Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Chapman Et Al 2003
Chapman Et Al 2003
To cite this Article Chapman, Alexander L., Gremore, Tina M. and Farmer, Richard F.(2003)'Psychometric Analysis of the
Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) With Female Inmates',Journal of Personality Assessment,80:2,164 172
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1207/S15327752JPA8002_05
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8002_05
Alexander L. Chapman
Department of Psychiatry
Duke University Medical Center
Tina M. Gremore
Department of Psychology
Idaho State University
Richard F. Farmer
Department of Psychology
University of Canterbury
This study evaluated the reliability, internal structure, and validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) among female inmates (n = 153) housed at a
multilevel prison facility. Findings from this research suggested both strengths and weaknesses
associated with PPI psychopathy assessment. Reliability of the PPI was supported by internal
consistency analyses of scale and subscale item sets, and testretest reliability was supported
by findings obtained with a subsample (n = 36) retested an average of 49 days after initial test
administration. Validity of the PPI total score was also supported by moderate to very high correlations with other self-report measures of psychopathy. Relative weaknesses of the PPI were
evident by the low or negative associations among many of the PPI subscales, moderate associations that PPI total scores demonstrated with response set indexes, and the similarity of PPI total scores among female inmates and undergraduates. Findings from this research are considered in relation to possible sex differences in the expression of psychopathy and challenges
associated with the assessment of the psychopathy construct with self-report methods.
Contemporary conceptualizations of the psychopathy construct (e.g., Hare, 1991; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; see
also Doren, 1987; Lykken, 1995) have largely been influenced by the seminal work of Cleckley (1941, 1976).
Cleckley (1941) considered psychopaths to be superficially
charming, emotionally shallow, deceitful, egocentric,
self-centered, irresponsible, insincere, nonplanful, and remorseless. Cleckley (1941) further suggested that they often
externalize blame, display impulsive behaviors, and demonstrate difficulty learning from punishing experiences. Central
to Cleckleys (1976) theory of psychopathy was the notion
that such individuals lacked normal emotional reactions to
common events or experiences. Presumed consequences of
this deficit included failure to learn from punishment, socially deviant behavior, remorselessness, and difficulty
maintaining goal-directed behavior.
In Hares (1991; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989) conceptual model, signs or indicators of psychopathy have been re-
165
166
= 10.75; range = 34 to 75 days) after the initial test administration. The ethnic distribution of this subsample was White
(66.7%), Native American (16.7%), Hispanic (11.9%), and
African American (4.8%).
Procedure
We individually approached prospective participants on their
cell blocks to first verbally describe the study and then inquire about interest in study participation. If an inmate expressed interest in study participation, she was given a consent form to review and sign. On signing the consent form,
the participant was provided with a packet of questionnaire
measures that included the PPI. Participants subsequently
completed these measures at their leisure, typically within a
couple of days following the receipt of the questionnaires. Inmates were instructed to contact us in the event they had inquiries about the questionnaires contents. Similarly, when
we retrieved the measures from the inmates, we queried the
inmates about any questions or concerns they may have had
while completing the questionnaires.
A subset of the full sample (n = 42, or 25% of entire sample) again completed the PPI an average of 49 days following
the initial administration. This same subsample also completed two other questionnaire measures at the time of retest
administration. These were the Personality Assessment Inventory, Antisocial Features scale (PAIANT; Morey, 1991)
and the California Psychological Inventory, Socialization
scale (CPISo; Gough & Bradley, 1996), both of which are
described below.1 Scores from these measures were then correlated with scores from the second PPI administration to
evaluate the convergent validity of the PPI in this subsample.
Questionnaire Measures
PPI. The PPI is a 187 item self-report inventory designed to assess psychopathic personality traits. Respondents
indicated the degree to which each item applied to them
along a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (false) to 4 (true). A total score can be derived from this measure as well as subscale
scores based on factor analytic findings reported in Lilienfeld
and Andrews (1996) that delineated eight orthogonal dimensions associated with the PPI item set. Subscales associated
with these dimensions, as characterized by Lilienfeld and
Andrews (1996), are briefly described in Table 1.
Also included within the PPI are three validity scales. Response sets assessed by these scales are socially desirable impression management (14 items; e.g., My opinions are
always completely reasonable; I have always been completely fair to others), deviant responding (10 items; e.g., I
1
The PAIANT and CPISo scales were administered on the second testing occasion for a subset of our sample because several other
questionnaires unrelated to this research were administered along
with the PPI during the first testing administration.
