A

Review of the California Psychological Inventory: 434-item Form

General Information
The California Psychological Inventory (CPI) is a leading non-clinical personality
inventory, self-administered using either paper-and-pencil or computer methods that
evaluates interpersonal behavior and social interaction of normal individuals (Gough &
Bradley, 1996; Groth-Marnat, 2009). The CPI was originally developed by Harrison
Gough in 1957. Since then, the CPI has undergone multiple changes. The first edition,
480-item Form, was published in1957 with a set of 18 scales (Atkinson, 2003). It was
further revised in 1987, which resulted in reducing the number of items to 462 (462-
item Form), and two scales were added, bringing the number of scales to 20. Further, it
was in this edition the three vector scales were introduced (Gough & Bradley, 1996).
Recently, in 1996 the CPI has undergone a third revision due to the continuing research
and the wish to conform to the 1990 Americans with Disability Act (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). Although the latest revision resulted in eliminating 28 items that
were considered to violate privacy, reducing the number of items to 434, the 20 scales
and three vectors were retained (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). Groth-Marnat (2009)
notes that the CPI is not the only inventory that has undergone changes over time;
hence, it is described as an open system, which means that new scales can be developed
when a new criterion is to be predicted and existing scales can also be dropped.

The author of the 434-item Form of the CPI is Gough, Harrison G. PhD. The manual of
the current edition of CPI was authored by Gough, Harrison G. PhD and Bradley, Pamela,
PhD. Also, the publisher is Consulting Psychologists Press, in Palo Alto, California
(Gough & Bradley, 1996). The average cost of the basic administration material,
including a manual, item booklet, interpretation guide, and a packet of answer sheets is
$462 approximately and can be purchased through the publishing company (Consulting
Psychologists Press, 2013). The CPI test is also available in languages other than English
such as French, German, Italian, and Spanish (Atkinson, 2003). Moreover, the standard
434-item Form can be administered in 45 to 60 minutes and the requirements for
testing conditions are minimal (Gough & Bradley, 1996). However, for slow readers
testing can be divided into two or more sessions. According to Groth-Marnat (2009)
although earlier editions of the CPI can be scored via hand or computerized systems, the
current CPI 434-item Form can only be scored using computerized systems.
The 434 items of the current version of CPI are grouped into the 20 folk scales that are
designed to measure attributes of personality involved in social interaction and
interpersonal situations (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005; Atkinson, 2003). The scales are

dominance, capacity for status, sociability, social presence, self-acceptance,

independence, empathy, responsibility, socialization, self-control, good impression,
communality, well-being, tolerance, achievement via conformance, achievement via
independence, intellectual efficiency, psychological mindedness, flexibility,
femininity/masculinity, externality/internality, norm-doubting/norm-favoring, and
ego-integration (Gough & Bradley, 1996). Examples of CPI test items are I enjoy social
gatherings just to be with people and I often get disgusted with myself (Gough, 1995).
Furthermore, according to Murphy and Davidshofer (2005), these specific scaled
variables were chosen for several reasons. One reason is that Gough believed that these
scales represent dimensions of interpersonal behavior that exist in all cultures and
societies (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). Other reasons include that these scales were
readily understandable and interpretable as well as being found to be valid predictors
of future behaviors (Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). According to Gough and Bradley
(1996) in addition to the 20 folk scales the CPI is also scored on three vector scales and
13 special purpose scales. Due to the small changes in the current edition of the CPI,
correlations between the old and new scales ranged between 0.96 and 1.00 (Hattrup,
2003); therefore, many of the previously made observations about the measure are still
true.

Brief description of the purpose and nature of the test
The CPI is a personality inventory that was originally developed for group
administration however; it can also be administered individually (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). Generally, the test items take the form of true-false statements,
similar to test items of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) (Groth-
Marnat, 2009). In addition, the target population of the CPI is normal individuals aged
13 and older, though the test was primarily built for use with young adults who have a
minimum of a fourth-grade reading ability (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Moreover, the
primarily intentions of the 434-item Form of the CPI is the same as that of earlier
versions (Gough, 1989). As put by Gough and Bradley (1996) the purpose of CPI is to
furnish information to the interpreter from which a veridical (true-to-life) and useful
picture may be drawn of the person talking the test (p. 1). Put another way, the CPI is
aimed at predicting how normal people will behave in specific contexts as well as
seeking to measure the classificatory and predictive concepts that people typically use
to comprehend their own behavior and that of others (Gough, 1989).

