skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 203032 Find in a Library
Title: MCMI Results for Batterers: Gondolf Replies to Dutton's Response
Journal: Journal of Family Violence  Volume:18  Issue:6  Dated:December 2003  Pages:387-389
Author(s): Edward W. Gondolf
Date Published: December 2003
Page Count: 3
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: In this article, Gondolf argues that Dutton's criticisms of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory (MCMI), which was used by Gondolf to measure the psychopathology of 840 batterers in 4 cities, are debatable; and the criticisms of the study methods are flawed.
Abstract: In an article in the Journal of Family Violence 18: 253-255, Dutton dismissed Gondolf's MCMI subscale results from batterer program participants based on his criticisms of the MCMI and how it was used. Gondolf's main finding, published in 1999, was that less than half of the 840 batterers showed evidence of personality disorders according to the MCMI, and approximately 25 percent showed evidence of a severe mental disorder. Gondolf views Dutton's criticisms of the study as focusing on Gondolf's statement that "there is little evidence for a prevailing 'abusive personality' typified by borderline personality tendencies, and little support for a preponderance of posttraumatic stress disorder among our sample" (Gondolf, 1999, p. 13). In his critique of the study, Dutton argued that the "abusive personality" is not a category in the DSM-IV nor is it deducible from the MCMI. Gondolf replies that the "abusive personality" has been associated with borderline personality tendencies, as have attachment styles, so one might expect some evidence of these tendencies in elevated personality scores associated with those characteristics (e.g., MCMI borderline, anxiety, histrionic, compulsive subscales). Dutton also argued that self-report instruments such as the MCMI are an inadequate and antiquated means of assessing personality disorders. Gondolf replies that the MCMI is a well-established and widely used assessment instrument in general and in batterer research; and it is debatable when and if the MCMI will become obsolete, because of the extensive validity studies and administration advantages associated with it. Gondolf also outlines and then responds to Dutton's criticisms of the study methodology. In addition, Gondolf notes that the ultimate fundamental question regarding the roots of batterer behavior may be the validity of attachment theory, given the serious limitations of the knowledge base for this theory. 15 references
Main Term(s): Criminology
Index Term(s): Abusing spouses; Domestic assault; Domestic violence causes; Offender profiles; Psychological evaluation; Research methods
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.