Gender-Related Fairness of Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Dimensions: Gender Differences in PSY-5 Functioning
,
Abstract
Objective: Establishing measurement invariance is essential to ensure that Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI-3) scores accurately reflect the intended latent traits and can be interpreted fairly across gender groups. Given the importance of measurement equivalence for valid clinical interpretation, this study evaluated Differential Item Functioning (DIF) and Differential Test Functioning (DTF) in the Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales of the Persian version of the MMPI-3 within an Iranian clinical sample.
Method: A total of 871 psychiatric outpatients (59% female; mean age = 28.76 ± 10.58) diagnosed with at least one DSM-5 disorder were recruited using convenience sampling. Invalid response protocols were excluded according to MMPI-3 validity criteria. Dimensionality of the PSY-5 scales was assessed via confirmatory factor analysis and Rasch measurement modeling, leading to the exclusion of the Disconstraint scale due to multidimensionality. Rasch-based analyses were used to evaluate item fit, reliability, local dependence (Q3), and DIF. Overall DTF was quantified using Signed and Unsigned Test Difference statistics, and Fisher’s Z tests were used to compare inter-scale correlation patterns across gender.
Results: Significant DTF was observed for the four retained PSY-5 scales (Aggressiveness, Psychoticism, Negative Emotionality, and Introversion) following the exclusion of DISC due to multidimensionality. STDS values ranged from −0.27 to −0.37 and UTDS values ranged from 0.28 to 0.43, indicating consistent gender-related score differences of small-to-moderate magnitude at comparable latent trait levels that may influence clinical interpretation. Inter-scale correlations also differed across gender groups, particularly for PSYC, NEGE, and INTR, suggesting gender-related variation in scale functioning and construct associations.
Conclusion: The findings indicate that several MMPI-3 PSY-5 scales may not demonstrate full measurement equivalence across genders in Iranian clinical populations. These results highlight the importance of local psychometric evaluation and careful interpretation of gender-based score comparisons when applying standardized personality assessment instruments in non-Western clinical settings.
2. Floyd AE, Gupta V. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. [Updated 2023 Apr 24]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2026 Jan-. Available from:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557525/
3. Reeves CK, Brown TA, Sellbom M. An examination of the MMPI-3 validity scales in detecting overreporting of psychological problems. Psychol Assess. 2022;34(6):517-27.
4. Haugh S, Ramirez D, Priebe K, Marek RJ, Anderson JL. Evaluating the MMPI-3’s utility in the assessment of pathological personality traits. Curr Psychol. 2024;43(23):20521-31.
5. Brown JR. An Examination of the Construct Validity of the MMPI-3 PSY-5 Scales: Kent State University; 2025.
6. Delawalla CN, Lee TTC, Keen MA. The use of MMPI-3 scales to assess personality-based vulnerabilities for alcohol use and problems. Psychol Assess. 2023;35(8):633-45.
7. Sellbom M, Brown JR. Development and validation of an MMPI-3 Antagonism scale. Pers Disord. 2025;16(4):332–49.
8. Anestis JC, Rodriguez TR, O'Dell C, Preston OC, Harrop TM, Charles NE. Psychometric Properties of the MMPI-3 in a Sample of Black and White American Undergraduate Students: Examining Group Differences and Convergent/Discriminant Validity with the ASEBA Adult Self-Report. J Pers Assess. 2024;106(1):1-16.
9. Morris CS, Shepherd EA, Ingram PB. Investigating the Validity of the MMPI-3 Eating Concerns (EAT) scale across Men and Women in a University Sample. J Pers Assess. 2024;106(1):17-26.
10. Shumaker N, Long T, Torres A, Mercado A, Marek RJ, Anderson JL. Exploring Potential Ethnic Bias Among MMPI-3 Scales in Assessing Personality Psychopathology. Assessment. 2024;32(4):475–87.
11. Rahmani Malek Abad M, Falsafinejad MR, Minaei A, Farrokhi NA. Differential Item Functioning of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (Depression) Items in among Recruitment Candidates: A Comparison Between the Rasch Model and Mantel-Haenszel. Journal of Applied Psychological Research. 2024.
12. Rahmani Malek Abad M, Falsafinejad MR, Minaei A, Farrokhi NA. Differential item functioning of Psychasthenia and Psychopathic Deviate items in entrance employment tests: a comparison between the Mantel-Haenszel and Rasch model. Knowledge & Research in Applied Psychology. 2024;25(3):33-45.
13. Card NA, Stucky BD, Sawalani GM, Little TD. Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: a meta-analytic review of gender differences, intercorrelations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Dev. 2008;79(5):1185-229.
14. Stark S, Chernyshenko OS, Drasgow F. Examining the effects of differential item (functioning and differential) test functioning on selection decisions: when are statistically significant effects practically important? J Appl Psychol. 2004;89(3):497-508.
