Document 561543

For use by Nabeel Salman only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc.
on December 31, 2017

Permission for Nabeel Salman to reproduce 1 copy
within one year of December 31, 2017
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems

Manual
Includes IIP-64 and IIP-32 Forms
(For Review Only)
Leonard M. Horowitz
Lynn E. Alden
Jerry S. Wiggins
Aaron L. Pincus
Published by Mind Garden, Inc.

www.mindgarden.com
Copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins and Aaron L. Pincus.
All rights reserved in all media. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any
information storage and retrieval system without written permission from the Publisher, Mind
Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com. Mind Garden is a trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.
Copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins and Aaron L. Pincus. All rights reserved.
Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com
1
For use by Nabeel Salman only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc. on December 31, 2017
This manual and normative data were originally published by The Psychological
Corporation, a Harcourt Assessment Company.
Copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins and Aaron
L. Pincus. All rights reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com
Normative data copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S.
Wiggins and Aaron L. Pincus.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any
form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any
information storage, transmission, and/or retrieval system, without permission in writing
from the publisher, Mind Garden, Inc.
The following publishers have granted permission to print material from copyrighted
works. Figure 6.2 from “Mean Graphical Location of Interpersonal Problems of Patients
With an Avoidant Personality Disorder,” by L. E. Alden and M. J. Capreol, 1993,
Behavior Therapy, 24. Copyright 1993 by the Association for Advancement of Behavior
Therapy. Reprinted by permission of the publisher. Figures 6.3, 6.4, 6.5, and 6.6 from
“Interpersonal Problems, Attachment Styles, and Outcome in Brief Dynamic
Psychotherapy,” by L. M. Horowitz, S. E. Rosenberg, and K. Bartholomew, 1993,
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 61(4). Copyright 1993 by the American
Psychological Association. Adapted with permission.
2
Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems
Manual
Third Edition
Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins, Aaron L. Pincus
3
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the many people who contributed to the development of
the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. The first author is particularly grateful to the
staff of the Mount Zion Psychiatric Clinic in San Francisco, who provided superb clinical
training that focused on interpersonal issues as the basis for psychiatric difficulties and
treatment. In particular, he would like to express his debt to Harold Sampson, PhD, and
Joseph Weiss, MD, two gifted clinicians and outstanding clinical mentors. He also owes
an enormous thanks to his wife, Suzanne L. Horowitz, PhD, for her many generous and
intelligent suggestions, insights, and practical contributions to the project as it unfolded.
He is also indebted to Saul Rosenberg, PhD, the project coordinator of the original
research from which the instrument evolved; his superior organizational and clinical
skills facilitated the work at every turn. Finally, he would like to thank the National
Institute of Mental Health and the Community Service Program of the Kaiser Foundation
Hospitals for their generous support, and staff members of the Department of
Psychiatry, Kaiser Permanente Medical Center—South San Francisco, for data
provided with good humor and tolerance. The second author would like to thank
Raymond Anderson, PhD, for his insightful comments and support. She would also like
to acknowledge a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of
Canada that funded her contributions.
The original sample of videotaped intake interviews was generously provided by Irvin
Yalom, MD, of the Psychiatry Department, Stanford University. We are also particularly
grateful to Michael Gurtman, PhD, whose clear understanding of the circumplex has
enriched all of us. Many of our former graduate students, postdoctoral fellows, and
colleagues helped in the development of the inventory. Special thanks to Barbara Baer,
PhD, Kim Bartholomew, PhD, Edward Bein, PhD, Joan Bisagno, PhD, Rita French,
PhD, Jess Ghannam, PhD, Michelle Kalehzan, PhD, Norman Phillips, PhD, Paul
Trapnell, PhD, Gilbert Ureño, PhD, Valerie Villaseñor, John Vitkus, PhD, and David
Weckler, PhD, whose intelligence, care, and competence contributed greatly to the
research and development. We are also grateful to Michael Barkham, PhD, John
Clarkin, PhD, Robert Hatcher, PhD, Lynne Henderson, PhD, Hans Kordy, PhD, Janice
Krupnick, PhD, Michael Lambert, PhD, Kenneth Locke, PhD, Roy MacKenzie, MD,
Robert Matano, PhD, Joel Meresman, PhD, Paul Pilkonis, PhD, David Shapiro, PhD,
Ellen Siegelman, PhD, Stephen Strack, PhD, Bernhard Strauss, PhD, and Robert
Weinryb, MD, for helping us better understand clinical and research applications of the
instrument. Thanks, too, to Jackie Wagner for the care and attentiveness that made the
final manuscript possible.