167
TABLE 1
Subscales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory
Subscale
Machiavellian Egocentricity
Social Potency
Fearlessness
Coldheartedness
Impulsive Nonconformity
Alienation (or Blame Externalization)
Carefree Nonplanfulness
Stress Immunity
An egocentric, nonempathic, and exploitive pattern of behavior in the context of interpersonal relations
A tendency to perceive oneself as manipulative and influential in the context of social relations
An absence of fear in the context of risky or potentially harmful activities
An absence of sentimentality and guilt and a tendency toward callousness
Lack of concern for or consideration of social customs, rules, or mores
A tendency to blame others for ones misfortunes and to rationalize ones own misbehaviors
Insensitivity to the consequences that follow behavior and an absence of forethought related to the planning of
ones behaviors
An absence of emotional reactions to common anxiety-evoking events or situations
2
Participants who declined to indicate ethnicity during the first
administration of the PPI were excluded from this analysis.
168
PPI Scales
Total score
Subscales
Machiavellian Egocentricity
Social Potency
Fearlessness
Coldheartedness
Impulsive Nonconformity
Alienation (Blame Externalization)
Carefree Nonplanfulness
Stress Immunity
Validity scales
Deviant Responding
Unlikely Virtues
Variable Response Inconsistency
No. of Items
in Subscale
Corrected
Subscale-To-Total
Correlation
TestRetest
Reliability
SD
Skew
Kurtosis
Internal
Consistency
163
367.32
48.31
.20
.50
.94
.92
30
24
19
21
17
18
20
11
62.34
61.82
44.71
41.05
38.25
43.72
40.06
29.25
13.98
11.13
12.28
8.24
9.09
9.81
9.35
6.44
.20
.04
.20
.34
.38
.24
.25
.10
.81
.19
.71
.46
.63
.38
.55
.61
.87
.85
.89
.79
.83
.87
.86
.82
.70
.30
.66
.11
.69
.32
.39
.14
.90
.82
.87
.84
.77
.79
.88
.78
10
14
40a
12.79
30.87
29.08
2.71
4.63
8.31
.86
.42
.13
.23
.14
.82
.58
.53
.64
.44
.58
.77
score was excellent ( = .94 for 160 items). Similarly, the internal consistency of the eight PPI subscales was quite good
(range of = .79 to .89; see Table 2). However, when each of
the corrected subscale-to-total correlations was examined
(Table 2), only three of the subscale correlations equaled or exceeded .40 (Machiavellian Egocentricity, Fearlessness, and
Impulsive Nonconformity). The correlation for the
Coldheartedness subscale was small (.11), and the correlation
for the Stress Immunity subscale was negative and small
(.14). Consequently, item sets within subscales tended to be
internally consistent; however, subscale scores were often not
sufficiently internally consistent with the total PPI score.
Three components total had initial eigenvalues > 1.0. The second component accounted for an additional 23.5% of the variance in
subscale scores (eigenvalue = 1.88), whereas the third component
accounted for an additional 13.7% (eigenvalue = 1.10). When extraction was performed with the principle components method and
eigenvalue > 1.0 rule with varimax rotation, the highest loadings for
each subscale occurred on the following factors: Factor I = Machiavellian Egocentricity (.84), Carefree Nonplanfulness (.83), Impulsive Nonconformity (.76), and Alienation (.62); Factor II = Social
Potency (.82) and Fearlessness (.68); Factor III = Coldheartedness
(.91) and Stress Immunity (.58).
169
PPI Subscales
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Impulsive Nonconformity
Machiavellian Egocentricity
Alienation (Blame Externalization)
Fearlessness
Carefree Nonplanfulness
Social Potency
Coldheartedness
Stress Immunity
Component
Loading
.88
.84
.75
.70
.66
.19
.08
.45
.68***
.56***
.70***
.45***
.19*
.06
.26**
.50***
.53***
.55***
.24**
.16
.24**
.36***
.34***
.03
.29***
.52***
.26**
.39***
.04
.05
.06
.14
.37***
.16*
.35***
.42***
Convergent validity. Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating total PPI scores with self-report measures
that assessed similar constructs, the CPISo scale and the
PAIANT scale, and subscale scores. The means (with standard deviations in parentheses) for the CPISo and
PAIANT in this subsample of 36 women were 20.42 (5.36)
and 27.82 (12.63), respectively. The mean for the CPISo
scale is consistent with and generally lower than those found
for delinquent or less socialized women and considerably below that reported for nondelinquent or more socialized
women (Gough, 1994; Gough & Bradley, 1992). Similarly,
when compared with normative data provided by Morey
(1991), the mean for the PAIANT for this subsample is
higher than that obtained for a census-matched standardization sample (n = 1,000; M = 13.16, SD = 9.11), t(1034) =
9.34, p < .001, r = .28, and higher than that obtained for a college student sample (n = 1,051; M = 18.92, SD = 10.24),
t(1085) = 5.09, p < .001, r = .15.