According to Megargee (1972) in developing the CPI, Harrison Gough avoided using a
theory-based inventory. Instead, Gough opted to use the method of examining the
setting in which the test is to be used and developing measurements and scales based
on the constructs that are already in operational usage (Megargee, 1972). Therefore, the
CPI is often cited as a textbook example of the use of empirical criterion keying in scale
construction (Gough, 1989). The author reports that of the 20 folk scales thirteen were
developed using pure empirical methods, four were constructed by rational approach
(internal consistency method), and the remaining three scales were built using a
combination of rational and empirical item selection procedures. Furthermore, new
normative data are provided for the 434-item Form of the CPI, based on 3000 males and
3000 females selected from the CPI archives (Gough & Bradley, 1996). For each sample,
50% comes from high school testing, 13.3% from delinquents and prison inmates,
16.7% from college undergraduates, and 20% from adults in non-professional
occupations (Gough & Bradley, 1996).

Further, according to Gough and Bradley (1996) the three vector scales were first
introduced in the second edition of the CPI (462-item Form). The first vector scale is
based on 34 items and is referred to as the externality-internality scale, this assesses
interpersonal factors such as self-confidence, assertive self-assurance, and social poise
(Groth-Marnat, 2009). Lower scores on v.1 are associated with a more outgoing and
interpersonally responsive orientation; whereas, high scores on v.1 are associated with
a more inwardly directed and intrapersonally focused inclination (Gough, 1989). A
sample item is I usually dont like to talk much unless I am with people I know very
well (Gough, 1995). The second vector scale has 36 items and is known as norm-
favoring versus norm-questioning scale, which measures normative factors; for
example, social conformity, personal integrity, and self-control (Groth-Marnat, 2009).
Gough (1989) points out that high scores on v.2 are associated with rule-accepting and
rule-observing. An illustrative item is I take a rather serious attitude toward ethical
and moral issues (Gough, 1995). Finally, the third vector scale is based on 58 items and
is known as the realization scale; it evaluates the extent to which an individual has
developed a sense of psychological integration and self-realization (Groth-Marnat,
2009). A representative test item of v.3 is I read at least ten books a year (Gough,
1995).

Practical Evaluation
Administration and scoring of the CPI is rather quick and straightforward (Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). The 1996 CPI manual provides extensive guidelines that aid test
users in both administering and scoring the test. The current form of the CPI contains
434 items in a booklet that can either be administered by a professional test user or
self-administered by examinees with good reading abilities (Gough & Bradley, 1996;
Gough, 1989). According to the Consulting Psychologists Press (2013), if the test is
administered by a professional the examiner must hold a Level C Qualification which
means that the examiner must have satisfactorily completed a course in the
interpretation of psychological tests at an accredited institution, and possess a degree in
a profession that provides training in the interpretation of psychological assessments.
Test instructions can either be read aloud by the examiner whilst examinees read them
silently, or can be read by the respondents taking the test (Gough & Bradley, 1996).
Moreover, both paper-and-pencil and computerized administration of the CPI are
available. If the former method is preferred, answers are recorded on scannable answer
sheets whereas, in cases where computerized administration is employed, answers are
spontaneously recorded on the system (Gough & Bradley, 1996).

For scoring the CPI, raw scores for each scale are transferred to a profile sheet. The
scored profile converts raw scores to T-scores with a mean of 50 and a standard
deviation of 10 (Gough & Bradley, 1996; Murphy & Davidshofer, 2005). Reports of the
current form of the CPI are computer-generated, either on site where computer-scoring
system is available, or through mailing the answer sheets to the Counseling
Psychologists Press or other publishers. Therefore, computer scoring is required for the
434-item Form of the CPI. However, interpretation of the scores offers more freedom; it
can be done either by practitioners themselves or by the publisher (Groth-Marnat,
2009). The scores are documented into four different reports: the CPI Profile, the CPI
Narrative, the CPI Configurable Analysis Report, and a special Police and Public Safety
Selection Report (Gough & Bradley, 1996).

