The survey was too short to include multiple queries on the same topic of varying valences, and didn't seem to employ some number of survey construction techniques like phrasing and question ordering to avoid priming. That said, they're unlikely to recapitulate the MMPI or to even have internal validity metrics at all. I also have serious doubts regarding the statistical methods employed given the way the results were phrased in terms of various numbers of points in various categories, which suggests that at best a crude factor analysis if even that was employed, where clustering analyses seem likely to be more appropriate ontologies to me than independent axes of pathology. I also have my doubts that the measures of various pathologies were calibrated against general populations or that the empirical distributions of responses are being significantly analyzed to the extent that elevation of the statistics used as the basis for some category of pathology in the test's reports may not be statistically significant as an indicator, and nothing like F-values are being reported. This is not to say that I have any significant background in statistics or psychology.