Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences (2002), 56, 443–452

Regular Article
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory profile
characteristics of schizotypal personality disorder
MIÉ MATSUI, phd,1 TOMIKI SUMIYOSHI, md,2 LISHA NIU, md,1
KENZO KUROKAWA, md2 AND MASAYOSHI KURACHI, md2
Departments of 1Psychology and 2Neuropsychiatry, School of Medicine,Toyama Medical and Pharmaceutical
University,Toyama, Japan

Abstract The goal of the present study was to determine whether precursors for psychopathology can be
found in personality dimensions of the general population. Two hundred and 62 university stu-
dents were compared with 41 schizophrenic patients and 18 patients with schizotypal personality
disorder (SPD) on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). Schizotypal
personality disorder patients showed significantly elevated Pt and Si scales compared with the
schizophrenic patients. Schizophrenia and SPD groups generally produced two-point codetypes
of 6–8/8–6, 2–6/6–2, 7–8/8–7, and 7–8/8–7, 2–7/7–2, 6–8/8–6. A total of 77.5% of students had no
codetype with a T-value of ≥ 70, although the frequency of codetypes of spike 5, spike 0 and
2–7/7–2 was relatively high in the student group compared with the general population. Discrimi-
nant function analysis of the MMPI profiles revealed significant variance among the three
groups. The overall rate of correct classification of the subjects into schizophrenia, SPD or uni-
versity students was 90.3%. The first coefficient, mainly defined by a negative weight on the Sc
scale, best distinguished the patients with either schizophrenia or SPD from the students. The
second coefficient, defined by negative weights on the Sc and Si scales, and positive weights on
the F and Ma scales identified patients with schizophrenia and SPD patients. The Harris-Lingoes
subscales, which are supposed to provide the profile patterns characteristic of schizotypy, well
discriminated the three groups. These results suggest the usefulness of the MMPI subscales for
the detection of subjects with the SPD trait.

Key words Harris-Lingoes scales, mental health, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, psy-
chopathology, schizophrenia, schizotypal personality disorder, university students.

INTRODUCTION be found in personality dimensions, which are

measured by the MMPI. Thus, Claridge and Beech
The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
described the dimensional personality-based con-
(MMPI) is one of the widely used objective tests of
tinuity models of schizotypy and schizophrenia.3 This
personality and has the ability to detect both schizo-
model predicts that the trends toward psychopatho-
phrenia and schizophrenia-related conditions to some
logical personality in healthy people predisposes to
degree. It also provides transmissible indicators for
psychopathology (i.e. the biological liability for
the liability to develop schizophrenia.1,2 Several previ-
schizophrenia may be expressed as schizotypal per-
ous studies have attempted to determine in healthy
sonality organization).3 Some studies have attempted
people whether precursors for psychopathology can
to clarify in healthy people the association between
personality traits as assessed by the MMPI and bio-
logical markers.4–7 Recently, Matsui et al. have pro-
vided evidence that in healthy people the high Sc
Correspondence address: Mié Matsui, Department of Psychology, scale of the MMPI was associated with reduced
School of Medicine, Toyama Medical and Pharmaceutical
frontal white matter volume as measured by magnetic
University, 2630 Sugitani, Toyama 930-0194, Japan. Email:
mmatsui@ms.toyama-mpu.ac.jp resonance imaging (MRI).4 These findings suggest
Received 29 August 2001; revised 28 November 2001; accepted 2 that personality dimensions may be linked to some
December 2001. neural substrates.
444 M. Matsui et al.