4
The authors are also greatly indebted to Project Director Sandra Prince-Embury, PhD,
and Larry Weiss, PhD, Director of Psychological and Human Resource Assessments of
The Psychological Corporation, for their unfailing goodwill, uniformly high standards,
and impressive competence and skillful management of this project. Dr. Prince-Embury
ensured scientific precision and clinical usability of the Manual and testing materials. Dr.
Weiss contributed steady support and guidance throughout the entire project. Hearty
thanks also go to John Trent, Research Analyst; Judith Lipsett, Consulting Editor; and
Marian Zahora, Designer. Finally, we would like to thank each other for a rewarding and
productive collaboration.
5
Table of Contents

Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 8
Theoretical Overview ................................................................................................................ 9
Administration and Scoring ............................................................................................ 11
Administration ......................................................................................................................... 11
Testing Conditions .................................................................................................................. 11
Handling Special Needs ......................................................................................................... 11
Scoring the IIP-64 ................................................................................................................... 12
Scoring the IIP-32 ................................................................................................................... 17
Development of the Instrument ...................................................................................... 19
Preliminary Studies................................................................................................................. 19
Instrument Development ........................................................................................................ 19
Short Version .......................................................................................................................... 24
Standardization and Norming......................................................................................... 25
Normative Sample .................................................................................................................. 25
Norming .................................................................................................................................. 26
Standardization of Raw Scale Scores .................................................................................... 30
Reliability and Validity .................................................................................................... 31
Reliability of Standard T-Scores ............................................................................................. 31
Reliability of Individual-Based (Ipsatized) T-Scores for the IIP-64 ......................................... 33
Validity .................................................................................................................................... 36
Scale Score Interpretation and Clinical Applications of the IIP ...................................... 42
Interpretation of Standard T-Scores ....................................................................................... 42
Review of Previous Clinical Research on the IIP (Individual-Based T- Scores) ..................... 46
Origins of Interpersonal Problems: Attachment Style ............................................................. 52
Appendix A: IIP-64 Items by Scale................................................................................. 57
Appendix B ..................................................................................................................... 60
Table B.1. IIP-64 Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scale Scores: Overall .................... 60
Table B.2. IIP-64 Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scale Scores: Male ....................... 61
Table B.3. IIP-64 Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scale Scores: Female ................... 62
Table B.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scores: Total Score ................................. 63
Appendix C..................................................................................................................... 66
Table C.1. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-Scores – Overall .......... 66
Table C.2. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T- Scores – Male............. 68
Table C.3. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T- Scores – Female ........ 70
Appendix D..................................................................................................................... 72
Table D.1. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T -Score Conversion – Overall........ 72
Table D.2. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion – Male ............ 74
6
Table D.2. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion – Male ............ 74
Table D.3. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion – Female ........ 76
Appendix E ..................................................................................................................... 78
Table E.1. IIP-64 Individual-Based T -Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Overall ..... 78
Table E.2. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Male .......... 81
Table E.3. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Female ..... 84
Appendix F ..................................................................................................................... 87
Table F.1. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Raw Scale Scores: Overall .................... 87
Table F.2. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Raw Scale Scores: Males ...................... 88
Table F.3. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Raw Scale Scores: Females.................. 89
Table F.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Total Raw Scores .................................. 90
Appendix G .................................................................................................................... 92
Table G.1. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion: Overall .......... 92
Table G.2. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion: Male .............. 95
Table G.3. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion: Female .......... 98
Appendix H: IIP-32 Items by Scale .............................................................................. 101
Appendix I: Original IIP Items Not Used in the IIP-64 or IIP-32 ................................... 103
References ................................................................................................................... 106
Appendix: Sample Inventory of Interpersonal Problems .............................................. 112
Supplement. Means and Standard Deviations of IIP-32 Scale Scores: Males,
Females and Overall
7
Introduction
The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems (IIP) is a self-report instrument that identifies a
person’s most salient interpersonal difficulties. Even if a person begins a clinical
interview by describing uncomfortable feelings and distressing thoughts, a large number
of interpersonal problems usually surface as well. The IIP-64 contains 64 statements
describing common interpersonal problems drawn from an original pool of 127 items
(Alden, Wiggins, & Pincus, 1990; Horowitz, 1979; Horowitz, Weckler, & Doren, 1983;
Horowitz, Rosenberg, Baer, Ureño, & Villaseñor, 1988). A brief version containing 32
items (IIP-32) has been developed for screening purposes and is discussed later in this
manual.
