This article was downloaded by: [University of Milan Bicocca]

On: 2 February 2009

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 794168313]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Personality Assessment

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653663

Psychometric Analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) With

Female Inmates
Alexander L. Chapman a; Tina M. Gremore b; Richard F. Farmer c
a
Department of Psychiatry, Duke University Medical Center. b Department of Psychology, Idaho State
University. c Department of Psychology, University of Canterbury.
Online Publication Date: 01 April 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

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

JOURNAL OF PERSONALITY ASSESSMENT, 80(2), 164172

Copyright 2003, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Psychometric Analysis of the Psychopathic

Personality Inventory (PPI) With Female Inmates
PSYCHOPATHY
CHAPMAN,
ASSESSMENT
GREMORE,
WITHFARMER
FEMALE INMATES

Alexander L. Chapman
Department of Psychiatry
Duke University Medical Center

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

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-

duced to two correlated symptomatological dimensions: (a)

personality traits such as narcissism, lack of guilt, and shallow affect; and (b) behavioral patterns such as a history of engagement in deviant, aggressive, and criminal behaviors and
an impulsive lifestyle. Like Cleckley (1976), Hare (1993,
1996) asserted that psychopaths interpersonal, personality,
and behavioral characteristics can be accounted for by a pervasive failure to experience positive or negative emotions.
Lilienfelds (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) model, in contrast, proposes eight uncorrelated dimensions of psychopathy: Machiavellian Egocentricity, Social Potency,
Fearlessness, Coldheartedness, Impulsive Nonconformity,
Alienation
(Blame
Externalization),
Carefree
Nonplanfulness, and Stress Immunity. These factor dimensions were empirically derived from exploratory methods
and were identified from an inspection of a scree plot of
eigenvalues. Orthogonal rotation was employed to facilitate
the subsequent development of subscales that demonstrated

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

PSYCHOPATHY ASSESSMENT WITH FEMALE INMATES

minimal shared variance. The resulting eight factors, all of
which had associated eigenvalues equal to or greater than
3.0, accounted for a relatively small proportion (24%) of total variance in item responses (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996).
In ensuing research, several of these factor dimensions (i.e.,
Fearlessness, Alienation, Carefree Nonplanfulness, and
Stress Immunity) have failed to display significant associations with Hares (1996) psychopathy dimensions
(Poythress, Edens, & Lilienfeld, 1998), even though both
models were influenced by Cleckleys (1976) conceptualization of psychopathy. However, Lilienfelds (Lilienfeld &
Andrews, 1996) approach to the assessment of psychopathy
is more consistent with Cleckleys personality-based conceptualization of psychopathy (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996)
than with Hares approach that has emphasized both personality traits and behavioral patterns (Harpur et al., 1989).
A number of researchers, including Lilienfeld (e.g., Hamburger, Lilienfeld, & Hogben, 1996; Lilienfeld,
VanValkenburg, Larntz, & Akiskal, 1986; Salekin, Rogers,
Ustad, & Sewell, 1998; Vitale & Newman, 2001), have proposed that the construct of psychopathy may differ in important respects as a function of sex. For example, Hamburger et
al. proposed that antisocial personality disorder (PD) is a
manifestation of the psychopathy construct in men, whereas
among women, psychopathy is manifested in the form of histrionic PD. In a study of 180 undergraduates balanced for
sex, Hamburger et al. found that associations that psychopathy had with antisocial and histrionic PDs were moderated by
biological sex in the manner predicted. Other researchers
have alternatively proposed that histrionic and antisocial PDs
represent caricatures of gender role stereotypes (Chodoff,
1982), although there is not clear empirical support for this
view (Hamburger et al., 1996). Others have suggested that
sex differences in the prevalence of these PD concepts may
represent gender bias in the defining features of these diagnostic concepts (Rutherford, Alterman, Cacciola, & Snider,
1995; Vitale & Newman, 2001) or in the assessment of these
concepts (Widiger, 1998). When compared to men, women
have lower rates of antisocial PD and psychopathy, demonstrate some divergent symptom patterns associated with the
psychopathy concept, and display different patterns of diagnostic comorbidity (Goldstein, Powers, McCusker, &
Mundt, 1996; Mulder, Wells, Joyce, & Bushnell, 1994;
Rutherford, Alterman, Cacciola, & McKay, 1998; Salekin,
Rogers, & Sewell, 1997; Salekin et al., 1998).
The purpose of this study was to examine the reliability
and validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI;
Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) in a female inmate population.
The PPI is a recently developed self-report measure designed
to assess psychopathic personality traits. In adult male inmate and youthful male offender samples, the PPI has demonstrated satisfactory psychometric properties (Poythress et
al., 1998; Sandoval, Hancock, Poythress, Edens, &
Lilienfeld, 2000). PPI total scores have demonstrated moder-