Other investigators have administered several kinds 152 females) who entered Toyama Medical and
of psychological tests, in addition to the MMPI, to Pharmaceutical University, Toyama, Japan, in 1998
university students in order to identify individuals participated in the study. The mean age of these
who have schizotypal personality, and compared the subjects at the time of testing was 19.2 (SD 2.1) years.
MMPI profiles between subjects who were considered The clinical group consists of 41 patients with
to have schizotypal personality and those who were schizophrenia (23 males and 18 females) and 18
not.8–10 Thus, Haier et al. compared results from the patients with schizotypal disorder (17 males and one
MMPI and those from the Research Diagnostic female) who meet the ICD-10 Diagnostic Criteria for
Criteria (RDC) in college students, and found a Research.15 Schizotypal disorder is characterized by
certain degree of correlation between specific MMPI eccentric behavior and anomalies of thinking and
codetypes and the RDC evaluations.8 Similarly, affect which resemble those seen in schizophrenia,
Moldin et al. identified the schizophrenia-related although no definite and characteristic schizophrenic
codetypes of the MMPI.11 Lenzenweger9 used the anomalies have occurred. The clinical picture of
Perceptual Aberration Scale (PAS)12 as a measure of schizotypal disorder is similar to the prodromal state
schizotypal personality, and found that the PAS-iden- of schizophrenia. The phenomenological differences
tified schizotypic students showed schizophrenia- between schizotypal disorder and schizophrenia are
related MMPI high-point codes more frequently than the absence of overt symptoms and the presence of
the controls. On the other hand, Merritt et al.10 found sustained psychotic symptoms. Eighteen patients with
no evidence for correlations between the diagnosis of schizotypal disorder have never met criteria for
schizotypy based on the Social Anhedonia Scale schizophrenia itself. The mean age of schizophrenia
(SAS)13 and the MMPI profiles. and SPD subjects was 29.2 (SD 7.0) and 24.0 (SD 8.0)
The primary purpose of the present study years, respectively. All patients were under 45 years of
was to compare the MMPI profiles, including the age. The mean duration of illness for the schizophre-
schizophrenia-related high-point codetypes11 in addi- nia and SPD subjects was 4.6 (SD 5.1, range 0.08–21)
tion to the individual subscales, among patients with and 2.2 (SD 2.9, range 0.02–11) years, respectively. The
either schizophrenia or schizotypal personality disor- mean daily haloperidol-equivalent neuroleptic doses
der (SPD) and university students. In addition, as the for schizophrenia and SPD subjects were 8.6 (SD 8.9,
codetypes of MMPI typically have been determined range 0.6–37.8) and 4.4 (SD 8.2, range 0–32.9) mg,
according to the high-point pairs (i.e. the two highest respectively. Diagnoses were made by experienced
scales with T scores of more than 70),14 we examined psychiatrists using medical histories. All patients were
all two-point codetypes and compared them between physically healthy at the time of the study, and no
patients with schizophrenia and those with SPD. The patient had a history of head trauma, serious medical
second purpose was to determine the ability of the or surgical illness, or substance abuse.
MMPI to distinguish among subjects with schizophre-
nia or SPD, and normal students, using multiple dis-
Personality assessment
criminant function analyses. In view of the continuity
models of healthy people and patients with schizo- All subjects gave informed consent before entering
phrenia-spectrum disorders, it is hypothesized that a the study. The new Japanese version of Minnesota
certain degree of overlap between university students Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) was
and patients with schizophrenia or SPD exists in administered to students as a routine mental health
terms of the MMPI profiles. Therefore, we sought to checkup during the orientation following entrance
identify a measure of the liability to schizotypy by into the university. All patients were administered the
analyzing the MMPI profiles. Our a priori hypothesis full version of the MMPI by well-trained clinical
was that subjects with SPD are associated with more psychologists in a quiet, comfortable, conventionally
distress, irrational struggle, social withdrawal and so lit testing room. The MMPI is a widely used instru-
on, which are represented by the corresponding ment for personality assessment with established psy-
MMPI subscales and profiles, compared with patients chometric properties. The new Japanese version of the
with schizophrenia or normal students. MMPI was recently revised following comprehensive
re-standardization in 1993.16 To date, there have been
METHODS several Japanese versions of the MMPI which have
been used since the 1950s. However, they were
Subjects
viewed as decreasingly applicable in contemporary
The sample included 326 participants (59 patients and society, as the original Japanese MMPI items and
267 students). A total of 267 freshmen (115 males and norms were translated and developed about 40–
MMPI profile characteristics of SPD 445

50 years ago. The last Japanese version had some MMPI T scores of basic scores were used in the
problems: one problem is that of mistranslation; analyses. The frequency of individual MMPI scale
second, there was sample bias of population for nor- elevations, as well as the ‘TOP3’, ‘Highest’, and ‘Any’,
malization (i.e. 80% of subjects was less than 30 years as employed by Holdnack et al.,18 was obtained per
old); third, basic materials of normalization such as group (schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder and stu-
percentage of endorsement and distribution of two- dents). The scales were considered elevated when
point codes have not been published. The new Japan- T ≥ 70. The TOP3 means that the scale is one of the
ese version was based on the MMPI, but not MMPI-2, three highest elevations. The Highest means that the
as there has been vast information on the MMPI. The scale was the highest elevation in the profile, and
new version was developed based on considerations ‘Any’ shows that the scale was elevated above 70 T.
of nine previous Japanese versions. Sampling for nor- Moreover, the classification strategy employed by
malization was based on a national census. Thus, the Moldin et al.11 was used to classify groups according to
validity and reliability of the new version of MMPI elevated profiles specific to schizophrenia spectrum
have been confirmed17 and it is at present in common disorders. By this classification, the following code-
use in Japan. types are regarded to be associated with the spectrum
Initially, we analyzed the 13 basic scores consisting disorders: 2-7-8, 2-8, 4-6, 4-2-8, 8-6, 8-9, 9-6, 8-3, and
of three validity and 10 clinical scores. The three 8-1-3.
validity scales (L, lie; F, infrequency; K, defensiveness)
provide information about the subject’s approach to
Statistical analysis
the test including accuracy of the self-appraisal by
the subject, which can also reveal psychopathology to Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was used
some degree.14 The 10 clinical scales provide levels of for overall analysis of the MMPI subscales following
symptomatology in specific pathological domains and the previous MMPI studies.18,19 Fisher’s exact proba-
information on personality including hypochondriasis bility tests were employed to examine the differences
(Hs; code 1), depression (D; code 2), hysteria (Hy; in the frequency of scale elevations and the Moldin’s
code 3), psychopathic deviate (Pd; code 4), paranoia codes between schizophrenia and SPD. An alpha level
(Pa; code 6), psychasthenia (Pt; code 7), schizophrenia of 0.05 was used for these statistical tests.
(Sc; code 8), mania (Ma; code 9), masculinity- Discriminant function analysis was performed using
femininity (Mf; code 5), and social introversion (Si; the MMPI basic scores and other scores by the
code 0). Second, the Harris-Lingoes and the Harris-Lingoes Subscales and the Serkownek Sub-
Serkownek subscales were examined. The Harris- scales in order to discriminate among patients with
Lingoes subscales for depression, paranoia and schiz- schizophrenia or schizotypal disorder, and university
ophrenia, and the Serkownek subscales for social students.
introversion provide more detailed information on
domains associated with schizotypy, and allow more
RESULTS
subtle analysis of an individual’s clinical scale eleva-
tions.14 The depression subscales include subjective Group differences
depression (D1), psychomotor retardation (D2), phys-
Profile analysis
ical malfunctioning (D3), mental dullness (D4), and
brooding (D5). The paranoia subscales include perse- Basic scores: Five of 267 students (1.9%) were
cutory ideas (Pa1), poignancy (Pa2), and naivete excluded from the analysis because the T scores of
(Pa3). The schizophrenia subscales include social the Cannot Say (?) scale of these students were
alienation (Sc1), emotional alienation (Sc2), lack of higher than 70. Therefore, data from the remaining
ego mastery, cognitive (Sc3), lack of ego mastery, 262 students were examined. Means and standard
conative (Sc4), lack of ego mastery, defective inhibi- deviations derived from K-corrected T scores of the
tion (Sc5), and bizarre sensory experiences (Sc6). The MMPI 3 validity scores and 10 clinical scales are
social introversion subscales include inferiority-per- listed in Table 1.
sonal discomfort (Si1), discomfort with others (Si2), The MANOVAs were employed to test the hypothe-
staid-personal rigidity (Si3), hypersensitivity (Si4), dis- ses that the three groups (schizophrenia, SPD, and
trust (Si5), and physical-somatic concerns (Si6). students group) would respond differently to the
A T score is a standard score, whose distribution MMPI. The validity scales and clinical scales were
has a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Raw analyzed separately, as was each group of the Harris-
scores on the MMPI are converted to T scores in Lingoes and Serkownek subscales (e.g. depression,
order to permit interscale comparisons. K-corrected paranoia, schizophrenia, and social introversion).
446 M. Matsui et al.

