Texas Tech University

Gregory Mumma, Ph.D.

Associate Professor Emeritus
Clinical

Email: g.mumma@ttu.edu

Education:
Ph.D. in Psychology (Clinical), 1986, The Pennsylvania State University

Licenses:
Clinical Psychologist, State of Texas, 1989-present

Photo Description

Professional Services

Editorial Review Board: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Selected Research

  • David, S. J. & Mumma, G. H. (2019) Network Analysis Approach to Intraindividual Dynamic Symptom Structure of an Individual with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder. (Manuscript in preparation.)
  • David, S.J., Marshall, A.J., Evanovich, E.K., Mumma, G.H. (2018). Intraindividual Dynamic Network Analysis – New Directions in Clinical Assessment. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 40(2), 235-248. doi: 1017/S1754470X16000088
  • Marshall, A. J., Evanovich, E., David, S. J., & Mumma, G. H. (2018). Separating common from unique variance within emotional distress: An examination of reliability and relations to worry. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 46, 633-638. doi: 1017/S1352465817000777
  • Mumma, G. H., Marshall, A. J., Mauer, C. (2018). Person-specific validation and testing of functional relations in cognitive-behavioural case formulation: Guidelines and options. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 25, 672-691. doi: 1002/cpp.2298
  • Mumma, G.H, Marshall, A.J. (2017). Idiographic Assessment. Sage Encyclopedia of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology, 1737-1740. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi: 4135/9781483365817.n696
  • Mumma, G., Fluck, J. (2016). How valid is your case formulation? Empirically testing your cognitive behavioural case formulation for tailored treatment. The Cognitive Behavioral Therapist, 9, 1-25. doi: 1017/S1754470X16000088
  • Mumma, G. H. (2011). Validity issues in cognitive-behavioral case formulation. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 27, 29-49. doi: 1027/1015-5759/a000054
  • Haynes, S. N., Mumma, G. H., & Pinson, C. (2009). Idiographic assessment: Conceptual and psychometric foundations of individualized behavioral assessment. Clinical Psychology Review, 29(2), 179-191.
  • Mumma, G. H. & Mooney, S. R. (2007b). Comparing the validity of alternative cognitive case formulations: A latent variable, multivariate time series approach. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 31, 451-481.
  • Mumma, G. H. & Mooney, S. R. (2007a). Incremental validity of cognitions in a clinical case formulation: An intraindividual test in a case example. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 29, 17-28.
  • Mumma, G. H. (2004). Validation of idiosyncratic cognitive schema in cognitive case formulations: An intraindividual idiographic approach. Psychological Assessment, 16, 211-230.
  • Mumma, G. H. & Smith, J. L. (2001). Cognitive-Behavioral-Interpersonal Scenarios: Interformulator reliability and convergent validity. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23, 203-221.
  • Mumma, G. H. (1998). Improving cognitive case formulations and treatment planning in clinical practice and research. Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy: An International Quarterly, 12(3), 251-274.