165

ate to very high correlations with other self-report measures

of psychopathy among undergraduate samples (Lilienfeld &
Andrews, 1996). Similarly, among incarcerated youthful
male offenders (Poythress et al., 1998), the PPI total score
has demonstrated moderate to high correlations with total
and factor dimensional scores (range of rs = .40 to .54) derived form Hares (1991) Psychopathy ChecklistRevised
(PCLR). However, in this latter study, only four of the PPI
subscales (Machiavellian Egocentricity, Social Potency,
Coldheartedness, and Impulsive Nonconformity) significantly correlated with an overall PCLR dimensional score
(range of rs = .28 to .57 for significant correlations, .04 to .24
for nonsignificant correlations). In both college undergraduate samples (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) and a male youthful offender sample (Poythress et al., 1998), internal
consistency estimates for the total PPI item set were high (.90
to .93 and .91, respectively); however, greater variability has
been noted among the internal consistencies associated with
PPI subscales (.70 to .90 and .72 to .91, respectively). Among
undergraduate samples (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996),
testretest reliabilities (M retest interval = 26 days) were reported to be .95 for the total score and between .82 and .94 for
the subscale scores. Other research has supported the construct validity of the PPI with male offenders or inmates
(Edens, Poythress, & Lilienfeld, 1999; Edens, Poythress, &
Watkins, 2001; Poythress et al., 1998) and undergraduates
(Hamburger et al., 1996; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996;
Salekin, Trobst, & Krioukova, 2001). However, relatively
modest positive or low negative intercorrelations among
many of the PPI subscales have been reported (Lilienfeld &
Andrews, 1996).
Although the PPI appears to hold promise as a self-report
measure of psychopathy, this measure has not yet received
sufficient empirical scrutiny to support its use among diverse
samples. As noted previously, research on the PPI to date has
been performed on undergraduates or male correctional samples. To our knowledge, data on the psychometric properties
of the PPI with female inmates, however, have yet to be published. Consequently, the purpose of this research was to examine the psychometric features of PPI in a female
correctional sample.
METHOD
Participants
A total of 168 female inmates (M age = 28.95 years, SD =
13.99) at a multilevel womens correctional center participated in this research. The ethnic composition of the entire
sample was as follows: White (69.6%), Native American
(7.7%), Hispanic (11.3%), African American (2.4%), declined to indicate (7.1%), and other (1.8%).
A subset of the entire sample (n = 42; M age = 31.74, SD =
10.50) was retested on the PPI an average of 49.36 days (SD

166

CHAPMAN, GREMORE, FARMER

= 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%).

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

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.

look down at the ground whenever I hear an airplane flying

above my head; When I am under stress, I often see large,
red, rectangular shapes moving in front of my eyes), and response inconsistency (40 pairs of items). For the latter scale,
absolute difference scores derived from 40 pairs of highly
intercorrelated items were summed to yield a single response
inconsistency score. These three scales were used in this research to examine the associations that PPI scores had with
response sets in a female inmate sample and to identify individuals who may have not been responding truthfully to the
PPI item set.

