California Psychological

(Personality)
Inventory
Test Structure and
Development
 Test Structure

⚫ Assessment of normal personality

 Referred to as “the sane man’s MMPI” (Thorndike, 1959)
⚫ Purpose of Test:
 Predict one’s behaviors
 Identify ways that person is described by others

⚫ Theory:
 No theoretical basis, but has a model

⚫ 172/434 questions from MMPI

⚫ True/false questions
 Ex: I often lose my temper.

⚫ Immediate cross-cultural relevance

 Functional validity

(Groth-Marnat, G., 2009)

 Development

⚫ 1957- CPI 480 (Harrison Gough)

 18 Folk scales

⚫ 1987- CPI 462

 18 items omitted

 2 Folk scales added

 3 vector scales added- 23 scales total

⚫ 1996- CPI 434

 28 items omitted, retained same scales

⚫ 2002- CPI 260

 Special purpose scales

(Groth-Marnat, G., 2009)

 Scales

⚫ 23 Scales
 20 Folk Scales- 4 different classes

⯍ 15 scales- empirical criterion keying

⯍ 4 scales- rational approach
⯍ 1 scale (communality)- combination

⚫ 3 Vector Scales
 Structural scales

⚫ 6 Special Purpose Scales (CPI 260)

(Groth-Marnat, G., 2009)

 Folk Scale Classes

⚫ Interpersonal Aspects

⚫ Internal Values and Normative Expectations

⚫ Achievement Needs and Cognitive Tendencies

⚫ Stylistic Preferences

(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2002)

(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)
 Vector Scales

⚫ Origin: from correlational structure of the

test
⚫ Purpose: “To define personological taxonomy”
(Lanning & Gough, 1991, p. 597)

(Lanning & Gough, 1991)

 Vector Scales cont.

⚫ Cuboid model of personality (3 Vectors or

Orientations)
 Participating/ Private (v.1)
⯍Orientation toward other people and interpersonal
experience
 Approving/ Questioning (v.2)
⯍ Orientation toward conventional rules and values
 Fulfillment (v.3)
⯍ Orientation toward one’s inner feelings

(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)

(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)
 Special Purpose Scales

⚫ CPI 260 Work-Related Measures

 Managerial Potential

 Work Orientation

 Creative Temperament

 Leadership Potential

 Amicability

 Law Enforcement Orientation

(Groth-Marnat, 2009)
Administration & Scoring
 Administration & Scoring

Administration
⚫ Originally designed for group
programs
be administered however,
administration; it can special
individually
⚫ Length of time for
administration is 45-60
minutes
⚫ Level C Qualification to
Administer
⚫ Taken on a computer or with
pencil and paper
Scoring
⚫ Computer scoring
used scales
for basic profile and
⚫ Raw scores transferred to
profile sheet and converted to
T-scores
-Standard Scores with a mean
of 50 and Standard Deviation
of 10 (Megargee, 1972)
(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)
(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)
 Appropriate Use
⚫ Academic Counseling
 Identifying Leaders
 Predicting Success
“The test has generally proven to be a useful tool in the area of prediction and, as
a result, has been particularly helpful in counseling high school and college students as
well as in personnel selection” (Groth-Marnat, 2009, p. 341).
⚫ Career Counseling
 Six special purpose scales

⚫ Clinics and Counseling Agencies

 Evaluating Substance Abuse
 Susceptibility to Physical Illness
 Marital Discord
 Juvenile Delinquency and Criminality
 Social Immaturity
 Cross Cultural and other Research

Consulting Psychologists Press, 1995

 Inappropriate Use

⚫ For diagnostic purposes

⚫ To evaluate and predict a specific, internal, unidimensional
trait
⚫ To hypothesize construct-oriented life history indices
(Sarchione, et al.,1998)
⚫ To use with psychiatrically disturbed individuals
(Sarchione, et al., 1998)
 Important to Know Prior to Use

⚫ Who you’re testing

Normal individuals ages 13 and older
Test requires a fifth-grade reading level

⚫ What you’re testing

Measure and evaluate interpersonal behavior and social
interaction

“The goal of the inventory is to give a true-to-life

description of the respondent, in clear, everyday
language, in formats that can help the client to
achieve a better understanding of self.” (Gough and
Bradley, 2005, p. 1).
Psychometrics
 Internal Validity