Table 1. Mean and standard deviation of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory validity and clinical scales

Schizophrenia Schizotypal Students

(n = 41) disorder (n = 18) (n = 262) manova
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F P Sheefe’s test

L 53.59 (9.72) 49.89 (8.00) 48.29 (8.73) 6.48 0.0017 B**

F 66.27 (16.00) 66.83 (18.78) 49.49 (10.85) 46.84 < 0.0001 B***C***
K 48.83 (10.60) 46.39 (9.65) 50.01 (9.17) 1.43 0.2403
Hs 62.66 (13.12) 64.56 (14.67) 51.95 (9.44) 29.06 < 0.0001 B***C***
D 69.12 (14.07) 75.33 (12.31) 52.08 (11.89) 59.56 < 0.0001 B***C***
Hy 65.41 (13.61) 64.39 (11.64) 50.93 (9.12) 49.01 < 0.0001 B***C***
Pd 63.63 (12.84) 63.11 (8.68) 49.64 (9.72) 45.02 < 0.0001 B***C***
Mf 53.95 (11.62) 54.67 (11.78) 51.46 (9.38) 1.87 0.1565
Pa 70.90 (16.33) 71.11 (16.35) 48.38 (9.07) 106.38 < 0.0001 B***C***
Pt 70.32 (14.26) 78.50 (15.63) 49.66 (10.46) 103.75 < 0.0001 A*B***C***
Sc 74.05 (17.13) 80.56 (16.03) 47.17 (9.16) 170.04 < 0.0001 B***C***
Ma 57.29 (11.34) 51.94 (9.02) 47.60 (9.23) 28.92 < 0.0001 B***C*
Si 55.37 (10.45) 65.22 (10.30) 51.65 (11.73) 12.8 < 0.0001 A*C***

L, lie; F, frequency; K, defensiveness; Hs, hypochondriasis; D, depression; Hy, hysteria; Pd, psychopathic deviate; Mf,
masculinity-femininity; Pa, paranoia; Pt, psychasthenia; Sc, schizophrenia; Ma, mania; Si, social introversion.
A, schizophrenia vs SPD; B, schizophrenia vs students; C, SPD vs students.
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.