PAIANT. The PAIANT is a 24-item subscale of the

PAI that consists of a number of self-referenced statements
written at the fourth-grade reading level. Response options
are uniform across items and correspond to the following anchors: false, not at all true, slightly true, mainly true, and very
true. For scoring purposes, items are weighted with numerical values that range between 0 to 3, with some items reversed keyed according to item content. In addition to a total
score, the PAIANT yields three subscale scores, each of
which are based on eight items: Antisocial Behaviors,
Egocentricity, and Stimulus Seeking. Consistent with Hares
(1991) approach, the PAIANT item set assesses both personality aspects of the psychopathic character as well as the
engagement in associated antisocial behaviors. Research by
Edens, Hart, Johnson, Johnson, and Olver (2000) and Salekin
et al. (1997) among incarcerated men and women, respectively, provided support for the concurrent validity of the
PAIANT scale and associated subscales by establishing
generally moderate correlations between scores from these
scales and PCLR-derived dimensional scores.
CPISo. The CPISo scale is a subscale of the CPI
and consists of 46 statements; respondents are directed to
consider whether they agreed with the content of each
statement by indicating either the true or false response option. Although initially developed as a measure of the likelihood of engagement in antisocial behavior patterns, item
scoring on this measure was subsequently reverse keyed
prior to the initial publication of the CPI in 1957 (Gough,
1957) and the name changed to reflect the intent of the
scale as a measure of social maturity, social integrity, and
degree of adherence to and acceptance of social norms.
Low scores on this scale are suggestive of a greater likelihood of antisocial behavior, impulsivity, unreliability, and
interpersonal mistrust. Psychometrically, the Socialization
scale is among the strongest of the CPI (Gough, 1994;
Groth-Marnat, 1997), and scores on this measure distinguish socialized from less socialized women (Gough, 1994;
Gough & Bradley, 1992). Among self-report measures of
psychopathy, this measure has demonstrated relatively
strong associations with rating, checklist, and diagnostic
measures of psychopathy (Hare, 1985). In this research,
both the CPISo and PAIANT were administered to a

PSYCHOPATHY ASSESSMENT WITH FEMALE INMATES

167

TABLE 1
Subscales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory
Subscale

Description of Content Areas Assessed by 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

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

subsample of women (n = 42) an average of 49 days after

the initial completion of the PPI. This subsample also constituted the retest sample for the PPI.
RESULTS
Descriptive Statistics for the PPI, Associations
With Response Set Scales, and Data
Elimination Procedures Based
on Response Set Scores
The mean total PPI score obtained for the entire sample (n =
168) was 368.71 (SD = 48.34). When total PPI scores were
correlated with the three PPI response set scales, the following values were obtained: .45 (p < .001) with deviant responding, .17 (p < .05) with socially desirable impression
management, and .11 (ns) with variable response inconsistency. Consequently, as scores on the PPI increased there was
a tendency for participants to endorse deviant or unusual experiences and to present themselves in a less socially desirable or favorable way.
Participants who produced deviant scores on any of the
three response set scales were identified, and their data were
subsequently removed from further consideration. As no
clear guidelines are provided by Lilienfeld (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996) for detecting deviant responding on these response distortion scales, we employed as cutoff scores those
values that represented > 2 SDs above the mean for this sample. In all, 15 persons were identified who produced deviant
scores on at least one of the three scales, and of these, 33% (n
= 5) produced deviant scores on at least two of the three
scales. Following the exclusion of these persons data, the resultant sample consisted of 153 inmates. Additionally, of the
persons excluded for extreme scores, 6 also participated in
the retest administration of the PPI. As a result, PPI retest
data from these individuals were not considered in the analyses that follow, thus resulting in a retest sample of 36 inmates.
As a result of the removal of data from persons with extreme response set scores, the mean for the total PPI score
was recomputed for the overall sample (n = 153) and was
found to be 367.32 (SD = 48.31). When PPI scores for the

overall sample were again correlated with the response set

scales following the exclusion of persons who initially produced deviant response set scale scores, the following correlations were obtained: .43 (p < .001) with deviant
responding, .17 (p < .05) with socially desirable impression
management, and .34 (p < .05) with variable response inconsistency. Consequently, even when data from individuals
with extreme response set scores were excluded, PPI total
scores continued to demonstrate generally moderate associations with response set scores.
Means and standard deviations for the PPI total score,
subscale scores, and validity scale scores following the removal of those with deviant response set scores are presented
in Table 2.
Comparisons Between First Administration
and Retest Samples
When the 36 individuals who defined the retest sample were
compared with the larger sample from which they were
drawn, no significant demographic differences were observed. When the proportion of White and non-White participants for the retest samples were compared with the corresponding proportions observed in the overall sample,2 no
significant departure from the expected distribution for ethnicity was noted for the retest sample, 2 (1, N = 144) = 1.28,
r = .03. Relatedly, there was no significant age difference
noted among the first administration and retest samples, F(1,
151) = 1.43, r = .10. Finally, there were no significant differences among first administration PPI total scores for the retest subsample compared to the larger total sample, F(1, 151)
= 1.19, r = .09.
Reliability of the PPI Total Score
and Subscale Scores

Internal consistency. The internal consistency of the

PPI item set that contributed to the determination of the total

2
Participants who declined to indicate ethnicity during the first
administration of the PPI were excluded from this analysis.