Technical Evaluation
It is important to first mention that evidence of the reliability of the CPI must be
interpreted in light of the methods of scale construction that were utilized. Gough and
Bradley (1996) point out that while some tests place inter-item homogeneity (inter-
correlation of items within a scale) as a high priority, inter-item homogeneity is not a
goal on the CPI. This is simply because 13 of the 20 folk scales were developed using

empirical methodology. The goal of utilizing this methodology is to produce scales that
are capable of predicting significant non-test behavior and classifying individuals in a
way that is harmonious with the examiners evaluations and descriptions (Gough &
Bradley, 1996). Therefore, the authors claim that moderate heterogeneity between
items within a given scale is expected. The procedures used in assessing the reliability
of the CPI 434-item Form were internal consistency with alpha coefficient and test-
retest (Gough & Bradley, 1996). The alpha coefficients were calculated based on the
norming sample- 3000 males, 3000 females, and the total sample of 6000 persons. Test-
retest correlations were computed for both genders in three different groups: 108 male
and 129 female high school students were first tested in the eleventh grade, then
retested within a year interval; 91 female adults were tested, first as college seniors and
again within a five years interval, and finally 44 male adults were tested at the age of 40
and then retested 25 years later (Gough & Bradley, 1996). The 91 adult women are from
Revenna Helsons studies (Helson & Moane, 1987; Helson & Wink, 1992), and the 44
males are from the MacKinnon and Hall studies (Hall & MacKinnon, 1969).

According to Groth-Marnat (2009), internal consistency coefficients indicate
considerable variability among test items; however, overall the scale constructions
seem adequate. According to Gough and Bradley (1996), using the norming sample, the
alpha coefficient for males on the 20 folk scales ranged from .43 to .84, with a median of
.76. Similar alpha coefficients were found for the female sample ranging from .43 to .85,
with a median of .76. For the total norming sample, a median value of .77 was reported
(Gough & Bradley, 1996). Nevertheless, it is important to note that four of the folk scales
namely self-acceptance, empathy, psychological mindedness, and flexibility, were below
the commonly accepted minimum .7 standard. This may mean that there is variance in
alpha estimates and that the different scales are not uniform. Less reliable scales
include more standard errors of measurement than do more reliable scales. Therefore,
when the CPI is used in clinical assessment, the low reliabilities of a few scales must be
carefully considered. Moreover, alpha coefficients for the vector scales were somewhat
higher than that of folk scales with a median of .82 (Gough & Bradley, 1996). Similarly,
alpha coefficients among the 13 special purpose scales ranged from .45 to .88, with four
of the 13 scales below .7 (Gough & Bradley, 1996).

Furthermore, test-retest reliabilities of the 20 folk scales, 3 vector scales, and 13 special
purpose scales were assessed for 1-year, 5-years, and 25-years after the initial
assessment (Gough & Bradley, 1996). In terms of the folk scales, for the 1-year test-

retest assessment, the reliability at the high school level ranged from .51 to .84, with .68
as the median. For the 5-years assessment, test-retest coefficients at the adult level
ranged from .36 to .73, with .56 being the median. For the 25-years retest assessment,
correlations ranged from .37 to .82, with .58 as the median (Gough & Bradley, 1996). In
addition, in terms of the 3 vector scales, median correlations of .72, .68, and .59 were
reported for the high school sample, the women sample, and the adult male sample
respectively. Finally, median of test-retest correlations of the 13 special purpose scales
were also reported. Median coefficients were .67, .57, and .60 for samples respectively
(Gough & Bradley, 1996).

Other studies have also investigated the reliability of CPI scales. For instance, in a 1993
study Zebb and Meyers examined the reliability of the revised California Psychological
Inventorys vector scales, in particular externality-internality (v.1). The study included
345 participants in total of which 236 were female and 109 were male and who were
enrolled in an introductory psychology class at California State University. The study
employed a test-retest reliability method and concluded that the alpha coefficient for
v.1 was .82 and its retest alpha after five weeks interval was .88 (Zebb & Meyers, 1993).
This is similar to the reported .72 alpha coefficient for the high school sample in Gough
and Bradley (1996). Therefore, Zebb and Meyers (1993) concluded that the v.1 items
are valid measures of the externality-internality dimension. However, although both
coefficients are consistent, the alpha coefficient reported in this study is higher than
that found by Gough and Bradley (1996). This may be because the sample examined in
this study consisted of college students tested over an interval of five weeks; whereas
the sample in Gough and Bradley (1996) consisted of high school students tested over a
one-year interval.