A MANOVA of the validity scales lie (L), infrequency dullness), D5 (brooding), Sc1 (social alienation),
(F), and defensiveness (K), found a main effect for Sc2 (emotional alienation), Sc4 (lack of ego mastery,
the group (F[6, 632] = 18.3, P < 0.001, with L and F conative) and Si2 (discomfort with others) scores
significant at the univariate, P < 0.005 and P < 0.001, compared with schizophrenia patients (D1, Sc1, Sc2,
respectively). Means (± SD) for the validity scales are Sc4, Scheffe’s test, P < 0.01; D4, D5, Si2, Scheffe’s test,
shown in Table 1. There was no significant difference P < 0.05).
between schizophrenia and SPD in this respect.
Table 1 also details the means and standard Scale elevations
deviations for each clinical scale. A significant main
effect of the group (F[20, 618] = 17.1, P < 0.001) was The frequency of individual scale elevations, ‘TOP3’,
observed for all clinical scales significant at the uni- ‘Highest’ and ‘Any’ is shown in Table 3. Schizophrenia
variate level except Mf. The SPD patients showed patients most often produced elevations on scales
significantly elevated Pt and Si scales compared Sc (46.3%) and Pa (37.8%). Patients with SPD also
with schizophrenia patients (Scheffe’s post-hoc test, produced elevations on scales Sc (75.0%) and Pt
P < 0.05). Schizophrenic patients had significantly (55.6%). In contrast, the frequency of elevations in
higher all clinical scales except Si compared to stu- the university students did not surpass 10% for any
dents. The SPD patients also scored significantly scale. Application of the Fisher’s exact probability test
higher than students on every clinical scale. revealed that schizophrenia and SPD differ in fre-
The Harris-Lingoes and Serkownek subscales: quency of Hy, Pt, Sc or Si in ‘TOP3’ (P < 0.05). Schizo-
The means and standard deviations for each phrenia and SPD did not differ in the frequency of
Harris-Lingoes and Serkownek subscale are shown any ‘Highest’ scale.
in Table 2.
The main effects for group in the Harris-Lingoes
Schizophrenia-related codetypes (Moldin’s code)
and Serkownek subscales were found for depression
and two-point codetypes
(F[10, 628] = 18.4, P < 0.001), paranoia (F[6, 632] = 20.0,
P < 0.001), schizophrenia (F[12, 626] = 18.6, P < 0.001), Each participant’s MMPI was classified as to the pres-
and social introversion (F[12, 626] = 6.09, P < 0.001). ence or absence of any of the following high-point
Post-hoc tests revealed SPD patients had significantly codes: 2-7-8, 2-8, 4-6, 4-2-8, 8-6, 8-9, 9-6, 8-3, or 8-1-3.
elevated D1 (subjective depression), D4 (mental Twelve of 41 (29.3%) patients with schizophrenia,
MMPI profile characteristics of SPD 447

Table 2. Mean and standard deviation on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory Harris-Lingoes subscales

Schizophrenia Schizotypal Students

(n = 41) disorder (n = 18) (n = 262) manova
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD F P Sheefe’s test

D1 64.24 (13.84) 76.33 (12.32) 51.08 (12.16) 50.42 < 0.0001 A**B***C***
D2 62.17 (10.08) 65.22 (15.45) 50.07 (12.21) 28.02 < 0.0001 B***C***
D3 65.59 (14.66) 67.72 (15.49) 51.07 (11.24) 38.78 < 0.0001 B***C***
D4 67.17 (15.03) 75.94 (16.68) 49.42 (11.14) 72.54 < 0.0001 A*B***C***
D5 61.88 (10.73) 71.00 (9.47) 53.36 (11.43) 28.41 < 0.0001 A*B***C***
Pa1 65.80 (17.98) 68.22 (17.71) 49.61 (9.78) 50.98 < 0.0001 B***C***
Pa2 63.20 (13.99) 68.28 (12.24) 53.73 (12.23) 19.85 < 0.0001 B***C***
Pa3 54.29 (9.79) 49.61 (10.26) 50.85 (8.97) 2.81 0.0618
Sc1 68.05 (14.96) 81.89 (18.51) 52.39 (12.43) 61.88 < 0.0001 A**B***C***
Sc2 56.83 (12.37) 69.00 (15.71) 50.56 (11.06) 25.05 < 0.0001 A**B**C***
Sc3 69.44 (16.57) 76.61 (17.29) 48.84 (11.42) 81.43 < 0.0001 B***C***
Sc4 63.34 (12.19) 73.33 (15.70) 51.64 (11.57) 41.33 < 0.0001 A**B***C***
Sc5 63.83 (15.57) 63.28 (15.48) 51.53 (11.01) 24.82 < 0.0001 B***C***
Sc6 71.15 (21.47) 63.56 (20.03) 49.90 (11.00) 50.30 < 0.0001 B***C***
Si1 58.34 (10.68) 65.11 (10.23) 52.89 (11.22) 13.35 < 0.0001 B*C***
Si2 54.24 (10.39) 63.00 (13.43) 48.86 (11.41) 15.69 < 0.0001 A*B*C***
Si3 50.22 (10.93) 56.67 (7.61) 48.66 (9.73) 5.84 0.0032 C**
Si4 60.54 (10.39) 59.67 (10.61) 50.43 (10.02) 22.9 < 0.0001 B***C**
Si5 50.76 (12.84) 55.00 (14.14) 48.43 (11.44) 3.08 0.0473
Si6 61.46 (10.52) 67.39 (11.90) 54.00 (10.92) 19.18 < 0.0001 B***C***

D1, subjective depression; D2, psychomotor retardation; D3, physical malfunctioning; D4, mental dullness; D5, brooding;
Pa1, Persecutory ideas; Pa2, Poignancy; Pa3, Naivete; Sc1, social alienation; Sc2, emotional alienation; Sc3, lack of ego mastery,
cognitive; Sc4, lack of ego mastery, conative; Sc5, lack of ego mastery, defective inhibition; Sc6, bizarre sensory experience; Si1,
inferiority-personal discomfort; Si2, discomfort with others; Si3, staid-personal rigidity; Si4, hypersensitivity; Si5, distrust; Si6,
physical-somatic concerns.
A, schizophrenia vs SPD; B, schizophrenia vs students; C, SPD vs students.
* P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.