168

CHAPMAN, GREMORE, FARMER

TABLE 2
PPI Scale and Subscale Characteristics

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

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

Note. N = 153. PPI = Psychopathic Personality Inventory.

aItem pairs.

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.

Testretest reliability. The testretest reliability of the

PPI total score over a period averaging 49.36 days was high
(r = .92). As noted in Table 2, the testretest reliabilities of
each of the subscales also tended to be good (range = .77 to
.90). Relatedly, within the retest sample there was no significant change in the mean total PPI score from the first administration (M = 359.63, SD = 49.44) to the second administration (M = 361.92, SD = 58.70), F(1, 35) = 0.35, r = .10.

structure of the PPI is based on subscales that correlate

among themselves. This principle component accounted for
40.0% of the variance in PPI subscales scores (eigenvalue
= 3.20).3 As noted in Table 3, three of the PPI subscales
(Social Potency, Coldheartedness, and Stress Immunity)
had either very low or negative loadings on this first
unrotated component.
Taken together, these intercorrelations and component
loadings, along with the corrected subscale-to-total correlations presented in Table 2, might suggest a pattern of
subscale interrelations that are inconsistent with the notion
that PPI subscales represent well-conceptualized facets of
the psychopathy construct. However, it must be kept in mind
that these subscales were identified through the use of orthogonal rotation methods to identify item sets that had minimal shared variance. On the other hand, the PPI total score is
derived by summing across items that define these subscales;
therefore, it would be reasonable to assume that subscales
would load positively on a single factor dimension and demonstrate positive subscale-to-total correlations.

Intercorrelations Among and Dimensionality

of PPI Subscales
Reported in Table 3 are the intercorrelations among PPI
subscale. As evident in Table 3, many of the intercorrelations
are either nonsignificant or negative (12 of 28 correlations, or
43%).
To further evaluate the extent to which PPI subscales are
aligned with a single construct dimension or general factor,
an unrotated principle components analysis was performed
with single component extraction. This analysis also has
relevance for establishing the degree to which the internal

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

PSYCHOPATHY ASSESSMENT WITH FEMALE INMATES

TABLE 3
Intercorrelations Among PPI Subscales and Loadings on an Unrotated First Factor

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

Intercorrelations Among Subscales

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***

Note. N = 153. PPI = Psychopathic Personality Inventory.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

Construct Validity of PPI

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

A t test was also performed that compared the undergraduate

mean for women from Hamburger et al.s (1996) study with the
mean for all participants in our forensic sample regardless of the extremity of response set scores (M = 368.71). The obtained results
were quite similar, t(156) = 0.14, ns, r = .001.

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

170

CHAPMAN, GREMORE, FARMER

[Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer,
1989], Millon Clinical Multiaxial InventoryIII [Millon,
1994]).
A second concern is that mean PPI total score for the correctional sample employed in this research was no different
than that previously reported for female undergraduates
(Hamburger et al., 1996). Although we would have liked to
perform more comparisons against reference samples, we
note that among the studies published on the PPI only the
Hamburger et al. study reported PPI sample means. Our finding that PPI scores were no different among female correctional and undergraduate samples is a source of concern in
relation to the validity and utility of the PPI, and a finding
that warrants replication. To facilitate this process, future
studies on the PPI should consistently report sample means
for PPI total and subscale scores. It may be the case, for example, that our failure to find a significant difference in PPI
total scores between our female forensic sample and Hamburger et al.s female undergraduates may largely be the result of a few subscales that fail to distinguish among these
populations. However, in the absence of previously published descriptive data on individual subscales, such a hypothesis remains speculative. In addition, future studies that
comparatively evaluate PPI scores for undergraduates and
incarcerated samples should also do the same with other similar self-report measures (e.g., PAIANT and CPISo) to determine if any future failures to obtain significant differences
among references groups are limited to the PPI or extend to
other self-report psychopathy measures as well.
A third difficulty with the PPI arises with regard to the divergent characteristics associated with the PPI subscales,
which have implications for both the PPI as a measurement
tool as well as for Lilienfeld and Andrews (1996) conceptualization of the psychopathy construct. In multiple analyses,
the Coldheartedness, Social Potency, and Stress Immunity
subscales were often observed to have nonsignificant or even
negative correlations with other PPI subscales (Table 3).
These findings were similar to those reported by Lilienfeld
and Andrews (1996) and Salekin et al. (2001) for undergrad-

