Coordinating Author Information: Alicia W. Villanueva van den Hurk, BS | University of Dayton

Session Abstract: Psychological assessment is a growing field that is, ideally, regularly updated by the emerging research (Strauss et al., 2000). Consequently, in 2015, Mihura et al. (2017) surveyed American Psychological Association (APA) - accredited clinical psychology doctoral programs to inquire about which personality tests were being taught. The current study was conducted to update this survey on the training rates for the Rorschach and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) given relatively recent revisions of these tests. The Rorschach Performance Assessment System (R-PAS) was designed as a replacement for the Rorschach Comprehensive System (CS; Exner, 2003) and published in 2011 (Meyer et al.). In 2008, the MMPI-2-RF (Ben-Porath & Tellegen) was published as a separate test from the MMPI-2 (Butcher et al., 1989) and, in 2020, the MMPI-3 (Ben-Porath & Tellegen) was published as an updated version of the MMPI-2-RF. The survey also included other adult personality tests that were taught by at least 50% of the training programs in the 2015 survey.
Overall, our findings suggest that doctoral programs are indeed switching to newer versions of personality tests. According to our results, in 2021, a slightly higher proportion of programs were teaching R-PAS compared to the CS (46% vs. 38%) whereas it was the other way around in 2015 (37% vs. 53%). Regarding the MMPIs, in 2021, a higher proportion of programs were teaching the MMPI-2 compared to the MMPI-2-RF (92% vs. 67%) whereas it was the other way around in 2015 (74% vs. 93%). In 2021 47% of programs were providing training in both the CS and R-PAS, and 74% of programs were providing training in both the MMPI-2 and MMPI-2-RF or MMPI-3. Regarding the other tests, this survey indicated that the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) has a growing presence in the field of clinical psychology (91% in 2011 vs. 76% in 2015). Training in the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI) and the TAT has remained somewhat stable—respectively, 73% in 2021 versus 70% in 2015 (MCMI) and 59% in 2021 and 63% in 2015 (TAT).

We close with a discussion on the adoption of new test revisions based on criteria commonly recommended in the published literature (Adams, 2000; Beaujean, 2015; Bush, 2010; Bush et al., 2018; Butcher, 2000; Knauss, 2017; Silverstein & Nelson, 2000; Strauss et al., 2000) as well as by the APA guidelines for training in assessment (Wright et al., 2020). These criteria encompass: normative considerations, new data on test validity, incremental validity, new constructs or changes in DSM diagnostic criteria, and practical considerations.


Alicia W. Villanueva van den Hurk, BS | University of Dayton

Callie Jowers, MS | University of Detroit- Mercy

Francesca Ales, PhD | University of Turin

Angie Keene, BS | University of Toledo

Joni Mihura, PhD | University of Toledo

Leave a Reply