The information presented in this manual about scoring and interpretation of the IIP
allows the clinician to consider an individual's distress from interpersonal problems
relative to a standardization sample based on the U.S. census. Standard T-scores are
provided for evaluating the person's overall interpersonal difficulty; scores on each of
eight scales indicate the person's level of difficulty in eight domains of interpersonal
functioning. These scores may be used to compare groups of individuals in different
settings or a single group before and after clinical treatment. The scores may also be
used to determine whether an individual is sufficiently distressed to justify treatment for
interpersonal problems. In addition to conventional scoring, this manual provides a
secondary form of scoring that shows the individual's own overall level of interpersonal
difficulty. These "individual-based" (ipsatized) T-scores allow the clinician to assess an
individual's scores on the different scales relative to each other, pinpointing the
particular area of interpersonal problems that the individual finds most distressing. The
individual-based (ipsatized) profiling may be particularly helpful for individual treatment
planning.
Three levels of analysis are described in this manual:
1. Standard (non-ipsatized) T-scores
Standard T-scores enable the clinician to compare an individual or group with a
normative sample stratified to match the U.S. census (discussed in the
Standardization and Norming section). This comparison allows the clinician to
determine the degree of the person's overall interpersonal distress, as well as
that within specific domains of interpersonal functioning.
2. Individual-based (ipsatized) T-scores
Individual-based T-scores for specific domains may also be calculated; these
compare the person's difficulty in each domain relative to the person's overall
level of interpersonal difficulty. Ipsatized scores allow the clinician to identify
domains that the individual experiences as particularly problematic, regardless of
the person's overall reported level of difficulty.
8
3. Placement of individual-based (ipsatized) T-scores in circumplex space
Individual-based T-scores may be ordered around a circle (circumplex) located
on a two-dimensional graph. The two axes of the graph correspond to a
dimension of affiliation (friendliness) and a dimension of dominance (power). The
significance of these dimensions will be addressed in the theoretical overview
that follows and in the Development of the Instrument section.
Theoretical Overview
The development of the IIP was based upon neo-Freudian theoretical concepts,
particularly those of Harry Stack Sullivan, that assume that social relationships are at
the heart of psychopathology. These theories posit that all people, from birth onward,
engage in interactions with others, and that each person's salient interpersonal
experiences are represented cognitively and emotionally in the nervous system. The
representations (schemas) in turn guide and influence the person's perceptions,
thoughts, and feelings about current interpersonal situations with friends, marital
partners, family members, co-workers, and so on.
Harry Stack Sullivan (1953) described an individual's personality as "the relatively
enduring pattern of recurrent interpersonal situations which characterize a human life."
His view emphasized the fundamental role of social interaction in defining personality.
For Sullivan, the interacting parties in an interpersonal situation always influence and
are influenced by each other. According to Sullivan, every person who interacts with
another person is motivated by two fundamental needs, abstractly called security (about
receiving love or intimacy) and self-esteem. These two motives form the basic
coordinates of social life. Security (regarding love or intimacy) can be defined as the
conviction that one is loved and can safely enter intimate and lasting unions with
significant others. Self-esteem (corresponding to status, power, or self-worth) can be
defined as a deeply held conviction that one is worthy of respect from significant others.
