr. Westcott. Under this scenario, Dr. Suffield might have lacked the basic knowledge necessary to interpret the report correctly, resulting in his mischaracterization of the report as “invalid” or “uninterpretable.” However, such a gross error—denying the existence of a report and contradicting its contents—would reflect an extraordinary level of professional incompetence, far beyond a simple misunderstanding.
2. Malice or Intent to Harm
A second possibility is that Dr. John Braxton Suffield acted maliciously, with the intent to harm Ms. T. This explanation fits with the facts that Dr. Suffield had the report in his hands, was sufficiently literate to understand its content, and still deliberately misrepresented the findings. By lying about the report’s contents—both in his December 30, 2011 Report and under oath—Dr. Suffield’s actions suggest a deliberate attempt to mislead the tribunal and undermine Ms. T’s position. This is consistent with a malicious intent to harm Ms. T.
3. Dr. Suffield as a “Hired Gun”
The third, and most likely, explanation is that Dr. John Braxton Suffield became a hired gun for School District No. 5 (SD5). In this scenario, Dr. Suffield’s testimony was not an objective analysis but rather a strategically crafted set of opinions designed to support SD5’s case. His actions—providing testimony contradicted by the documents in his possession, fabricating facts, and omitting crucial details—strongly indicate that he tailored his expert opinions to align with SD5’s legal position. Furthermore, his recruitment of other professionals, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone, to secretly submit ex parte letters to the Tribunal in support of SD5’s case only further cements this view. By involving other professionals in a coordinated effort to support SD5’s position, Dr. Suffield effectively functioned as a hired assassin, not as an impartial expert, fully enmeshed in SD5’s legal battle against Ms. T.
In conclusion, Dr. Suffield’s behavior—ranging from misrepresenting the MMPI-2-RF report to actively recruiting other professionals to support SD5’s position—strongly indicate that he was not acting in the capacity of a neutral expert but rather as a partisan advocate for SD5. This raises serious ethical concerns and calls into question the integrity of his testimony and role in the proceedings.
Appendix:
L-r (Uncommon Virtues) and K-r (Adjustment Validity) Scale Interpretation
Preamble
Some clinical psychologists cannot find a correct test manual. Some clinical psychologists are incompetent. Some clinical psychologists such as Dr. John Braxton Suffield lie. Some regulatory bodies such as the College of Alberta Psychologists fail to regulate their members and approve of and condone not only clinical psychologists’ lies but also, for example, clinical psychologists’ promoting and advancing age, sex, race/ethnicity, and other discrimination in employment settings. Moreover, some clinical psychologists plagiarize computerized interpretive reports available for some psychological tests and present the stolen text as their own. Some clinical psychologists even attempt to secretly influence a course of legal proceedings, for example, Dr. John Braxton Suffield, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman, and Dr. Kyle Brauer Boone.
Thus, it becomes critical that ordinary people can, at least to some degree, scrutinize work of clinical psychologists, and, for example, see for themselves a contrast between what some clinical psychologists’ say psychological scores mean vs. what those scores really mean.
Interpretation of L-r MMPI-2-RF Scale
Ben-Porath (2012, p. 251-252; available on amazon.ca) offers the following interpretation of the MMPI-2-RF L-r scale:
The Uncommon Virtues (L-r) Scale consists of 14 items. Elevated L-r scores indicate that the test taker presented himself or herself in a favorable light by denying minor faults and shortcomings that most individuals acknowledge. Table 6-9 provides interpretive recommendations for L-r. Scores in the 65–69 and 70–79 ranges reflect possible underreporting, with higher scores indicating an increased likelihood of this being the case. T scores of 80 or higher indicate that substantial underreporting very likely occurred and raise the possibility that the protocol is consequently invalid. When L-r scores reach this level, the absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales is uninterpretable. However, elevated Substantive Scale scores can be interpreted with the understanding that they may underestimate the magnitude or severity of the problems they assess.
An important consideration in understanding the significance of an elevated L-r score is whether the test taker was raised in an environment in which traditional values were stressed. A number of the L-r items are keyed to reflect uncommon moral virtues to which individuals raised in such environments are expected to aspire. Consequently, inferences about underreporting need to be tempered at moderate levels of elevation on this scale for individuals known to have been raised in environments stressing traditional values.
Ben-Porath (2012, p. 251)
Ben-Porath (2012, p. 251) also provides the following interpretation table for the L-r scale:
| T Score | Protocol Validity Concerns | Possible Reasons for Score | Interpretive Implications |
| >= 80 T | The protocol may be invalid. Underreporting is indicated by the test taker presenting himself or herself in an extremely positive light by denying many minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge. | Inconsistent responding Underreporting | Inconsistent responding should be considered by examining the VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores. If it is ruled out, note that this level of virtuous self-presentation is very uncommon even in individuals with a background stressing traditional values. Any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales is uninterpretable. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assed by those scales. |
| 70-79 | Possible underreporting is indicated by the test taker presenting himself or herself in a very positive light by denying several minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge. | Inconsistent responding Traditional upbringing Underreporting | Inconsistent responding should be considered by examining the VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores. If it is ruled out, note that this level of virtuous self-presentation is uncommon, but may, to some extent, reflect a background stressing traditional values. Any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales should be interpreted with caution. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales. |
| 65-69 | Possible underreporting is indicated by in the test taker presenting himself or herself in a positive light by denying some minor faults and shortcomings that most people acknowledge. | Inconsistent responding Traditional upbringing Underreporting | Inconsistent responding should be considered by examining the VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores. If it is ruled out, note that this level of virtuous self-presentation may reflect a background stressing traditional values. Any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales should be interpreted with caution. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales. |
| < 65 | There is no evidence of underreporting | The protocol is interpretable. |
One does not need to be a clinical psychologist with the PhD to understand that Ms. T’s L-r score of 66T does not render the protocol invalid (T score of 80 or higher would raise such possibility), and that L-r score of 66T is perfectly consistent with Ms. T’s “Traditional upbringing” — the fact Dr. John Braxton Suffield omitted to mention.
