Running head: REVIEW OF THE MILLON COLLEGE COUNSELING INVENTORY

The Millon College Counseling Inventory: A Comprehensive Review.

Michelle Lee Southworth-Peterick, M.A.

Walden University

I. General Information

Title: Millon College Counseling Inventory (MCCI)

Author: Theodore Millon, Stephen N. Strack, Carrie Millon, and Seth Grossman

Publisher: Pearson Publishing, 5601 Green Valley Drive, Minneapolis, MN, 55437.

Forms: Paper or computer; group or individual, for college students ages 16-40

Practical Features: The Millon College Counseling Inventory (MCCI) is a 150-item instrument used to identify and predict a broad range of features that are psychological in nature in college students. The test uses a five point Likert scale and can be scored by computer or hand scoring.

General Type of Test: This is a general type of psychological exam that is used to screen college students for various psychological abnormalities in behavior and cognition. The results predict Millon’s concept of psychology-- biosocial-learning theory of personality as the product of three polarities: active-passive, pleasure-pain, and self-other-- nearly Freudian in its concept. The test assumes personalities lie on a continuum of these three polarities (Albanese, 2010, para. 2). The MCCI assesses primarily normal traits common in a college student population (Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 3). This test is almost Freudian with a little operant conditioning thrown in (Corey, 2009, p. 60).

Date of Publication: 2006

Time to Administer: Twenty to twenty-five minutes

Purpose for Which Evaluated: The MCCI is used to aid counselors to “ ‘identify, predict, and understand and broad range of psychological issues that are common among college students ages 16-40’ ” (Albanese, 2010, para. 1).

II. Purpose and Nature of the Instrument

Stated Purpose: The MCCI scores 11 personality styles and severe personality tendencies, 11 expressed concerns, 10 clinical signs, and 4 response tendencies. Scores are expressed as prevalence scores and there are four scales designed to determine whether responses are valid (Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 2).

Costs, Booklets, Answer Sheets and Scoring: Self-report personality inventory, paper, pencil, and online administration available. 2011 price $84 (Starter kit and 3 scoring sheets) (Pearson, 2011).

Use in Counseling: The MCCI identifies personality traits in the following categories – “introverted, inhibited, dejected, needy, sociable, confident, unruly, conscientious, oppositional, denigrated, severe personality tendencies borderline, expressed concerns scales, mental health upset, identity quandaries, career confusion, abusive experiences, living arrangement problems, financial burdens, spiritual anxiety/tension, post-traumatic stress, eating disorders, anger dyscontrol, attention (cognitive) deficit its, obsessions/compulsions, alcohol abuse, drug abuse, response tendency scales validity, disclosure, desirability, debasement.” In addition, the inventory provides 7 noteworthy responses: risky behaviors, homesickness, expectation pressures, escapist distractions, minority prejudice, somatic concerns, and finally reality distortions (Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 1)

II. Technical Considerations

Normative Sample: The sample of quantitative databases came from 33 of 455 college and university students from counseling centers. Some of the 33 centers also provided students a BDI-II (Beck Depression Inventory –II), the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) as well as an Alcohol Use Inventory (AUI). Interview notes with the counselor were essential. Counselors recruited the students for psychological traits and problems for the students they knew well. The MCCI amassed a data size of n=564. The developmental sample and cross validational samples were used for validity (Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 3).

Reliability: Data from 200 subjects were used to cross compute on thirty-two alpha scales; the scales consisted of 3-9 items and produced coefficients of .58 to .87 respectively (Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 4).

Validity: Validity data are convergent/discriminant, and for the convergent, counselor rating cross correlation factors of MCCI scores ranged from.03 to .40. All but 4 to 32 correlations were statistically significant. Correlations with the BDI-II (Beck Depression Inventory –II) ; n=89; STAI (State Trait Anxiety Inventory); n=52; AUI(Alcohol Use Inventory): n=44 all were found to have validity (Albanese, 2010, para. 8).

For the STAI, separate correlations were computed for the state and trait scales. The trait scale score ranged from -.41 to .59 median .48. 10 of 32 were statistically significant with values from -.30 to .65 median .19. Analyses of gender differences showed that males were slightly higher than females in a number of psychological impairments but lower on others as one would expect; the outcome was as follows, males scored higher on these topics: “ Introverted, Confidence, Oppositional, Peer Alienation, Career Confusion, Attention ( Cognitive) Deficits, Unruly, and Alcohol Abuse scales but lower on Conscientious, Anxiety/Tension, and Eating Disorders scales” (Albanese, 2010, para. 9; Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 4). The counselor’s form and the test comparisons show that this test has validity according to industry standards.

Generalizability

The Millon assessments have stood the test of time over the last 40 years for assessing personality traits. This 2006 inventory for counseling college students is a good complement. Even if a counselor does not believe in the biosocial-learning theory of personality, the norming evidence is developed and standardized. The test was normed with 33 centers reporting, or 7% of the solicited centers. Nine scales were deleted. One of those was ‘Minority Prejudice’, because the norming population consisted 13.7 % of minorities.

The sample ranged 2 to 92 predominantly female (77.9%), with an average age 21.6 (sd. 3.6). The participants were mostly white (86.3%) and mostly fulltime students ( 93.8%). The type of student was diverse and the number of times students had prior experience in counseling was 10.7 (sd=12.5) . The student participants were of various college years with a spread, including 13% from graduate school. (Albanese, 2010, para. 5 ; Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 5).

