The Millon clinical inventories, research critical of their forensic application, and Daubert criteria.

Pharmaceuticals (1993), Rogers, Salekin, & Sewell (1999) assert that the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory-II (MCMI-II) is fit only for circumscribed use and that the MCMI-III should not be used at all in such settings because of poor convergent and discriminant validity. Rogers et al. list a number of additional complaints, including the fact that neither the MCMI-II nor MCMI-III has been validated against specific legal criteria such as legal insanity or competence to proceed to trial, that the MCMI-II was validated against DSM-III-R criteria rather than DSM-IV criteria for personality disorders, and that the MCMI-III test manual did not sufficiently describe procedures used in determining content validity against DSM-IV. In this paper we respond to the issues raised by Rogers et al. (1999) in their analysis of forensic applications and admissibility of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory under Daubert criteria. More specifically, we detail several methodological shortcomings in their study and detail misleading conclusions that they render. Additionally, we address criticisms related to the MCMI-III as a measure of DSM-IV disorders, including concerns raised about the content validity of the MCMI-III, as well as the contention that the MCMI cannot be employed to address elements of legal standards (Rogers et al., 1999, p. 439). Finally, we point out that the research compiled by Rogers et al. (1999) on the MCMI-III is incomplete, as they failed to cite the most recent edition of the MCMI-III manual (Millon, Davis, & Millon, 1997), which includes an expanded validation study by Davis, Wenger, and Guzman (1997) that was published and available 2 years prior to the publication of the Rogers et al. (1999) paper.