⚫ Extensive empirical evidence

⚫ Construct validity (Folk and Vector scales):

 Moderate to strong correlations with other personality instruments (.4-.8)
⚫ Criterion validity:
 California Q-sets (trained observers rated respondents on behavior characteristics):
.1 - .4 (low to moderate)
 Adjective Check List (those who knew them rated them): .1-.4 (low to moderate)
⚫ Predictive validity
 Most concerned with ability of scales to make accurate predictions
 Less concerned with scales avoiding overlap or if scales are psychometrically valid
 Not a measure of “traits” but the likelihood that someone will behave in a certain way
 “Predictive power” consistent but weak (Gough & Bradley, 1996)

⚫ Certain subscales have better validity than others

Groth-Marnat, 2009; Gough & Bradley, 1996

 Construct Validity

⚫ CPI and MCMI

 High degree of overlap in scales (Holliman & Guthrie, 1989)

⯍ 259 of the 360 possible MCMI-CPI scale combinations correlate

significantly at the p<.01 level (43% of CPI variance can be accounted for
by MCMI; 45% of MCMI variance can be accounted for by CPI)
⯍ Scales unique to each but measuring lots of similar personality
dimensions
⚫ CPI and NEO-PI
 All of folk scales meaningfully related to one or more of five factors (McCrae,
Costa, & Piedmont, 1993)
 Intra-class correlations: N = .57; E = .96; o = 59; A = .71; C = .88 (moderate
to good agreement) (McCrae, Costa, & Piedmont, 1993)
 Four out of five factors correlated highly with CPI scales (Agreeableness
factor only minimally represented) (Groth-Marnat, 2009)
 Construct Validity

⚫ CPI and MMPI

 200 items overlap

 Developed in same way

⯍ Empirical method of test construction

⯍ Internal consistency analyses

Crites, 1964
 Internal Validity Subscales

⚫ Three scales, within Folk scales, that test for validity of test answers:

 Well-being (Wb): faking bad (at or below 30)

 Good impression (Gi): faking good (at or above 70) or faking bad
(at or below 30)
 Communality (Cm): standard approach (at or above 50) or
invalid
results (at or below 30)

Groth-Marnat, 2009
 External Validity

⚫ Old Normative data:

 Large sample size: 3,000 males and 3,000 females

⯍ High-school (50%) and undergraduate (16.7%) students strongly represented

⚫ Negative:
 Not random or representative

 Information lacking regarding ethnicities, geographic locations, and socioeconomic background

 Certain groups underrepresented (adults working in professional occupations)

⚫ New Normative data:

 New norms in manual for 52 samples of males and 42 samples of females

 1000 men and women who are more representative of population using it (Van Hutton, 1990)

 Much research has been done to show that CPI can be used with diverse populations

⚫ Result:
 Need to also compare normed scores with raw scores of similar population groups, such as:

⯍ CPI manual has a lot of reference tables for this purpose

⯍ Research of CPI with diverse population groups
⚫ Conclusion:
 Mixed data on its external validity

Gough, & Bradley, 1996

 Reliability

⚫ Test-Retest Reliabilities:
 Individual scales: range from .51 (Flexibility) to .84
(Femininity/Masculinity)
 Overall median reliability: .68 (CPI 434) and .66 (CPI 260)

⚫ Internal Consistency:
 Considerable variability among subscales but adequate

 Individual scales: .43 (Masculinity/Femininity) - .85 (Well Being)

⯍ Lots of Variance = bad (speculation on reasons)

 Three Vector scales: .77 - .88

⚫ Cronbach’s alphas for scales: .62 - .84

⚫ Correlations between CPI 434 and CPI 260: .81 to .97 = High
 Thus most of validity numbers apply to both