As is evident in Table 4, second administration PPI total
scores tended to correlate moderately to highly with the
CPISo and PAIANT. A more inconsistent pattern is noted
among the correlations between the PPI subscale scores and
the CPISo and PAIANT scales. In particular, the Stress
Immunity and Coldheartedness subscales consistently displayed insignificant associations with these measures,
whereas the Machiavellian Egocentricity, Impulsive
Nonconformity, Fearlessness, Alienation, and Carefree
Nonplanfulness subscales consistently demonstrated significant moderate associations.
Concurrent validity. In female correctional samples
assessed with the PCLR, base rates of psychopathy tend to
center around 10% to 15% (Vitale & Newman, 2001). Although there are no comparable data on the base rates of
PCLR assessed psychopathy among female undergraduates, one might expect this population to demonstrate lower
rates and levels of psychopathy than incarcerated correctional samples. To further evaluate the validity of the PPI, the
mean PPI score obtained in this research for the overall sample minus those with extreme response set scores (n = 153; M
= 367.32, SD = 48.31) was contrasted with the mean PPI
score previously reported for female undergraduates (Hamburger et al., 1996). To our knowledge, only one published
study on the PPI has contained a report of PPI scale means for
the samples studied. These appeared in Hamburger et al.
(1996) and were based on college undergraduates. Female
undergraduates in this study (n = 90) produced a mean PPI
score of 369.57 (SD = 41.46), which did not significantly differ from the mean PPI score for female inmates from our research, t(241) = 0.37, ns, r = .02. This finding suggests that
PPI total scores do not distinguish female college undergraduates from female prison inmates.4
DISCUSSION
Theory and available research has suggested that the psychopathy construct may be manifested differently as a function of
sex (Hamburger et al., 1996; Lilienfeld et al., 1986; Salekin et
al., 1998; Vitale & Newman, 2001); consequently, models and
measures of psychopathy should be evaluated separately
among men and women. One promising self-report measure
of psychopathy, the PPI (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), has
been psychometrically evaluated in undergraduate and male
correctional samples but, to our knowledge, not with female
correctional samples. This research evaluated the reliability,
internal structure, and validity of the PPI among female inmates housed at a multilevel prison facility.
Findings from this research suggest both strengths and
weaknesses associated with PPI assessment of psychopathy
in a female correctional population. One strength is found in
the reliability of the PPI. The testretest correlation for the
4
170
TABLE 4
Convergent Validity Associated With PPI Scale and Subscale Scores
Measure
CPISo
PAIANT
PAIANTA
PAIANTE
PAIANTS
PPI Subscalesa
PPI Total
Score
.60***
.81***
.60***
.67***
.80***
.67***
.73***
.56**
.58***
.73***
.52**
.70***
.46**
.66***
.68***
.59***
.53**
.39*
.39*
.57**
.52**
.71***
.52**
.46**
.80***
.59***
.69***
.67***
.50**
.58***
.11
.43*
.23
.45**
.43*
.18
.24
.21
.23
.16
.07
.24
.17
.27
.18
Note. N = 36. Values within table are Pearson correlations. PPI = Psychopathic Personality Inventory; CPISo = California Personality Inventory, Socialization
scale; PAIANT = Personality Assessment Inventory, Antisocial Features scale; PAIANTA = PAIANT antisocial behaviors subscale; PAIANTE =
PAIANT egocentricity subscale; PAIANTS = PAIANT Stimulus Seeking subscale.
aCorresponding PPI subscales labels: 1 = Impulsive Nonconformity, 2 = Machiavellian Egocentricity, 3 = Alienation (Blame Externalization), 4 = Fearlessness, 5
= Carefree Nonplanfulness, 6 = Social Potency, 7 = Coldheartedness, and 8 = Stress Immunity.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
171
172
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy ChecklistRevised. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: The disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. New York: Pocket.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 2554.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications.
Psychological Assessment, 1, 617.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1994). Conceptual problems in the assessment of psychopathy. Clinical Psychology Review, 14, 1738.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary
validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in
noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66,
488524.
Lilienfeld, S. O., VanValkenburg, C., Larntz, K., & Akiskal, H. S. (1986).
The relationship of histrionic personality disorder to antisocial personality and somatization disorder. American Journal of Psychiatry, 143,
718722.
Lykken, D. T. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Millon, T. (1994). MCMIIII manual. Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Morey, L. C. (1991). The Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Mulder, R. T., Wells, J. E., Joyce, P. R., & Bushnell, J. A. (1994). Antisocial
women. Journal of Personality Disorders, 8, 279287.
Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Criterion-related
validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a prison sample.
Psychological Assessment, 10, 426430.
Rutherford, M. J., Alterman, A. I., Cacciola, J. S., & McKay, J. R. (1998).
Gender differences in the relationship of antisocial personality disorder
criteria and Psychopathy ChecklistRevised scores. Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 6976.
Richard Farmer
Department of Psychology
University of Canterbury
Private Bag 4800
Christchurch, New Zealand
E-mail: r.farmer@psyc.canterbury.ac.nz
Received October 22, 2001
Revised September 17, 2002