Furthermore, although Ben-Porath (2012) did not mention this critical scientific fact, Ms. T’s L-r 66T score is observed score, and given L-r scale reliability, we can be 95% confident that Ms. T’s true score lies somewhere between 54T and 78T (95% confidence interval). Since 54T is well within the band of scores below 65T, L-r 66T “There is no evidence of underreporting.”
Interpretation of K-r MMPI-2-RF scale
Ben-Porath (2012, p. 252-253; available on amazon.ca) offers the following interpretation of the MMPI-2-RF K-r scale
Adjustment Validity (K-r) consists of 14 of the original MMPI K Scale items. Elevated K-r scores indicate that the test taker presented himself or herself as well adjusted, with higher scores representing a higher level of adjustment. This type of self-presentation is associated with underreporting. However, the possibility that the test taker is in fact better adjusted than average also needs to be considered in interpreting an elevated K-r score. Extratest indications that the individual is not well adjusted would support the conclusion that an elevated K-r score indicates underreporting, whereas evidence that he or she is well adjusted would temper this interpretation.
Table 6-10 provides interpretive recommendations for K-r. T scores in the 60–65 and 66–69 ranges indicate possible underreporting, with higher scores suggesting a greater likelihood of underreporting and requiring evidence of better adjustment to rule out this interpretation. The highest possible T-score value on K-r, 72, indicates that the test taker presented himself or herself as remarkably well adjusted. Absent extratest indications that this is in fact the case, this level of elevation on K-r indicates in most settings that nonelevated scores on the Substantive Scales represent favorable self-portrayals, reflecting an underreporting tendency.
As with L-r, the primary interpretive implication of an elevated K-r score that denotes underreporting is that nonelevated scores on the Substantive Scales cannot be interpreted as indicating an absence of the problems they are designed to assess, and elevated scores may be an underestimate of the magnitude or severity of such problems. Low scores on Substantive Scales cannot be interpreted if scores on K-r (or L-r) indicate likely underreporting.
Ben-Porath (2012, p. 252)
Ben-Porath (2012, p. 253) also provides the following interpretation table for the K-r scale:
| T Score | Protocol Validity Concerns | Possible Reasons for Score | Interpretive Implications |
| >= 70 | Underreporting is indicated by the test taker presenting herself or himself as remarkably well adjusted. | Inconsistent responding Underreporting | Inconsistent responding should be considered by examining the VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores. If it is ruled out, note that this level of psychological adjustment is rare in the general population. Any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales should be interpreted with caution. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales. |
| 66-69 | Possible underreporting is reflected in the test taker presenting himself or herself as very well adjusted. | Inconsistent responding Very good psychological adjustment Underreporting | Inconsistent responding should be considered by examining the VRIN-r and TRIN-r scores. If it is ruled out, note that this level of psychological adjustment is relatively rare in the general population. For individuals who are not especially well adjusted, any absence of elevation on the Substantive Scales should be interpreted with caution. Elevated scores on the Substantive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales. |
| 60-65 | Possible underreporting is reflected in the test taker presenting himself or herself as well adjusted. | Inconsistent responding Good psychological adjustment Underreporting | Inconsistent responding should be considered by examination of scores on VRIN-r and TRIN-r. In individuals who are not well adjusted, any absence of eleva- tion on the Substantive Scales should be interpreted with caution. Elevated scores on the Substan- tive Scales may underestimate the problems assessed by those scales. |
| < 60 | There is no evidence of underreporting | The protocol is interpretable. |
Again, one does not need to be a clinical psychologist with the PhD to understand that Ms. T’s K-r score of 66T does not render the protocol invalid (even T score of 70 or higher merely calls for “caution” rather than rendering the protocol “invalid”), and that K-r score of 66T is perfectly consistent with Good to Very good psychological adjustment (note that having Good psychological adjustment or Very Good psychological adjustment is desirable and NOT a sign of psychopathology). Again, Dr. Suffield omitted to mention these facts.
Furthermore, although Ben-Porath (2012) did not mention this critical scientific fact, Ms. T K-r 66T score is observed score, and given K-r scale reliability, we can be 95% confident that Ms. T’s true score lies somewhere between 54T and 78T (95% confidence interval). Since 54T is well within the band of scores below 60T, K-r 66T “There is no evidence of underreporting”.