eight of 18 (44.4%) patients with SPD and three of most frequently. Schizotypal personality disorder
262 (1.1%) students were classified as having one of patients produced two-point codetypes with 7-8/8-7,
the Moldin’s high-point codes. There was no signifi- 2-7/7-2 and 6-8/8-6. A total of 77.5% of students
cant difference between schizophrenia and SPD has no two-point codetypes with T-values of ≥ 70,
(Fisher’s exact probability test, n.s.). The two-point although the frequency of codetypes with spike 5,
code, derived from the MMPI clinical scales, is fre- spike 0 and 2-7/7-2 was relatively high in the
quently used as an actuarial method for describing students.
personality characteristics. In the present study, each
subject was assigned with a two-point code in accor-
dance with the guidelines established by the revision17 Discriminant function analysis
based on Hathaway and Meehl,20 such that 85.7% of
Basic scores
patients with schizophrenia, 88.9% of patients with
SPD and 22.6% of the students were assigned with an A discriminant function analysis was performed in
appropriate two-point code. The differences in the an attempt to discriminate among schizophrenia, SPD
frequency of the two-point codes among schizophre- and students group. Minnesota Multiphasic Personal-
nia, SPD, and the students were determined. Table 4 ity Inventory variables (13 basic scores) were entered
provides the frequency with which each MMPI code- stepwise, with a minimum F-value of 1.00 required to
type occurred in the group of schizophrenia, SPD and enter. Table 5 shows that the disciminant function
students. Schizophrenic group produced two-point analysis yielded two significant roots. The first coeffi-
codetypes with 6-8/8-6, 2-6/6-2 and 7-8/8-7 occurring cient, mainly defined by a negative weight on Sc, best
448 M. Matsui et al.

Any distinguished the patients with schizophrenia and

*
*
those with SPD from students. The second coefficient,
defined by negative weights on Sc and Si and positive
S vs SPD
Highest

weights on F and Ma, identified patients with schizo-

phrenia or SPD.
Prior probabilities were adjusted for initial group
TOP3

membership to calculate the accuracy of these coeffi-

*

*
*
*
cients in predicting group. As shown in Table 6, the
resulting canonical function correctly classified 56.1%
TOP3 Highest Any

***

***
***

***
***

***
***
***
***
S vs SPD vs Students

of schizophrenia, 55.6% of SPD and 98.1% of stu-

dents with a combined correct classification rate of
***
***
***

90.3% (canonical r = 0.75, Wilks’ lambda = 0.408), c2

**

(16, 622) = 22.008, P < 0.001.

Values are expressed as % (no. subjects). S vs SPD vs Students; c 2 tests. SPD vs S; Fisher’s exact tests. * P < 0.05; ** P < 0.01; *** P < 0.001.
***

***
***
***

***
***
**

**

The Harris-Lingoes and Serkownek subscales

A second discriminant function analysis was per-
6.87 (18)
6.87 (18)

5.73 (15)

5.75 (15)
3.05 (8)
3.05 (8)
3.05 (8)
3.44 (9)

1.53 (4)
2.67 (7)
Any

formed in an attempt to discriminate among groups

of schizophrenia, SPD or students. Backward stepwise
analysis was performed using the Harris-Lingoes and
3.56 (9.33)
Students

0.88 (2.3)
1.64 (4.3)

2.52 (6.6)
0.88 (2.3)
Highest

Serkownek subscales (20 scores) with a minimum

2.67 (7)

1.15 (3)

3.44 (9)

1.53 (4)
2.67 (7)

F-value of 10.00 required to remove. The subscales in

Highest, the scale was the highest elevation in the profile; Any, the scale was elevated above or equal to 70.

D, Pa, Sc and Si were selected because they were

hypothesized as characteristics of schizotypy. Table 7
6.42 (16.83)

Scales were considered elevated when T  70. Top 3, the scale was one of the three highest elevations.
5.15 (13.5)

4.81 (12.6)

4.39 (11.5)
2.02 (5.3)
2.21 (5.8)

2.02 (5.3)

shows that the disciminant function analysis yielded

TOP3

2.29 (6)

3.44 (9)

1.53 (4)

two significant roots. The first coefficient, defined

by positive weights on D4 (mental dullness) and
Sc1 (social alienation) and a negative weight on Si
72.22 (30.3)

44.44 (18.7)
27.78 (11.7)
27.78 (11.7)

77.78 (32.7)
77.78 (32.7)

44.44 (18.7)
22.22 (9.3)

5.56 (2.3)

(inferior-personal discomfort), distinguished the

Any

patients with schizophrenia and those with SPD from

students. The second coefficient, defined by a negative
0
Schizotypal disorder
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory clinical scale elevations

weight on Sc3 (bizarre sensory experiences) and posi-

27.78 (11.7)
19.44 (8.2)

11.11 (4.7)
5.56 (2.3)

tive weights on Sc1 (social alienation) and Sc2 (emo-

Highest

25 (10.5)

tional alienation), best identified patients with

schizophrenia or SPD.
0

0
0

Prior probabilities were adjusted for initial group

36.11 (15.2)

27.78 (11.7)
55.56 (23.3)

membership to calculate the accuracy of these coeffi-

5.56 (2.3)

22.22 (9.3)
TOP3

16.67 (7)

75 (31.5)

cients in predicting group. As shown in Table 8, the

resulting canonical function correctly classified 48.8%
0

of schizophrenia, 50.0% of SPD and 95.0% of stu-

46.34 (19)
29.27 (12)

48.78 (20)
36.59 (15)
34.15 (14)

43.90 (18)
60.98 (25)

dents with a combined correct classification rate of

9.76 (4)

12.20 (5)
14.63 (6)
Any

89.6% (canonical r = 0.65, Wilks’ lambda = 0.508), c2

(10, 628) = 25.313, P < 0.001.
Schizophrenia

6.10 (2.5)

6.10 (2.5)
29.27 (12)
Highest

2.44 (1)
9.76 (4)

9.76 (4)

14.63 (6)

DISCUSSION
0

0
0

The results of the present study are consistent with

previous research reporting elevations in some clini-
28.05 (11.5)

37.80 (15.5)
23.17 (9.5)

23.17 (9.5)
46.34 (19)

cal and validity scales (i.e. D, Pa, Pt, Sc and F) in

TOP3

17.07 (7)

19.51 (8)
7.32 (3)

2.44 (1)
2.44 (1)

patients with schizophrenia compared with normal

control subjects18,19,21 (20 white patients,18 61%
Caucasian, 36% African-American and 3% Asian-
Table 3.