⚫ Conclusion: Decent reliability but lots of variability between subscales

Groth-Marnat, 2009; Gough & Bradley, 1996

 Reliability of Specific Subscales

⚫ Result: Due to variation among subscales in reliability and, evaluate CPI on

specific dimensions of interest
⚫ Examples:
 CPI-So subscale: good concurrent reliability and acceptable internal
consistency in alcoholic patients (Kadden, Litt, Donovan, & Cooney, 1996)
⯍ Significantly predict treatment and outcomes among alcoholic patients (Kadden, Cooney,
Getter, & Litt, 1989)
 CPI: predictive of criminal behaviors
⯍ Study by Gough & Bradley (1992): mean differences found on 25 subscales for men and
26 subscales for women, out of 27 scales (CPI-So subscale: best differentiator with point-
biserial correlations of .54 for men and .58 for women)
⯍ CPI-So subscale: Hundreds of studies show that it predicts antisocial and prosocial
behavior (Collins & Bagozzi, 1999)
 Meta-analysis by Collins & Griffin (1998): p = .61 (criminal behavior); p = .35
(antisocial but
not illegal behavior)
 Reliability

⚫ Factor Analysis (aka “Cluster Analysis”):

 Establishes reliability (compares) whole test with other personality tests
 Establishes reliability of subscales (new and old)
⯍ Factor structure also within each subscale

⚫ Factor Analysis  Factor Structure (4-5 factors) –[Slide 6]

 Exception = male and female populations (different factor structures)
⚫ Main Factor Structure similar to the core five factors of personality
(Neuroticism, Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness,
and Conscientiousness)
 Measuring core aspects of personality
 Agreeableness not as well represented

Gough & Bradley, 1996; Van Hutton, 1990; Groth-Marnat, 2009

 Reliability

⚫ Purpose of Test:
 Predict one’s behaviors
 Identify ways that person is described by others
⚫ Factor Analysis inconsistent with test’s purpose/goals but:
 Criticism that subscales weren’t based on it
 Suggestion that if built upon certain factors, would have less variance

Groth-Marnat, 2009; Gough & Bradley, 1996

Cultural Applications/Bias
 Cultural Applications

• Developed using “Folk concepts”

• Translated into more than 40 languages

• Appropriate for normal persons, so addresses issues that interest diverse

groups

• A choice for cross-cultural personality study because its scales were

designed to represent “dispositions having universal status” (Gough, 1965,
p.379)
 Cultural Applications

• External validity has been tested across cultures:

• Often focusing on an individual scale of the CPI

(example: Socialization and Femininity/ Masculinity)

• Socialization was researched in 10 different countries and with every country having
supportive results
• Over 17 different countries examined sex differences (Femininity/Masculinity) and in
every country the prediction of respondent gender was significantly supported

• Minimum degree of Cultural Bias

 Ethnicity

• European Americans
• African Americans
• Native Americans
• Research conducted by Davis, Hoffman, & Nelson, (1990) examined the difference of
CPI results between Native Americans and Whites of similar age, education, and
socioeconomic status
• Men: less conventional and less sensitive to violations of norms when compared with
European
American men
• Women: more passive, less verbally controlling, more likely to be comfortable in the
background, and likely to solicit input and support in decision- making when compared with
European American women

• CPI responses need to be compared to cultural norms and considerations of ethnic

background taken into account

Davis, Hoffman, & Nelson, 1990

 Gender

• Men and women score differently on the CPI

• CPI tests for Femininity and Masculinity common traits that apply to a vast
amount
of cultures of men and women

• Gender was found to be significantly different across cultures but not within
cultures
 Around the World

• Factor structure of CPI tested cross-culturally in different areas, other than the
United States

• Research in a wide variety of countries supports CPI’s validity, even in

countries culturally quite different from the United States

• CPI able to make accurate predictions cross-culturally, such as:

• predictions of academic achievement in Greece

• Detect “faking good” among Norwegians

• Distinguishing from delinquents from non-delinquents in Sweden

• Japan
 Cultural Limitations

• Additional research needs to be conducted on the

relationship between CPI scores and race, socioeconomics
status, and other demographic variables

• Future research need to be conducted on the ability of the

CPI to predict behaviors in a specific cultural group context

• CPI responses need to be compared to cultural norms, and

considerations of ethnic background taken into account
 Criticisms

⚫ Initial lack of appropriate, representative norming

samples
 Mainly representative of Caucasian, college
students
 Now better norming samples