Sullivan's seminal ideas were operationalized by Freedman, Leary, Ossorio, & Coffey
(1951) and elaborated by Leary (1957). From observations of patients interacting with
one another in group psychotherapy, Leary developed a set of procedures for
describing interpersonal variables. He proposed that interpersonal behaviors and traits
form a circle that can be characterized in terms of the basic coordinates of affiliation
(corresponding to Sullivan's security regarding love) and dominance (corresponding to
Sullivan's self-esteem). An instrument entitled the Interpersonal Check List (ICL;
LaForge & Suczek, 1955) was developed to assess these variables. This instrument
helped describe the behavior of individuals in groups, including married couples and
families. It was developed further by later investigators who held similar theoretical
views (e.g., Lorr & McNair, 1963; 1965; Lorr & Youniss, 1986; Kiesler, 1996; Benjamin,
1993; Wiggins, 1995). Thus, Leary's system provided the conceptual framework for a
number of subsequent theories and measures (Wiggins, 1980, 1982; 1991; Wiggins,
Phillips, & Trapnell, 1989).
9
Carson (1969) integrated the interpersonal theory described above with other theories
drawn from social psychology and sociology, particularly those concerned with social
exchange (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959; Homans, 1961; Foa & Foa, 1974) and impression
management (Goffman, 1959; Hogan, Jones, & Cheek, 1985). The theoretical idea that
individuals are actors who negotiate for preferred types of interpersonal situations is
central to the principle of complementarity. This principle, which is present in all
contemporary versions of interpersonal theory (Wiggins, 1980; 1982; 1995), claims that
the behavior of one person in an interaction invites a particular (goal-satisfying) reaction
from the partner. The partner may or may not grant the requested complement. As a
result, interactional patterns may arise that frustrate one or both individuals, producing
an interpersonal problem (Horowitz, Dryer, & Krasnoperova, 1997).
Other traditions within psychology have also contributed to current interpretations of
interpersonal theory. Guttman, for example, demonstrated that mental abilities can be
ordered along a "circumplex"; that is, they fall along a circle whose origin is at the center
of two intersecting axes (Guttman, 1954). Guttman's psychometric approach was readily
translated to personality measures (Wiggins, Steiger, & Gaelick, 1981). In addition, the
"lexical tradition" in personality theory, which was originally based upon Allport and
Odbert's (1936) list of trait-descriptive entries from the dictionary, led to a number of
factor analytic studies and then to a recognition of the "Big Five" factors (John, 1990).
This approach promoted further research on the two interpersonal factors of the Big
Five, namely, agreeableness and extraversion.
The need for a measure of interpersonal problems is based on clinical demands as well
as on theory. First, although interpersonal problems are related to the work of
psychotherapy (Horowitz, 1979; Horowitz & French, 1979; Horowitz, French, &
Anderson, 1982; Horowitz & Vitkus, 1986), no norms have existed to show the
frequency and severity of different types of problems. A standardized inventory can help
identify the most common types of problems. Second, some types of interpersonal
problems are more difficult to treat than others, and people who complain exclusively of
such problems generally do not do well in treatment. Third, an inventory can help
clinicians specify what has been achieved through treatment. With an inventory of
typical interpersonal problems, a client and therapist can independently determine
which problems have been discussed and which of those have shown improvement.
Interventions associated with improvement on particular problems could then be
identified.
Fourth, a measure of interpersonal distress would help differentiate between distress
due to interpersonal problems and distress due to problems that are not interpersonal
(e.g., unwanted thoughts, work inhibitions, overeating). Interpersonal and non-
interpersonal classes of problems may show different courses of change in treatment.
Finally, a person's interpersonal problems can be related to other aspects of
interpersonal functioning. For example, if it is assumed that interpersonal problems
arise partly as a result of the person’s attachment history, then understanding the
relationship between that history and the current interpersonal problems would offer
greater insight into the person as a whole. The Inventory of Interpersonal Problems has
been designed to satisfy these clinical needs.
10
Administration and Scoring

Administration
The IIP-64 and IIP-32 self-report instruments may be administered to individuals or
groups. In both versions, the items are divided into two sections: One section begins
"The following are things you find hard to do with other people"; the other section begins
"The following are things that you do too much." Response options range from "Not at
all" to "Extremely." Administration time for the IIP-64 ranges from 10-15 minutes for non-
clinical examinees but may take considerably longer for examinees with significant
interpersonal problems. Additional time should be allotted for scoring and interpretation.
