1. S T E P H A N I E M A I O C C O
M E L I S S A P E T E R S
E M I L Y H O G L E
E M I L Y K I N G
California Psychological
(Personality) Inventory

2. Test Structure and
Development

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. Folk Scale Classes
 Interpersonal Aspects
 Internal Values and Normative Expectations
 Achievement Needs and Cognitive Tendencies
 Stylistic Preferences
(Consulting Psychologists Press, 2002)

7. (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)

8. Vector Scales
 Origin: from correlational structure of the test
 Purpose: “To define personological taxonomy”
(Lanning & Gough, 1991, p. 597)
(Lanning & Gough, 1991)

9. 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)

10. (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)

11. Special Purpose Scales
 CPI 260 Work-Related Measures
 Managerial Potential
 Work Orientation
 Creative Temperament
 Leadership Potential
 Amicability
 Law Enforcement Orientation
(Groth-Marnat, 2009)

12. Administration & Scoring

13. Administration & Scoring
Administration
 Originally 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
Scoring
 Computer 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)

14. (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)

15. (Consulting Psychologists Press, 2003)

16. 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

17. 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)

18. 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).

19. Psychometrics

20. 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

21. 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)

22. Construct Validity
 CPI and MMPI
 200 items overlap
 Developed in same way
 Empirical method of test construction
 Internal consistency analyses
Crites, 1964

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. 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)

27. 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

28. 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

29. Cultural Applications/Bias

30. 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)

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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)

38. 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

39. 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.

40. 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.