IV. Practical Evaluation

Qualifications of examiners

C- Level
Scoring provisions

Computer scoring and automatic scoring options exist, and manual scoring exists. The kit which costs $116 gives the proctor that option. Scoring by hand takes about twenty minutes. The MCCI reports percentiles and prevalence scores for each of the 32 scales.

Three scoring provisions exist: Q-Local software, Hand Scoring, and Mail in scoring services.

The hand scoring provision is $210.

The Q-Local is Price per Administration.

The Mail-in is $210.

V. Evaluation

Comments of reviewers

The MCCI (Millon College Counseling Inventory) joins a collection of products that have withstood the test of time over the past 40 years. This inventory would especially be useful to the counselors assess the students at the valuation step. Furthermore, having the counselors rate subjects before having the students complete the MCCI avoided the data contamination and contributed to the validity of this assessment. Overall, reliability and validity scored very well and well within statistical norms for the test. On the negative side, the biosocial-learning theory of personality takes some getting used to and reminds me of a Freudian manifesto or B.F. Skinner approach to operant conditioning (Corey, 2009, p. 60; Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S., 2006, p. 5).

Albanese (2010) has concerns about some elements of the MCCI. For instance, some people have an aversion to machines and machine scoring. With this test there is a premium with scoring with the machine, and hand scoring takes longer and could affect the results due to scorin errors. There are 32 subscale templates in addition to two templates for other uses and the manual suggests that they be scored twice. Scoring took one of the reviewers 20 minutes. Also validation presents a problem for the scorer and makes the scoring of the test more difficult.

One of the concerns that the reviewers cite is the lack of response. Counselors were the most critical data collection link in the chain, yet only 33 centers responded, and 7% response rate may have selective data. But those that did respond provided excellent data (Albanese, 2010).

Andrew Cox (2010) also expressed a concern:

“The reliability data for the study is skewed for the Caucasion and female population and this skews the study, especially the nature of the audience given.”

General evaluation

Although this test is recommend and the validation studies are sound, overall, I would say that we place far too much emphasis on testing. No matter how well designed, I wonder if a 150 question test can accomplish all the feats this test purports to do. It can show certain indices or indicators that point in a direction; however, it is not the end all or cure all of tests.

One of my concerns is the way particular genders are conditioned to respond to assessments. Imber (1973) writes about the relationship with a trust rating scale provided to 4^th grade students, as well as another test and the validation of the testing mechanism (Imber, 1973, p. 1). Imber found the resultant values have led researchers to believe there is a shifting of children’s trust scores and the concept of formation. Furthermore, Imber 1973 states that a child initially trusts during the first year of his or her life, but then her or she assimilates into a life of distrust after being disappointed, through operant conditioning (Imber, 1973, p. 1). I bring up this example because in the MCCI, males scored higher in the psych sociological and psych sociological dynamics indicators on tests. It may be that these were obvious outcomes to the conditioning they had been forced to express upon them during adolescence. One key indicator that was lacking in the research was the core gender identity that is supposedly measured; I find this troubling. I would have liked to see a breakdown by age, gender dysphoria, and psychosocial aberrations that are prevalent.

In Lai, Chiu, Gadow, Gau, & Hwu (2010) researchers found that gender dysphoria was more common in females than in males n=5010. However, it is important to note that they would code the males as “male” following their biological identity, but if a male were to require Sexual Reassignment Surgery (SRS), the researchers would then code them as female. This skews the numbers tremendously. Lai, et al. also found that people suffering from gender dysphonia were able to meet and cope with a broader range of psychiatric illnesses and cope with them well (Lai, e.t.a.l, 2010, abstract).

Synopsis

This instrument has its flaws but it is a good instrument and should be used a tool in the basket of tools for guiding the therapist’s role in therapy but not to replace therapy or other tests like the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). It should be one of many that the counselor can use and draw upon. College students are under a great deal of stress and they have to cope with tests, relationships, financial mazes, burdens, family problems, and external factors and decisions about their future. The last thing they need is a test that is going to label them for life. I am not a supporter of college psychological testing without continued therapy. I am a strong supporter of college therapists and college therapy with qualified college psychotherapists students or staff. I do not support a test that is going to establish a label on someone that will live with him or her when a client can accomplish much more with a therapist over a period of years.

References

Albanese, M.A. (2010). Test review of the Millon College Counseling inventory. From R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, and K.F. Geisinger (Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from the Buros Institute's Mental Measurement Yearbook Online database

Corey, G. (2009). Theory and practice of psychotherapy (8^th Ed). Thompson Brooks/Cole.

Cox, A. (2010). Test review of the Millon College Counseling inventory. From R. A. Spies, J. F. Carlson, and K.F. Geisinger (Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook [Electronic Version]. Retrieved from the Buros Institute's Mental Measurement Yearbook Online database

Imber, S. (1973). Relationship of trust to academic performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 145-150.

Lai, M.,Chiu, Y.,Gadow, K., Gau, S., & Hwu, H. (2010). Correlates of gender dysphoria in Taiwanese university students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 39(6),1415-1428.

Millon, T., Strack, S., Millon, C., Grossman, S. (2006). Millon college counseling inventory (MCCI). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.

Pearson Publishing. (2011). Millon college counseling inventory. Retrieved from http://www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=PAg504