⚫ High level of variance among subscales

 Certain scales more valid and reliable than
others
⚫ Reliability and validity could be better
⚫ Not developed based on factor structure
 May have helped high levels of variance

⚫ Developing factor structure later not consistent with

test’s original goals (Gough & Bradley, 1996)
 Criticisms

⚫ Item overlap among subscales

⚫ Lack of theoretical guidelines
⚫ Lack of justification of criteria used to develop folk scales
(Gough & Bradley, 1996)
⚫ Not easily available
 High cost

⯍Manual, Item Booklet, Interpretation Guide and a

Packet of Answer Sheets = $462 (Consulting
Psychological Press, 1995)
 Level C Qualification required (doctoral degree)
 Strengths

⚫ Comprehensive coverage of personality traits

 26 scales! (not including special purpose scales)
⚫ Empirically supported over time (lots of research!)
⚫ Strong predictive and construct validity (MCMI,
NEO, MMPI)
⚫ Item overlap (Gough & Bradley, 1996)
⚫ Easy scoring (computer)
⚫ Easy to understand
 5th grade reading level and True/False questions
⚫ Adaptable
 Functional validity cross-culturally and among various
subscales (especially Socialization)
 Two different test formats (long or short)
 Group or individual administration
 References

Collins, J., & Bagozzi, R. (1999). Testing the equivalence of the socialization factor structure for criminals and noncriminals.
Journal Of Personality Assessment, 72(1), 68-73.
Collins, J., & Griffin, R. (1998). The psychology of underlying counterproductive job performance. In R. W. Griffin, A.
O’Leary-Kelly, & J. M. Collins (Eds.), Dysfunctional work behavior in organizations: Monographs in
organizational behavior and industrial relations (Vol. 23, part B). Stanford, CT: JAI.
Consulting Psychologists Press (1995). CPI 434: Narrative Report. CPP Inc. Retrieved from:
https://www.cpp.com/Pdfs/smp210128.pdf
Consulting Psychologists Press (2002). Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Instrument. CPP Inc.
Consulting Psychologists Press (2003). CPI 260® Client Feedback Report. CPP Inc. Retrieved from:
https://www.cpp.com/Pdfs/smp219250.pdf
Crites, J. (1964). Test reviews: The California Psychological Inventory: I. As a measure of the normal
personality. Journal Of
Counseling Psychology, 11(2), 197-202.
Gough, H., & Bradley, P. (1992). Delinquent and criminal behavior as assessed by the revised California Psychological
Inventory. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 48(3), 298-308.
Gough, H., & Bradley, P. (1996). CPI manual (3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Gough, H. & Bradley, P. (2005). CPI 260TM Manual. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of Psychological Assessment. John Wiley & Sons.
Holliman, N., & Guthrie, P.(1989). A comparison of the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory and the California
Psychological Inventory in assessment of a nonclinical population. Journal Of Clinical Psychology, 45(3),
373-382.
 References

Kadden, R., Cooney, N., Getter, H., & Litt, M. (1989). Matching alcoholics to coping skills or interactional
therapies: Posttreatment results. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 698-704.
Kadden, R., Litt, M., Donovan, D., & Cooney, N. (1996). Psychometric properties of the California
Psychological Inventory Socialization scale in treatment-seeking alcoholics. Psychology of
Addictive Behaviors, 10, 131-146.
Lanning, K., & Gough, H. (1991). Shared variance in the California Psychological Inventory and the
California Q-Set. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 60(4), 596-606.
McCrae, R., Costa, P., & Piedmont, R.(1993). Folk concepts, natural language, and psychological
constructs: The California Psychological Inventory and the five-factor model. Journal Of
Personality, 61(1), 1-26.
Megargee, E. (1972). The California Psychological Inventory Handbook. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass,
Inc.
Publishers.
Sarchione, C., Cuttler, M., Muchinsky, P., & Nelson-Gray, R. (1998). Prediction of Dysfunctional Job
Behaviors Among Law Enforcement Officers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(6), 904-912.
Van Hutton, V. (1990). Test review: The California Psychological Inventory. Journal Of Counseling &
Development, 69(1), 75-77.