A new version of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) family of instruments, the MMPI-3, was published in 2020, and with its release as with any updated instrument, forensic practitioners must be prepared to address potential challenges to MMPI-3-based testimony. The US Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1993) explicated a set of factors that could be considered by trial judges when gauging the admissibility of proffered expert testimony. The same issues can be raised during cross-examination designed to limit the weight of MMPI-3-based evidence in testimony at trial or in deposition. We briefly describe the rationale for, methods used in, and outcome of the revision of the MMPI. Then, we consider the use of the MMPI-3 in the context of the Daubert factors. We conclude that the MMPI-3 has been subject to empirical testing and peer review, information is available about the potential rate of error associated with MMPI-3 scores, the test manual details standard procedures for administering and scoring the test as well as interpreting MMPI-3 scores, and several indicators of general acceptance of the MMPI-3 can be cited.