15. Yavuz Temel G. A simulation and empirical study of differential test functioning (DTF). Psych. 2023;5(2):478-96.
16. Gori E. Rasch Analysis of some MMPI-2 scales in a sample of university freshmen. International Journal of Arts & Sciences. 2015;8(3):107.
17. Ben-Porath YS, Sellbom M. Interpreting the MMPI-3. Minneapolis (MN): University of Minnesota Press; 2023. 656 p.
18. Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A. Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-3. PsycTESTS Dataset. 2020.
19. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki: ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. Jama. 2013;310(20):2191-4.
20. Ben-Porath YS, Tellegen A. Minnesota multiphasic personality Inventory-3. PsycTESTS Dataset. 2020.
21. Hall JT, Menton WH, Ben-Porath YS. Examining the Psychometric Equivalency of MMPI-3 Scale Scores Derived From the MMPI-3 and the MMPI-2-RF-EX. Assessment. 2022;29(4):842-53.
22. Rahmani Malek-Abad M. Reliability and validation of Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 adult form (MMPI-3). Knowl Res Appl Psychol. 2025;26(1):106-26.
23. Masal E, Koç M, Çolak TS, Takunyaci M. Analyzing the psychological symptoms of students in undergraduate program in elementary mathematics teaching. Educational Research and Reviews. 2013;8(14):1117.
24. Bond TG, Yan Z, Heene M. Applying the Rasch model: fundamental measurement in the human sciences. 4th ed. New York (NY): Routledge; 2020.
25. Linacre JM. A user's guide to Winsteps: Rasch-model computer programs. Program Manual. Version 5.10.2. Beaverton (OR): Winsteps.com; 2025.
26. Yen WM. Effects of local item dependence on the fit and equating performance of the three-parameter logistic model. Appl Psychol Meas. 1984;8(2):125-45.
27. Christensen KB, Makransky G, Horton M. Critical Values for Yen's Q(3): Identification of Local Dependence in the Rasch Model Using Residual Correlations. Appl Psychol Meas. 2017;41(3):178-94.
28. Ibrahim A. Differential item functioning (DIF): theory and practice. Issues and practices in tests and measurement. 2024:357-68.
29. Cohen J. Set correlation and contingency tables. Appl Psychol Meas. 1988;12(4):425-34.
30. Ho AD, Yu CC. Descriptive Statistics for Modern Test Score Distributions: Skewness, Kurtosis, Discreteness, and Ceiling Effects. Educ Psychol Meas. 2015;75(3):365-88.
31. Hambleton RK, Slater SC. Item response theory models and testing practices: Current international status and future directions. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. 1997;13(1):21-8.
32. Hambleton RK, Swaminathan H, Rogers HJ. Fundamentals of item response theory: Sage; 1991.
33. McNeish D, Wolf MG. Dynamic fit index cutoffs for confirmatory factor analysis models. Psychol Methods. 2023;28(1):61-88.
34. Kline RB. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. 5th ed. New York (NY): Guilford Press; 2023. 494 p.
35. Pan F, Liu Q. Evaluating fit indices in a multilevel latent growth model with unbalanced design: a Monte Carlo study. Front Psychol. 2024;15:1366850.
36. Marsh HW, Hocevar D. Application of confirmatory factor analysis to the study of self-concept: First-and higher order factor models and their invariance across groups. Psychological bulletin. 1985;97(3):562.
37. Boone WJ, Staver JR. Advances in Rasch analyses in the human sciences: Springer; 2020.
38. McNeish D, Dumas D. Reliability representativeness: How well does coefficient alpha summarize reliability across the score distribution? Behav Res Methods. 2025;57(3):93.
39. Thomas ML, Locke DE. Psychometric properties of the MMPI-2-RF Somatic Complaints (RC1) scale. Psychol Assess. 2010;22(3):492-503.
40. Sijtsma K, Ellis JL, Borsboom D. Recognize the Value of the Sum Score, Psychometrics' Greatest Accomplishment. Psychometrika. 2024;89(1):84-117.
41. Raju NS, van der Linden WJ, Fleer PF. IRT-based internal measures of differential functioning of items and tests. Appl Psychol Meas. 1995;19(4):353-68.
42. Meade AW. A taxonomy of effect size measures for the differential functioning of items and scales. J Appl Psychol. 2010;95(4):728-43.
43. Bujang MA. An elaboration on sample size determination for correlations based on effect sizes and confidence interval width: a guide for researchers. Restor Dent Endod. 2024;49(2):e21.
44. Meng X-L, Rosenthal R, Rubin DB. Comparing correlated correlation coefficients. Psychological bulletin. 1992;111(1):172.
| Files | ||
| Issue | Articles in Press | |
| Section | Original Article(s) | |
| Keywords | ||
| Gender Equity Gender Bias Psychometrics Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory(MMPI-3) Patients | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