Although the validity of the CPI is an important section of any review, this review will
only discuss the validity of the CPI briefly as a full analysis of the topic is beyond the
scope of this review. The CPI has been validated as a predictor of academic
achievement, creativity, occupational performance, and personal and social problems
such as alcoholism and delinquency (Engelhard, 1992). In a 1996 study, Kadden, Litt,
Donovan, and Cooney examined the psychometric properties of the CPIs socialization
scale (So) to assess sociopathy with regards to alcoholics. The study found that the
distribution of the CPI-So scores was consistent with that of other studies of alcoholics
(Kadden et al., 1996). Thus, the authors concluded that the CPI-So scale is a reliable and
valid measure within the alcoholic population (Kadden et al., 1996). In addition, the

manual for the 434-item Form of the CPI provides inter-correlation matrix of the scales
for the 3000 males and 3000 females in the profile report samples (Gough & Bradley,
1996). In terms of the 20 folk scales, the correlation ranges from -.25 to .82 for males,
with a median of .40; and from -.40 to .84 for females, with .42 as the median (Gough &
Bradley, 1996).

Based on the factor analysis approach, the authors suggested five factors: ascendance
(dominance, empathy), dependability (self-control, good impression), conventionality
(sociability, communality), originality (flexibility), and femininity/ masculinity (Groth-
Marnat, 2009). These factors are similar, but not identical to the big five factors of
personality: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness. According to Groth-Marnat (2009), empirical studies show that four
of these factors correlate highly with different clusters of the CPI scales. For instance,
openness to experience has been found to correlate highly with achievement via
independence (.41), flexibility (.42), and social presence (.42).

Reviewers Comments
Much has been written about the methods employed in scale construction and
validation of the CPI. The Fifteenth Mental Measurements Yearbook produced in 2003
includes two recent reviews of the 434-item Form of the CPI. According to Atkinson
(2003) some of the CPI scales are psychometrically stronger than others with respect to
internal consistency, score stability, and the quality of validation support; thus given
this variation, test users are urged to evaluate the CPI on the specific dimensions of
interest. Atkinson (2003) further states that given the relatively weak correlations
between scale scores, the CPI results are only suggestive and descriptive classifications
that requires careful cross-validation with other sources of corroborative information.
In addition, a second review of the 434-item Form emphasizes the fact that the
development of the CPI was not driven by theory. Rather, Gough developed his scales
based on empirical, rational approaches, and a mixture of these two scale-construction
approaches (Hattrup, 2003). Hence, Hattrup (2003) claims that the CPI fails to provide a
clear and theoretically compelling summary description of the normal personality.

Summary Evaluation
The 434-item Form of the CPI is a minor change from the previous version; hence, most
of the strengths and weaknesses described for earlier editions are still true of Form 434.
There are a number of strengths in the CPI; one of which is that its scales cover a wide

range of interpersonal behaviors. Thus, it provides good coverage of information

compared to tests that are more pathologically oriented (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Beside
that, interpretations of the CPI may have more relevancy to respondents because the
results relate to ongoing aspects of behavior. Also, over the nearly five decades since the
establishment of the CPI, the test is often used in research, counseling and clinical
assessment though it does not distinguish between different patterns of pathology
(Groth-Marnat, 2009). Furthermore, the scales of the CPI are straightforward and easily
understood, which makes it more user friendly (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Another strength
of the CPI is that it contains validity scales that indicate if respondents are presenting
themselves in a more favorable light than is actually the case (Gough & Bradley, 1996).

The CPI has been criticized on various grounds. For instance, according to Megargee
(1972) the normative sample cannot be considered truly random or representative of
the general population. The author argues that this because adults working in
professional occupations are underrepresented in the sample. The author also notes
that background information about ethnicity, race, geographic location, and
socioeconomic status of respondents is still lacking. Also, 50% and 16.7% of the CPI
norming sample are high school students and undergraduate students respectively.
Thus, Groth-Marnat (2009) notes that the profile forms used are more appropriate for
evaluations of younger respondents. It is important that clinicians take into account
various factors such as reason for assessment, the overall pattern of scale elevation, and
respondents life situation during score interpretation because a biased response may
cause an elevation on a particular scale which may not be meaningful if interpreted in
isolation (Groth-Marnat, 2009). Furthermore, Laufer, Skoog, and Day (1982) point out
that while the CPI has proven to be relevant in predicting behaviors of delinquents and
criminals, lower class individuals and minority group members tend to obtain lower
scores on almost all 20 folk scales of the CPI. Therefore, the authors encourage
practitioners to consider the effects variables such as race, socioeconomic status, and IQ
have on CPI scores. The CPI is further criticized for not including standard errors of
measurements (SEM) for the scales (Atkinson, 2003). This is especially relevant when
the CPI is used for clinical purposes. As mentioned above, four of the 20 folk scales of
the CPI have reliability coefficients that are below .7; thus, clinicians must be cautious
when interpreting the CPI scores.