MMPI

American of 33 patients,19 18 non-Hispanic Caucasian

Ma
Hy

Mf
Hs

Pd

Pa

Sc
Pt
D

Si

and one Hispanic of 19 patients21). This finding

MMPI profile characteristics of SPD 449

Table 4. Frequency of two-point codetypes

code type Schizophrenia (n = 41) Schizotypal disorder (n = 18) Students (n = 262)

– 6 (14.29%) 2 (11.11%) 203 (77.48%)

1– 4 (1.53%)
2– 4 (1.53%)
3–
4– 1 (2.38%) 2 (0.76%)
5– 9 (3.44%)
6– 1 (0.38%)
7– 1 (2.38%) 2 (0.76%)
8– 1 (2.38%) 1 (5.56%)
9– 4 (1.53%)
0– 8 (3.05%)
12 · 21 1.5 (3.57%) 2 (0.76%)
13 · 31 1 (2.38%) 4.5 (1.72%)
14 · 41
15 · 51
16 · 61 0.5 (0.19%)
17 · 71 1 (5.56%) 2 (0.76%)
18 · 81 0.5 (1.19%)
19 · 91
10 · 01
23 · 32
24 · 42 1 (0.38%)
25 · 52
26 · 62 4.5 (13.10%) 1 (0.38%)
27 · 72 2.5 (5.95%) 3.5 (19.44%) 6.34 (2.42%)
28 · 82 1 (2.38%) 0.5 (2.78%) 0.34 (0.13%)
29 · 92
20 · 02 1 (5.56%) 2 (0.76%)
34 · 43 1 (2.38%)
35 · 53
36 · 63
37 · 73 1 (2.38%)
38 · 83 2 (4.76%)
39 · 93
30 · 03
45 · 54
46 · 64 1 (2.38%) 0.34 (0.13%)
47 · 74 0.5 (1.19%) 1.34 (0.51%)
48 · 84 1.5 (3.57%)
49 · 94
40 · 04 1 (0.38%)
56 · 65
57 · 75 1 (2.38%)
58 · 85 1 (0.38%)
59 · 95
50 · 05
67 · 76 1 (2.38%) 0.34 (0.13%)
68 · 86 6.5 (15.48%) 3 (16.67%)
69 · 96
60 · 06
78 · 87 4 (9.52%) 5 (27.78%) 1.34 (0.51%)
79 · 97
70 · 07 1 (5.56%)
89 · 98 1.5 (3.57%)
80 · 08
90 · 09

1, Hs; 2, D; 3, Hy; 4, Pd; 5, Mf; 6, Pa; 7, Pt; 8, Sc; 9, Ma; 0, Si.

Each subject was assigned with a two-point code in accordance with the guidelines established by the revision based on
Hathaway and Meehl.
Scales were considered elevated when T  70. For example, two kinds of each code got 0.5 when the highest score and the
second highest score is a tie or a difference of 1 point.
450 M. Matsui et al.

suggests that the specific feature of MMPI profile in avoidance compared with patients with schizophrenia.
patients with schizophrenia is culturally independent. Furthermore, significantly higher scores were noted
Moreover, we presented the MMPI profiles of on subjective depression (D1), social alienation (Sc1),
patients diagnosed with SPD, which have not been emotional alienation (Sc2) and lack of ego mastery,
reported by other investigators, unlike the case with conative (Sc4) for SPD subjects compared to those
non-clinical subjects.8–10 The present study suggests with schizophrenia.
patients with schizophrenia have lower scales than The two-point codetypes analysis revealed that
SPD patients for obsessiveness-anxiety (Pt), social 77.5% of the students, 11.1% of patients with SPD,
discomfort and social avoidance (Si). A high Pt scale and 14.3% of patients with schizophrenia did not
generally represents obsessive–compulsive anxiety, produce any particular code. However, subsequent
irrational fears, highly strung, difficulty concentrating, analyses showed that schizophrenic patients produced
and lack of self-confidence. Therefore, the results indi- the two-point codetypes of 8-6, 2-6, 7-8 frequently,
cate SPD patients suffer from more distress and irra- while SPD patients were more associated with those
tional struggles than schizophrenic patients. A high Si of 7-8, 2-7, 6-8. A total of 3.3% of students produced
scale, on the other hand, represents social withdrawal the two-point codetypes typical of schizophrenic or
associated with social discomfort and social anxiety, SPD patients. It was also found that 26.2% of schizo-
not withdrawal due to lack of interest in relating to phrenic patients, 44.4% of SPD patients and 1.1% of
others. Therefore, SPD patients are supposed to feel the students displayed the Moldin code. Thus, we
more social discomfort and practice more social identified schizophrenia-related codetypes of MMPI
that were not included in the nine codes reported by
Moldin et al.11 For instance, 9.5% of schizophrenic
patients had the 6-2 codetype, and both 9.5% of schiz-
Table 5. Standardized canonical coefficients for predicting ophrenia and 16.7% of SPD patients had the 8-7
diagnosis from Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-
tory basic subscales