The test and norms are approved for adults (18 years and older).
Administration procedures are similar for the IIP-64 and the IIP-32. The following
instructions to the client are provided on the Question Sheets for both:
People have reported having the following problems in relating to other
people. Please read the list below, and for each item, consider whether it
has been a problem for you with respect to any significant person in your
life. Then, using the following choices, circle the response that describes
how distressing that problem has been for you.
The items are presented on the front and back sides of the Question Sheet. The client
records his or her responses on this sheet by circling the applicable numbered response
option. Scoring and clinical profiling are completed on a separate sheet provided to the
clinician.
Testing Conditions
The testing environment should include suitable lighting and adequate workspace. The
environment should also provide privacy and should be free from auditory and visual
distractions.
Handling Special Needs
You may find it necessary to read the items aloud to clients with special needs. Use
caution to avoid biasing the client by commenting on responses or interpreting items.
Scores based on a modified administration should be interpreted with caution. No
validity studies have been conducted on populations with special needs.
11
Scoring the IIP-64

This section will describe the scoring of the IIP-64 and the IIP-32. Scoring for the IIP-64
consists of two steps. Step 1 provides census or norm-based scores. This allows the
clinician to compare the individual's scores on each scale to a corresponding norm or
reference group. Individual scores may be compared to an overall U.S. stratified
sample, or to a stratified male or female group. Development of the norm groups is
described in the next section.
Step 2 provides individual-based (ipsatized) scores. This step compares the individual's
eight scale scores with each other, using the individual as his or her own basis of
comparison. These individual-based scores may be plotted graphically in a manner
similar to the circumplex analysis discussed in the literature (see Alden, Wiggins, &
Pincus, 1990). The IIP Profile Sheets provide a format for calculating both types of
scores. The first page is devoted to norm-based standard T-scores described in Step 1
and illustrated in Figure 2.1.
12
Figure 2.1. Norm-Based Scoring Section of the IIP-64 Profile
Scales
T Score 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Total T Score
100 100
90 90
80 80
70 70
60 60
50 50
40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Controlling
Domineering/
Self-Centered
Vindictive/
Cold/Distant
Socially Inhibited
Nonassertive
Accommodating
Overly
Self-Sacrificing
Intrusive/Needy
Total
Raw
Score 7 8 10 20 12 9 18 10 94
T
Score 55 55 57 74 57 52 68 59 62
Standard T-Score Interpretation:

T-Scores > 60 are above average.
T-Scores > 70 suggest significant difficulty relative to a non-clinical representative U.S.
sample.
The Individual-Based T-scores section follows, as illustrated in Figure 2.2.
13
Figure 2.2. Individual-Based T-Scores (Ipsatized Scoring Section)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Difference Score (Scale T-Score minus -7 -7 -5 12 -5 -10 6 -3
Total T-score)
Individual-Based T-Score (See Appendix D 39 39 42 73 42 35 59 45
in Manual)
1
≥80
70
2 8
60
50
40
≥80 70 60 50 40
3 ≥30 40 50 60 70 ≥80
7
40
50
60
4 70 6
≥80
5
Individual-Based T-Score Interpretation
1. For each scale, place an X to plot the Individual-
Based T-Score on the vector with that scale number
in the circumplex space.
2. Connect the X’s on each vector
3. Interpretation: T-Scores > 70 indicate difficulty
beyond individual’s overall level of interpersonal
distress.
