Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1992, Page 56
(78% of those who answered the question)
Unknown 66 (52%)
Measures
Milton Clinical Multiaxal Inventory. The Million Clinical Multiaxial Inventory ([MCMI-I],
Choca, Shanley &Van Denburg, 1992) is a self-report inventory designed to assess
personality and clinical symptoms of psychiatric patients. It is currently considered to be an
extremely popular instrument of this genre (Piotrowski &Keller, 1989, Piotrowski &Lubin,
1989, 1990). The score used for the MCMI is the Base Rate (BR), A BR of 35 was
established as the median score for normal or nonpsychiatric populations. A BR of 60 was
set as the median for psychiatric populations. BRs of 75 or higher were considered anchor
points for the presence of a particular disorder. A BR of 85 or higher was defined as
representing the most predominant characteristic. Thus, any score over a BR of 75 would
indicate a high probability that a subject would indeed possess the disorder represented by
the scale in question. On the MCMI-1, all BR scores are adjusted to take into consideration
the likelihood that subjects would tend to either deny or inflate reporting of certain
personality or emotional symptoms.
The MCMI is distributed in other countries and has been translated into several languages
(Luteijn, 1990, Simonsen &Mortensen, 1990). Test-retest reliabilities range from the low
60s to the low 90s (Choca et al., 1992). As to validity, Gibertini, Brandenburg, and Retzlaff
(1986) noted that the MCMI-I scales varied widely as to their usefulness in accurately
pinpointing diagnosis. Positive predictive power (PPP) ranged from 19% to 84%. The PPP
index is determined
by the magnitude of the sensitivity and specificity of the test and the
prevalence of the disorder in the population. When the sensitivity and
specificity of the test are very high (e.g., 90%), the PPP and the NPP
[negative predictive power] indexes are optimal. However, as prevalence
decreases, so does PPP. In populations with very few disordered cases, even
tests with high specificity and sensitivity can have low predictive power.
Overall diagnostic power, an index representing the proportion of correct
classifications, also varies in its usefulness as disorder prevalence rates vary.
(Choca et al., 1992, p.38)
The MCMI includes the following clinical symptom scales: Anxiety, Somatoform, Hypomanic,
Dysthymic, Alcohol Abuse, Drug Abuse, Psychotic Thinking, Psychotic Depression, and
Psychotic Delusions. The following scales reflect more enduring personality traits than the
symptom scales: Schizoid (Asocial), Avoidant, Dependent (Submissive), Histrionic
(Gregarious), Narcissistic, Antisocial (Aggressive), compulsive (Conforming), and Passive-
Aggressive (Negativistic).
With the MCMI-1, Gibertini et al. (1986) found that eight scales were rated as having good
PPP, that is, 70% or more: Avoidant, Dependent, Histrionic, Negativistic, Borderline,
Anxiety, Dysthymia, and Drug Abuse. Nine scales were rated fair (50% -69%): Schizoid,
Narcissistic, Antisocial, Compulsive, Schizotypal, Paranoid, Somatoform, Hypomania, and
Alcohol Abuse. Three scales were rated poor (below 50%): Psychotic Thinking, Psychotic
Depression, and Psychotic Delusions. The scales were also rated according to their ability to
predict the „most predominant syndrome‟ and the results showed that five scales were rated
as good: Avoidant, Schizotypal, Paranoid, Anxiety, and Dysthymia.
Other studies have shown the scale to have rather high negative predictive power (NFP),
that is, low test scores were rarely false negatives (Gibertini et al., 1986). These
investigators also found that the MCMI has fairly high diagnostic power. Choca et al.‟s
(1992) review of the MCMI found a number of studies that are critical of the MCMI and its

Cultic Studies Journal, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1992, Page 57
correspondence to DSM-III diagnosis. As a result the MCMI-II was revised according to
clinical judgments based on DSM-III-R diagnostic classifications (Millon, 1987). Accordingly,
Wellspring has been using the MCMI-II since shortly after its publication. The results from
the MCMI-II will be presented in another study. Nevertheless, the bulk of studies on the
MCMI-I, which was used in this study, do support it as reliably measuring personality traits
and symptomatology.
