In a review of the batterer typology literature, a remarkable consistency in the identification of subtypes has been revealed, holding across researcher, laboratories, methodologies, and sampled populations. However, the typology literature has been criticized as having limited utility for psychological assessment. This study recruited experienced clinicians with expertise in domestic violence as sorters. Then, MCMI batterer profiles were used in the sorting task. The study set out to determine the point at which a batterer’s profile is so far removed from the cluster prototype that the clinician can no longer recognize it as part of that subgroup. It was reasoned that if experienced clinicians could not accurately identify profiles that were close to their cluster centroid (good profile exemplars) as belonging to that subgroup, then there would be little likelihood that empirically derived typologies were going to be clinically useful. Despite the general accuracy in sorting all 36 MCMI profiles, the accuracy in sorting each subtype varied. The results suggest that psychologists with domestic violence training can accurately sort MCMI profiles of batterers into the main three subtypes derived from empirically-based typology research. Tables, references