Scale #4 Socially Inhibited
Note: Individual-Based T-Scores should be

interpreted in relation to the corresponding Standard
T-Scale Score and to the Standard T-Total Score
Norms Used:
Male □
Female □
Overall □
1: Domineering/Controlling; 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered; 3: Cold/Distant; 4: Socially Inhibited; 5:

Nonassertive; 6: Overly Accommodating; 7: Self-Sacrificing; 8: Intrusive/Needy
14
Obtaining Raw Scores

Raw subscale scores are obtained by calculating the sum of the eight item responses
for each of the eight scales. The items included in each scale are listed below:
Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling = (Items 17 + 31 + 44 + 45 + 50 + 52 +
57 + 59)
Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered = (Items 1 + 22 + 24 + 29 + 32 + 40 + 56
+ 64)
Scale 3: Cold/Distant = (Items 11 + 15 + 16 + 20 + 23 + 27 + 36 + 60)
Scale 4: Socially Inhibited = (Items 3 + 7 + 14 + 18 + 33 + 35 + 55 + 62)
Scale 5: Nonassertive = (Items 5 + 6 + 8 + 9 + 12 + 13 + 19 + 39)
Scale 6: Overly Accommodating = (Items 2 + 10 + 25 + 34 + 38 + 42 + 53
+ 61)
Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing = (Items 21 + 28 + 37 + 46 + 49 + 51 + 54 + 63)
Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy = (Items 4 + 26 + 30 + 41 + 43 + 47 + 48 + 58)
Total Score = Sum of Scales 1 through 8.
To compute scores using the IIP-64 Scoring Key, line up the Question Sheet with the
Scoring Key. Then transfer the response value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) to the Scoring Key box
for each item. When all items have been recorded, sum the values in each column
corresponding to each of the eight scales. Repeat this process for each page of the
questionnaire. The result will yield subtotals for each page.
Obtaining Total Raw Scores
Add all page subtotals for each scale and enter that value in the appropriate “All pages
total” box for each scale. Then sum all eight raw scores to obtain the Total Raw Score
and enter that value in the box labeled "Total" at the right end of the row.
Missing Items
Although missing responses are discouraged for the IIP-64, scale scores may be
computed with one missing response per scale. In this case, the score for the missing
item must be estimated by determining the average of the other seven items in the
same scale. This estimated value must be added in computing the raw (eight-item)
score for that scale. A total of four missing item responses are allowed for the IIP-64.
Raw Score to Standard T-Score Conversion
The IIP Profile Sheet pertains to converting the raw score calculated above to standard
T-scores. First, decide on the appropriate norm group (Male, Female, or Overall) and
locate the corresponding conversion table in Appendix B (Tables B.1-B.3). For each
scale, locate the raw score and determine the corresponding T-score in the column
under the scale name. To determine the T-score for the Total score, refer to Table B.4
15
in Appendix B. The T-scores for Male, Female, and Overall norm groups are arranged
in adjacent columns of the same table. The total raw score is the sum of the scale raw
scores. Locate the raw score. The T-scores provided are based on the entire
standardization sample (N = 800) for overall norms, males (n = 400), or females (n =
400).
Standard T-scores may be written in the spaces provided on the IIP Profile Sheet as
shown in Figure 2.1. These T-scores may also be plotted on the sheet as illustrated in
Figure 2.1. This plot illustrates the difficulty reported by the individual relative to other
members of the standardization sample.
Cumulative Percentages for Standard T-Scores
Cumulative percentages for all scale T-scores and the Total T-score can be found in
Appendix C (Tables C.1-C.3). Cumulative percentage indicates the relative frequency
with which a given T-score or any below it is found in the non-clinical, standardization
sample.
Individual-Based (Ipsatized) Scale Scores
The second scoring step provided in this manual is individual-based—or ipsatized, as
commonly described in the literature. Individual-based scoring allows us to take the
individual’s overall level of complaint into account when we evaluate his or her scale
score by prioritizing the eight domains of interpersonal difficulty relative to each other.
This procedure is accomplished in the following way:
Step 1. For each scale, compute a Difference Score, which is the individual's Standard
T-score on that scale minus the individual's Total T-score. (This controls for the person's
overall distress level that is represented by the Total T-score.) In the Individual-based
scoring section of the IIP-64 Scoring Sheet, record the Difference Score in the box for
that scale. Some difference scores will be positive and others will be negative.
Step 2. Then, for each scale, convert the Difference Score computed above to a T-
score, using the appropriate table for Overall, Males, or Females in Tables D.1-D.3
(Appendix D). Record this T-score below the Difference Score on the Scoring Sheet.