total PPI score over an average of 49 days was high (r = .92)

and consistent with the magnitude of the testretest correlation reported for an undergraduate sample (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). The internal consistency of the PPI item set
used in the determination of the total score was also high ( =
.94). Moreover, subscale item sets were internally consistent
(range = .79 to .89) and subscale scores were temporally stable (range = .77 to .90). Some subscales, namely Machiavellian Egocentricity, Fearlessness, Impulsive Nonconformity,
Alienation, and Carefree Nonplanfulness also evidenced
good construct validity through a pattern of moderate correlations with PAIANT and CPISo scales as well as moderate to high component loadings on the psychopathy
dimension assessed by the PPI. Finally, the validity of the
PPI total score was supported by moderate to high correlations with other self-report measures of psychopathy
(CPISo and PAIANT).
Findings from this research, however, also indicate some
problems with PPI assessment of psychopathy among female
inmates and suggest areas of caution in its use with this population. First, PPI total scores continued to demonstrate significant associations with each of the three PPI response set
scales even after 15 participants data were excluded based
on deviant response patterns on these scales. Consequently,
significant variance in PPI total scores appears to be influenced by response distortion tendencies, thus contributing to
some difficulties in the interpretation of PPI total scores. Because this study appears to be the first published report on the
associations among PPI total scores and PPI response set
scale scores, replication of this finding with diverse samples
is indicated. Should future research corroborate these findings, individual PPI items might be reevaluated based on
their associations with response set indicators and perhaps be
discarded if their associations are significant. Another possibility might involve the development of a correction factor or
algorithm based on response distortion tendencies that can be
used in the determination of an adjusted PPI total score, perhaps similar to those employed in other personality inventories (e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

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.

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

PSYCHOPATHY ASSESSMENT WITH FEMALE INMATES

uates. These subscales also displayed low or negative corrected subscale-to-total correlations with the total PPI score
(Table 2), low or negative component loadings based on an
unrotated principle components analysis with single component extraction (Table 3), and relatively small or insignificant correlations with other self-report measures of
psychopathy (Table 4). Thus, it would appear that the
Coldheartedness, Social Potency, and Stress Immunity
subscales largely assess something other than the psychopathy construct among female inmates. However, we note that
in Poythress et al. (1998), the PPI Social Potency (r = .33)
and Coldheartedness (r = .33) subscales were significantly,
yet modestly, correlated with PCLR total scores. As the
Poythress et al. study was based on a youthful male inmate
sample, this departure in findings across studies might also
be evidence of a sex difference in the expression of psychopathic features, a possibility that warrants additional research
investigation.
Findings in relation to this research must be considered
along with a couple of caveats. First, data presented in this research are limited to a single prison in the Pacific Northwest
region of the United States. The generalizability of this
studys findings to other prison settings, geographical regions, and countries warrants additional investigation.
Relatedly, as the sample employed in this research was predominantly White, the extent to which the obtained findings
are generalizable to female inmates from other ethnic groups
is uncertain. Second, this was a study based on self-report
data. Although this does not pose a substantial difficulty in
evaluating the internal psychometric features of the PPI (e.g.,
internal consistency, testretest reliability, subscale
intercorrelations, component loadings of subscales, associations among PPI total and subscales scores with indexes of
response distortion included within the PPI measure),
self-report data is limited in the evaluation of the measures
construct validity. Therefore, future research on the PPI with
female inmates should include tests of the measures construct validity with alternative indicators of psychopathy
such as semistructured interviews (e.g., PCLR; Hare,
1991), psychophysiological measures (e.g., Siever, 1998),
and behavioral indictors such as the frequency of disciplinary infractions in prison (e.g., Edens et al., 2001).
In Hares (1985) summary of his research findings related
to the disappointingly low degree of concordance between
self-report and interview or checklist measures of psychopathy, he suggested that self-report measures may have limited
utility because obtained scores reflect what inmates wish to
portray about themselves, which may be substantially different from the inmates actual experience or history. Lilienfeld
(1990, pp. 3334), the author of the PPI, has also expressed
similar concerns and has recommended assessments of psychopathy be performed with multiple measures. This study
supported Hares (1985) admonition by demonstrating that
PPI total scores were moderately correlated with response
sets and were no different in magnitude from those obtained

