cpi presentation (mp final)

STEPHANIE MAIOCCOMELISSA PETERS

EMILY HOGLEEMILY KING

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 MMPITrue/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


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)


Folk Scale Classes

Interpersonal Aspects

Internal Values and Normative Expectations

Achievement Needs and Cognitive Tendencies

Stylistic Preferences

(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2002)

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


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

AdministrationOriginally designed for group

administration; however, it can be administered individually

Length of time for administration is 45-60 minutes

Level C Qualification to Administer

Taken on a computer or with pencil and paper

ScoringComputer scoring programs

used for basic profile and special scales

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)

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 purposesTo evaluate and predict a specific, internal,

unidimensional traitTo 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 olderTest 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


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


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 betterNot developed based on factor structure

May have helped high levels of varianceDeveloping factor structure later not consistent with

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

Criticisms

Item overlap among subscalesLack of theoretical guidelinesLack 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 questionsAdaptable

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.pdfConsulting 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.pdfCrites, 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.

cpi presentation (mp final)

Documents