Each individual-based T-score represents the relative salience of the interpersonal
difficulty experienced by that individual in the domain described by that scale. It is
possible that the individual-based T-score on a scale will be different from the person's
norm-based T-score on the same scale.
Step 3. The individual-based T-scores for each scale may be graphed on the
corresponding line of the circle at the bottom of the Scoring Sheet shown in Figure 2.2.
Each line of the circle describes some combination of the two factors, affiliation and
dominance. Notice in Figure 2.2 that the circle is divided into eight octants, or wedges,
corresponding to the eight IIP scales and their corresponding domains of interpersonal
difficulty. Refer to Alden et al. (1990) for a theoretical discussion of the arrangement of
these domains. The circle is also divided by several additional concentric circles, which
reflect different levels of distress. The innermost circle corresponds to a T-score of 30 (2
standard deviations below the mean of 50); the outermost circle corresponds to a T-
score of 80 (3 standard deviations above the mean of 50). To plot the individual-based
16
T-scores for each scale, place a mark in each octant (domain) corresponding to the
individual-based T-score for that scale. Then connect the marks of adjacent octants as
illustrated in the example in Figure 2.2. The relative position of the Individual-based T-
score may be interpreted in relation to the corresponding Standard T-scale score and to
the Standard Total T-score, and used in treatment planning.
Cumulative Percentages for Individual-based (Ipsatized) T-Scores
Cumulative percentages for individual-based T-scores can be found in Appendix E
(Tables E.1-E.3). Cumulative percentage indicates the relative frequency with which a
given T-score or any below it is found in the non-clinical, standardization sample.
Scoring the IIP-32
Obtaining Raw Scores
Raw scale scores for the 32-item version of the IIP are obtained by summing the items
below for each scale.
Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling = (Items 22 + 25 + 28 + 30)
Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered = (Items 14 + 16 + 17 + 18)
Scale 3: Cold/Distant = (Items 10 + 11 + 13 + 15)
Scale 4: Socially Inhibited = (Items 2 + 5 + 9 + 19)
Scale 5: Nonassertive = (Items 4 + 6 + 7 + 12)
Scale 6: Overly Accommodating = (Items 1 + 8 + 20 + 31)
Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing = (Items 23 + 26 + 27 + 32)
Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy = (Items 3 + 21 + 24 + 29)
Total Score = Sum of Scales 1 through 8.
To compute scores, line up the questionnaire with the Scoring Key transfer the
response value (0, 1, 2, 3, or 4) to the box for each item.
Obtaining Total Raw Scores
When all items have been recorded in the Scoring Key boxes, sum the values in each
column corresponding to each of the eight scales. These sums are the raw scores for
each scale. Repeat for the second page and add together the page totals. Then sum all
eight raw scores to obtain the Total Raw Score and enter that value in the appropriate
box at the right end of the row.
Missing Items
Again, missing responses are discouraged. However, scale scores may still be
computed with one missing response per scale. The score for the missing item must be
estimated by computing the average of the other three items in the same scale. This
estimated value must be added in computing the raw (four-item) score for that scale. A
total of two missing item responses are allowed for the IIP-32.
17
Raw Score to Standard T-Score Conversion
The IIP Profile page pertains to converting the raw scores calculated above to standard
T-scores. First, decide on the appropriate norm group (Male, Female, or Overall) and
locate the corresponding conversion table for the IIP-32 in Appendix F (Tables F.1-F.3).
For each scale, locate the raw score and determine the corresponding T-score in the
column under the scale name. To determine the T-score for the Total score, refer to
Table F.4. The T-scores for Male, Female, and Overall norm groups are arranged in
adjacent columns of the same table. The total raw score is the sum of the scale raw
scores. Locate the raw score in the outside columns. The T-scores provided are based
on the entire standardization sample (N = 800) for overall norms, males (n = 400), or
females (n = 400).
Standard T-scores may be written in the spaces provided on the IIP Profile Sheet.
These T-scores may also be plotted on the graph located directly under the T-scores.
This plot illustrates the difficulty reported by the individual relative to other members of
the standardization sample.
IIP-32 Individual-Based (Ipsatized) Scale Scores
Step 1. For each scale, compute a Difference Score, which is the individual's Standard
T-score on that scale minus the individual's Total T-score. In the Individual-based
scoring section of the IIP-32 scoring page, record the Difference Score in the box for
that scale. (The Difference Scores may be positive or negative.)