171

among female undergraduates. Although these findings may

have relevance for the utility of the PPI in particular, they
may also have relevance for the assessment of psychopathy
in general. Given some of the central features that have been
historically associated with the psychopathy construct (e.g.,
deceitful, egocentric, irresponsible, insincere), measures of
this construct that substantially rely on accurate
self-reflection and truthful reporting may ultimately have
limited utility with this population.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was partially supported by Grant S200006
from the Graduate Student Research and Scholarship Committee, Idaho State University, Pocatello, awarded to Alexander L. Chapman and Tina M. Gremore. We thank David
Brasuell, Program Director, Pocatello Womens Correctional
Center, for his support and efforts in relation to this study.
REFERENCES
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R., Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer,
B. (1989). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory2 (MMPI2):
Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cleckley, H. (1976). The mask of sanity (6th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Chodoff, P. (1982). Hysteria and women. American Journal of Psychiatry,
139, 545551.
Doren, D. M. (1987). Understanding and treating the psychopath. New
York: Wiley.
Edens, J. F., Hart, S. D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, J. K., & Olver, M. E.
(2000). Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory to assess psychopathy in offender populations. Psychological Assessment, 12, 132139.
Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (1999). Identifying inmates
at risk for disciplinary infractions: A comparison of two measures of psychopathy. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 435443.
Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., & Watkins, M. M. (2001). Further validation
of the psychopathic personality inventory among offenders: Personality
and behavioral correlates. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 403415.
Goldstein, R. B., Powers, S. I., McCusker, J., & Mundt, K. A. (1996). Gender differences in the manifestations of antisocial personality disorder
among residential drug abuse treatment clients. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 41, 3545.
Gough, H. G. (1957). California Psychological Inventory manual. Palo
Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
Gough, H. G. (1994). Theory, development, and interpretation of the CPI socialization scale. Psychological Reports, 75, 651700.
Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1992). Delinquent and criminal behavior as assessed by the revised California Psychological Inventory. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 48, 298308.
Gough, H. G, & Bradley, P. (1996). California Psychological Inventory
manual: Third edition. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
GrothMarnat, G. (1997). Handbook of psychological assessment (3rd ed.).
New York: Wiley.
Hamburger, M. E., Lilienfeld, S. O, & Hogben, M. (1996). Psychopathy,
gender, and gender roles: Implications for antisocial and histrionic personality disorders. Journal of Personality Disorders, 10, 4155.
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 716.

Downloaded By: [University of Milan Bicocca] At: 14:29 2 February 2009

172

CHAPMAN, GREMORE, FARMER

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.

Rutherford, M. J., Alterman, A. I., Cacciola, J. S., & Snider, E. C. (1995).

Gender differences in diagnosing antisocial personality disorder in methadone patients. American Journal of Psychiatry, 152, 13091316.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1997). Construct validity of psychopathy in a female offender sample: A multi-traitmultimethod evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 576585.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., Ustad, K. L., & Sewell, K. W. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism among female inmates. Law and Human Behavior, 22,
109128.
Salekin, R. T., Trobst, K. K., & Krioukova, M. (2001). Construct validity of
psychopathy in a community sample: A nomological net approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 425441.
Sandoval, A-M., Hancock, D., Poythress, N., Edens, J. F., & Lilienfeld, S.
(2000). Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a
correctional sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 262281.
Siever, L. J. (1998). Neurobiology in psychopathy. In T. Millon, E.
Simonsen, M. Birket-Smith, & R. D. Davis (Eds.), Psychopathy: Antisocial, criminal, and violent behavior (pp. 231246). New York: Guilford.
Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Using the Psychopathy ChecklistRevised with female samples: Reliability, validity, and implications for clinical utility. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 8, 117132.
Widiger, T. A. (1998). Sex bias in the diagnosis of personality disorders.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 12, 95118.

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