Canonical coefficients Table 7. Standardized canonical coefficients for predicting

MMPI scale 1 2 diagnosis from Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inven-
tory Harris-Lingoes subscales
Sc - 0.98 - 0.89
Si 0.3 - 0.63 Canonical coefficients
D - 0.35 0.32 MMPI scale 1 2
F 0.19 0.58
Hs 0.26 - 0.003 D4 0.92 - 0.11
Pa - 0.19 0.35 Sc1 0.6 0.65
L - 0.1 0.37 Sc2 - 0.43 0.57
Ma - 0.02 0.54 Sc6 0.36 - 1.03
Si1 - 0.63 0.16
First coefficient distinguished patients with schizophrenia
and SPD from students. D4, mental dullness; Sc1, social alienation; Sc2, emotional
Second coefficient distinguished schizophrenic patients alienation; Sc6, bizarre sensory experiences; Si1, inferiority-
from SPD patients. personal discomfort.

Table 6. Correct classifications of discriminant function analysis using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory basic
subscales

Predicted group
Schizophrenia SPD Students
Actual group % of correct classification P = 0.128 P = 0.056 P = 0.816 Total

Schizophrenia 56.1 23 5 13 41
SPD 55.6 4 10 4 18
Students 98.1 4 1 257 262
Total 90.3 31 16 274 321
MMPI profile characteristics of SPD 451

Table 8. Correct classifications of discriminant function analysis using the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
Harris-Lingoes subscales

Predicted group
Schizophrenia SPD Students
Actual group % of correct classification P = 0.128 P = 0.056 P = 0.816 Total

Schizophrenia 48.8 20 4 17 41
Schizotypal disorder 50 2 9 7 18
Students 95 8 5 249 262
Total 86.6 30 18 273 321

codetype, consistent with the suggestion by Merritt present results from the discriminant function
et al.10 analysis are consistent with clinical features of these
The MMPI was found to be useful in discriminating schizophrenia-spectrum disorders. Several previous
subjects with schizophrenia from those with SPD or studies9–11 have shown characteristics of MMPI in
from the university students. The distribution of normal people with schizotypal personality, and
psychopathology demonstrated by the MMPI profiles Moldin’s codetype, typically 2-7-8, was frequent. Fur-
suggests considerable overlap between schizophrenia thermore, the present findings have clarified a special
and SPD. However, the discriminant function analysis feature of MMPI profile in patients with schizotypal
revealed a subtle difference in the MMPI profiles disorder. The ICD-10 criteria for schizotypal disorder
between these two groups. The analysis of the MMPI include prodromal schizophrenia as well as SPD. The
basic scales showed that the Sc (schizophrenia) scale difference observed between schizotypal disorder and
was the primary component to distinguish subjects schizophrenia could be regarded as the prerequisites
with either schizophrenia or SPD from the students. for overt psychotic symptoms. Although low doses of
Moreover, the second component separated schizo- medication may prevent overt psychotic symptoms, 18
phrenia from SPD, attributable to higher trends of patients with schizotypal disorder have not developed
Sc and Si in SPD, while schizophrenic patients had overt schizophrenic symptoms so far. However,
higher scores of F and Ma than SPD patients. These follow-up studies are necessary to confirm our results,
results suggest that SPD patients are more associated and especially to make clear the difference of the
with unusual thinking and experiences (Sc), and MMPI profile between prodromal schizophrenia and
social discomfort and distance (Si) than schizophrenic SPD.
patients, while schizophrenic patients more often It is important to note that there is variation in the
experience difficulty in inhibiting expression of illness MMPI profiles of schizophrenia depending on the
(Ma), provide unusual response and have serious subtypes and the state of the illness. Thus, Subotnik et
psychopathology (F). The discriminant function al. reported that patients with deficit schizophrenia
analysis using the Harris-Lingoes scale showed that had lower scores in depression, emotional alienation
the primary component discriminated schizophrenia with loss of judgement, suspiciousness, obsessiveness,
and SPD patients from the students, and that both anxiety, social discomfort, and social avoidance than
groups of patients have higher tendency towards did non-deficit patients.22 Moreover, patients during
mental dullness (D4) and social alienation (Sc1) than the psychotic state were shown to present higher
students. In addition, the second component sepa- scores of F, Pa, and Sc than patients during the remit-
rated SPD from schizophrenia by showing that SPD ted state.21 The present study did not include patients
patients feel the lack of rapport both with other with schizophrenia during the remitted state. Most
people (Sc1) and with themselves (Sc2) to a greater patients with schizophrenia in the present study
degree than do schizophrenic patients, and that received the MMPI test after medication. Further-
schizophrenic patients have more bizarre sensory more, we did not divide patients with schizophrenia
experiences (Sc6) than SPD patients. Deterioration by subtype. It is likely that these mixed schizophrenic
of general function in addition to the presence of conditions (the state of the illness or subtypes) pro-
positive and negative symptoms is characteristic of duced a counterbalance concerning the profiles of
schizophrenia. On the other hand, SPD patients are patients with schizophrenia regardless of the state or
characterized by relatively intact general function and subtypes, which validates the comparison between
prominent discomfort in social relationships. The schizophrenia and SPD reported here.
452 M. Matsui et al.

