Psychometric Properties of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory–III in an Arabic Clinical Sample Compared With American, Italian, and Dutch Cultures

Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory MCMI–III is a multidimensional measure of psychopathology with excellent construct validity, test-retest reliability as well as internal consistency. Factor analysis of the MCMI-III has produced mixed results, extracting parsimonious three-factor solutions, or replicating the original four-factor solution in psychiatric samples from Western countries. However, little work has been done on the psychometric properties of the MCMI–III, using non-Western psychiatric samples. Outpatients (N = 212) completed the MCMI–III during a semi-structured interview. Eight exploratory factor analysis (EFA) methods were used to explore the underlying structure of MCMI–III. Skewness, kurtosis, and descriptive statistics confirmed that scales of MCMI–III were normally distributed. High-internal consistency was found. The eight EFA methods applied to the 24 clinical scales identified a consensual three-factor solution: factor I (internalizing psychopathology; 18 scales), factor II (externalizing psychopathology; 4 scales) and factor III (psychological disturbance; 2 scales), accounting for a total of 72% of the common variance. Regarding the cross-cultural equivalence of the MCMI–III structure, Tucker's congruence coefficient (Φ) was used and confirmed that internalizing (F1) and externalizing psychopathology (F2) factors obtained in this study are similar to high vs. low psychopathology and emotional constraint factors provided by American study of Haddy et al. (2005) (Φ was 0.86 and 0.97). These two factors are also similar to the general adjustment and antisocial acting out factors provided by the American study of Craig and Bivens (1998) (Φ was 0.82 and 0.96). The first two factors in this study also reflect high similarity with the factor solutions obtained with the Italian and Dutch versions of MCMI-III (Rossi et al., 2007; Pignolo et al., 2017). Despite using a psychiatric sample from a non-Western culture, the two factors identified for this MCMI–III Arabic version were similar to those reported on studies with MCMI–III, using primarily Western samples (Craig and Bivens, 1998; Rossi et al., 2007).

American study shows knock-on effects of putting family first (PFF) strategy on spouses and co-workers

Purpose The authors say they invented a new construct of putting family first (PFF). They define PFF as “the voluntary behavior of intentionally putting one’s family ahead of work in a way that violates organisational norms”. They said it helped to understand how workers break rules to manage boundary conflicts. They wanted to test the impact on co-workers and spouses. Design/methodology/approach The authors carried out two studies. The first one established a scale to measure PFF. The second one tested for links between PFF and both co-workers frustration and spousal dissatisfaction. To test their theories, the authors looked for US workers with spouses and co-workers. Findings Results showed PFF correlated significantly with the co-workers’ feelings of overload, frustration with work and work-family conflict. It also correlated significantly with the spouses’ stress transmission and relationship tensions. The results provided further validity of the scale developed in Study 1, as well as demonstrating the wider repercussions of PFF. Originality/value Results showed PFF correlated significantly with the co-workers’ feelings of overload, frustration with work and work-family conflict. It also correlated significantly with the spouses’ stress transmission and relationship tensions. The results provided further validity of the scale developed in Study 1, as well as demonstrating the wider repercussions of PFF.