A review of the literature found no study which used the MCMI as a measure of distress
among former sect or cult members, although Weiss and Comrey (1987) reported strong
compulsive traits among members of the Hare Krishna group. Several studies, most done
on psychiatric inpatients, have reported changes on MCMI scores after a treatment
program, including increases in the narcissistic and histrionic scales on the MCMI following
treatment (Libb, Stankovic, Sokol, Freeman, Houck &Switzer, 1990 McMahon, Davidson, &
Flynn, 1986 McMahon, Flynn, &Davidson, 1985 Stankovic, Libb, Freeman, &Roseman,
1992). A number of studies have reported on correlations for the MCMI-I prior to treatment
and after treatment (Hyer, Woods, Bruno, &Boudewyns, 1989 Libb, et al., 1990 McMahon
et al., 1985 Millon, 1987 Overholser, 1990 Piersma, 1986). Typically, stability coefficients
for the clinical scales range between r =.60 and r =.70, and for the personality scales
more than r =.70.
Beck Depression Inventory. The Beck Depression Inventory ([BDII Beck, Ward,
Mendelson, Mock, &Erbaugh, 1961) is one of the most commonly used self-report methods
of assessing depression. The BDI is symptom focused. Split-half reliabilities range from .58
to .93 test-retest ranges from .69 to .90. Concurrent validity has been demonstrated with
diverse measures. BDI scores range from 0 to 63, with a score of 10 or more considered to
be beyond the normal range and a score of 17 or more suggestive of depressive disorder.
The BDI has been used with a wide variety of psychiatric and normal populations but has
been criticized for being a measure of a social undesirability response set and for correlating
more closely to an anxiety measure than to another depression measure (Langevin &
Stancer, 1979, cited in Beckham &Leber, 1985).
Hopkins Symptom Checklist. The HSCL is a frequently used, self-administered rating
scale for assessing psychiatric symptomatology (Derogatis, Lipman, Rickels, Uhlenhuth, &
Covi, 1974). Reliability and validity studies have consistently shown the HSCL to be an
instrument possessing high degrees of both reliability and validity. Internal consistency
measures are uniformly high for all five factoral dimensions, that is, .84 to .87. Test-retest
reliability studies show uniform and high consistency (Rickels, Lipman, Park, Covi,
Uhlenhuth, &Mock, 1971). Validity studies demonstrating clinical sensitivity have shown the
USCL to be an efficient and dependable measure of anxiety and other clinical psychiatric
symptoms (Derogatis et al., 1974 Rickels, Lipman, Garcia, &Fisher, 1972). The HSCL is a
58-item inventory with scores ranging from 58 to 232. One hundred is considered a cutoff
score indicating the need for psychiatric treatment.
Staff Burnout Scale. The SBS-HP scale is based on the conceptual framework developed
by Maslach and Pines (1979). However, the SBS-HP also includes behavioral and
physiological indices of burnout. The SBS-HP scale is published by London House
management consultants. It was designed to measure acute stress episodes and was
normed on populations that have been traditionally considered high-stress professions,
namely health professionals. The scale is a self-report measure consisting of 30 questions.
Ten of the questions were designed to detect lying. With the remaining 20 questions a
reliability coefficient of .93 was obtained (Jones, 1980). Three validity studies showed
significant correlations with absenteeism, tardiness, job turnover, physical illness, patient
neglect, employee theft, drug and alcohol abuse, job dissatisfaction, and perceived levels of
stress (Jones 1980, 1981). Martin (1983), found the mean SBS-HP score to be 48.75 (N =
488, SD =18.61) for religious workers in high schools and colleges, for example, Campus