There are several limitations of the present study 7. Ogura C, Hirano K, Nageishi Y et al. Deviate P200 and
that should be taken into account. Five out of 262 P300 in non-patient college students with high scores on
(1.9%) students were classified into patients (either the schizophrenia scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic
schizophrenia or SPD) by the discriminant function Personality Inventory (MMPI). Int. J. Psychophysiol.
1994; 16: 89–97.
analysis. Although this indicates specificity fairly well,
8. Haier RJ, Rieder RO, Khouri PJ, Buchsbaum MS.
it is possible that a limited degree of personality
Extreme MMPI scores and the Research Diagnostic
deviation characteristics of schizophrenia or SPD is Criteria. Screening college men for psychopathology.
present in normal population. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 1979; 36: 528–534.
The MMPI is a useful tool for identifying people, 9. Lenzenweger MF. Confirming schizotypic personality
including university students, who have problems configurations in hypothetically psychosis-prone univer-
related to mental health. The results of the present sity students. Psychiatry Res. 1991; 37: 81–96.
study suggest that the MMPI also provides a window 10. Merritt RD, Balogh DW, DeVinney SE. Use of the
into the internal world of patients with either schizo- MMPI to assess the construct validity of the revised
phrenia or SPD, for whom a standard clinical inter- social anhedonia scale as an index of schizotypy. J.
view alone is not sufficient to grasp. Although the Personality Assessment 1993; 60: 227–238.
11. Moldin SO, Gottesman II, Erlenmeyer-Kimling L.
clinical and validity scales of the MMPI were found to
Psychometric validation of psychiatric diagnoses in the
be sensitive to general psychopathology characteris-
New York High-Risk study. Psychiatry Res. 1987; 22:
tics of the psychotic groups, SPD was best distin- 159–177.
guished by the specific patterns of elevations on the 12. Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Raulin ML. Body-image
Harris-Lingoes subscales. aberration in schizophrenia. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1978;
87: 399–407.
13. Chapman LJ, Chapman JP, Raulin ML. Scales for physi-
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS cal and social anhedonia. J. Abnorm. Psychol. 1976; 85:
This study was supported by a Grant-in-Aid for 374–382.
Exploratory Research, 12871016 (DrMatsui) from the 14. Greene RL. The MMPI-2/MMPI. An Interpretive
Ministry of Education, Science, Sports and Culture of Manual. Allyn & Bacon, Boston, 1991.
15. World Health Organization. The ICD-10 Classification
Japan.
of Mental and Behavioral Disorders: Diagnostic Criteria
for Research. World Health Organization, Geneva, 1993.
REFERENCES 16. New Japanese MMPI Committee. Manual for the New
Japanese Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory.
1. Walters GD. The MMPI and schizophrenia: review. San-Kyo-Bo, Kyoto, 1993 (in Japanese).
Schizophr. Bull. 1983; 9: 226–246. 17. New Japanese MMPI Committee. Study of Standardiza-
2. Carter JW, Parnas J, Cannon TD, Schulsinger F, tion for the New Japanese MMPI. San-Kyo-Bo, Kyoto,
Mednick SA. MMPI variables predictive of schizophre- 1997 (in Japanese).
nia in the Copenhagen high-risk project: a 25-year 18. Holdnack JA, Moberg PJ, Arnold SE, Gur RE, Gur RC.
follow-up. Acta Psychiatr. Scand. 1999; 99: 432–440. MMPI characteristics in adults diagnosed with ADD. A
3. Claridge G, Beech T. Fully and quasi-dimensional con- preliminary report. Int. J. Neurosci. 1994; 79: 47–58.
structions of schizotypy. In: Raine A, Lencz T, Mednick 19. Coleman AR, Norstrand JA, Moberg PJ, Kohler CG,
SA (eds). Schizotypal Personality. Cambridge Univer- Gur RC, Gur RE. MMPI-2 characteristics of adults
sity Press, New York, 1995; 192–216. diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Int. J. Neu-
4. Matsui M, Gur RC, Turetsky BI, Yan M, Gur RE. The rosci. 1998; 96: 161–175.
relation between tendency for psychopathology and 20. Hathaway SR, Meehl PE. An Atlas for the Clinical
reduced frontal brain volume in healthy people. Use of the MMPI. University of Minnesota Press,
Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychol. Behav. Neurol. 2000; 13: Minneapolis, 1951.
155–162. 21. Subotnik KL, Nuechterlein KH, Green MF. Trait
5. Haier RJ, Murphy DL, Buchsbaum MS. Paranoia and versus state aspects of the MMPI during the early
platelet MAO in normals and nonschizophrenic psychi- course of schizophrenia. J. Psychiatric Res. 1999; 33:
atric groups. Am. J. Psychiatry 1979; 136: 308–310. 275–284.
6. Haier RJ, Buchsbaum MS, Murphy DL, Gottesman II, 22. Subotnik KL, Nuechterlein KH, Ventura J. MMPI
Coursey RD. Psychiatric vulnerability, monoamine discriminators of deficit vs. non-deficit recent-onset
oxidase, and the average evoked potential. Arch. Gen. schizophrenia patients. Psychiatry Res. 2000; 93:
Psychiatry 1980; 37: 340–345. 111–123.