Another weakness of the CPI relates to the examiners competence and training (Gough,
1989). Interpretation of CPI requires advanced training in personality theory and

psychometrics; hence, individual assessment must only be interpreted by competent

and trained clinicians, this applies even when interpretation is provided by
computerized systems (Engelhard, 1992). Additionally, Gough and Bradley (1996) note
that the CPI was developed as an open system, which means that new scales can be
added when a new criterion is to be predicted. In this regard, (Hattrup, 2003) argues
that there may be an unlimited number of criteria that can be used in developing the
CPI scales, many of which may be empirically redundant to those already in use. The
author also notes that it is unclear why scales that were developed to predict certain
criteria such as psychological mindedness (Py), are given the status folk scales, while
other scales, that measure anxiety and creative temperament, are labeled special
purpose scales. Finally, according to Groth-Marnat (2009), the CPI has not proven to be
as effective in assessing psychopathology as it has in both educational and vocational
fields. This may simply be due to the fact that CPI was not developed for clinical
assessment. Despite this limitation, the CPI can make some useful contributions to the
clinical field. For instance, individuals with general maladjustment are often identified
by their lowered profiles.


References
Atkinson, M., J. (2003). Review of the California Psychological Inventory (3rd ed.). In B.
S. Plake, J. C. Impara, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements
yearbook. Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved
September 24th, 2013 from https://www.cpp.com/en/index.aspx
Consulting Psychologist Press. (2013). Retrieved September 29th, 2013 from
https://www.cpp.com/en/searchentry.aspx?query=cpi&query_f=Y&Search_type=al
l&sort=author
Engelhard, G. JR. (1992). Review of the California Psychological Inventory (2nd ed.). In J.
J. Kramer & J. C. Conoley (Eds.), The Eleventh mental measurements yearbook (pp.
139-141). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements.
Gough, H. G. (1989). The California Psychological Inventory. In C. S. Newmark (Ed.),
Major psychological assessment instruments (Vol. 2., pp. 67-98). Needham Heights,
MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gough, H. G. (1995). CPI Psychological Inventory, Form 434. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting
Psychologists Press, Inc.
Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996). California Psychological InventoryTM, manual (3rd ed.).
Palo Alto: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc.
Groth-Marnat, G. (2009). Handbook of psychological assessment. Hoboken, N.J: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Hall, W. B., & MacKinnon, D. W. (1969). Personality inventory correlates of creativity
among architects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53(4), 322-326.
Hattrup, K. (2003). Review of the California Psychological Inventory (3rd ed.). In B. S.
Plake, J. C. Impara, & R. A. Spies (Eds.), The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook.
Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute of Mental Measurements. Retrieved September 24th,
2013 from https://www.cpp.com/en/index.aspx
Helson, R., & Moane, G. (1987). Personality and change in women from college to
midlife. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(1), 176-186.
Helson, R., & Wink, P. (1992). Personality change in women from the early 40s to the
early 50s. Psychology and Aging, 7(1), 46-55.
Kadden, R. M., Litt, M. D., Donovan, D., & Cooney, N. L. (1996). Psychometric properties
of California Psychological Inventory Socialization scale in treatment-seeking
alcoholics. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 10(3), 131-146.
Laufer, W., Skoog, D., & Day, J. (1982). Personality and criminality: A review of the
California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38(3), 562-573.

Megargee, E. I. (1972). The California Psychological Inventory handbook. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and
application (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Pearson/Prentice Hall.
Zebb, B. J., & Meyers, L. S. (1993). Reliability and validity of the revised California
Psychological Inventorys Vector 1 scale. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 53(1), 271-280.

10