Step 2. Then, for each scale, convert the Difference Score computed above to a T-
score, using the appropriate table (for Overall, Males, or Females) in Tables G.1-G.3
(Appendix G). Record this T-score below the Difference Score on the scoring page.
Each individual-based T-score represents the relative salience of the interpersonal
difficulty experienced by that individual in the domain described by that scale. It is
possible that the individual-based T-score on a scale will be different from the person's
standard T-score on the same scale. When we adjust for overall level of distress, a
particular interpersonal difficulty may be relatively high or relatively low.
Step 3. The individual-based T-scores for each scale may be graphed on the
corresponding line of the circle at the bottom of the Scoring Page. Each line of the circle
describes some combination of the two factors, affiliation and dominance. The circle is
divided into eight octants, or wedges, corresponding to the eight IIP scales and their
corresponding domains of interpersonal difficulty. The circle is also divided by several
additional concentric circles, which reflect different levels of distress. The innermost
circle corresponds to a T-score of 30 (2 standard deviations below the mean of 50); the
outermost circle corresponds to a T-score of 80 (3 standard deviations above the mean
of 50). To plot the individual-based T-scores for each scale, place a mark in each octant
(domain) corresponding to the Individual-based T-score for that scale. Then connect the
marks of adjacent octants. The relative position of the individual's profile may be
interpreted in relation to the corresponding Standard T-scale score and to the Standard
Total T-score, and used in treatment planning.
18
Development of the Instrument

Preliminary Studies
The impetus for studying interpersonal problems was an intensive case study of a
woman in psychoanalysis who complained of being sexually unresponsive to her
husband (Horowitz, Sampson, Siegelman, Weiss, & Goodfriend, 1978). As part of that
study we recorded every interpersonal complaint that began "I can't [do something]" or
"I can't stop [doing something]." Many of these complaints resembled the sexual
problem in that they reflected difficulties with intimacy (e.g., difficulty in getting close to
other people). However, the client also experienced many problems with assertiveness.
She appeared to be afraid to get close to others because she lacked the capacity to
assert and separate herself from them. The study revealed that the client had to
overcome her problems with assertiveness in order to make gains in her problems with
intimacy.
Then we examined interpersonal problems that were mentioned in the complaints of a
larger sample of clients. Once we had identified the problems, we subjected them to
scaling methods that exposed their underlying dimensions and major content. The
sample consisted of men and women who had been interviewed at the Stanford
Psychiatric Clinic before beginning psychotherapy (Horowitz, 1979; Bloch, Bond, Qualls,
Yalom, & Zimmerman, 1977). The interviews were videotaped, and two observers
recorded each problem that began with either "I find it hard to" (or some synonymous
phrase) or "I find it hard not to" (or some synonymous phrase). There were 2 to 12
problems per client (M = 6.9, SD = 2.3), such as "I find it hard to say 'no' to my
husband," "I can't disclose personal things to my wife," and "I can't make demands of
my secretary."
Nearly 200 different problems were identified, but some were not interpersonal. "I have
trouble falling asleep at night," for example, is not interpersonal. To separate the inter-
personal problems from the non-interpersonal problems, 14 naïve judges were asked to
assess whether or not each complaint was interpersonal. A problem was considered
interpersonal if at least 13 of 14 judges considered it to be. On the average, 5.2
problems per client (76% of the original set) met this criterion.
Instrument Development
From a larger sample of intake interviews that had been videotaped at the Stanford
University Medical Center, we were able to identify interpersonal problems that people
expressed during their interview. Many problems could be described as inhibitions or
skill deficits—these typically began, "It is hard for me [to do X]" or "I can't [do X]"; many
others described excesses or compulsions—these typically began, "I can't stop [doing
X]" or "I [do X] too much." Statements that fit these frames were extremely common in
the interviews. Every patient in the sample mentioned at least one problem of this type,
and most patients mentioned many more—difficulties being firm with people, joining
groups, making a long-term commitment to another person, experiencing closeness,
being too self-disclosing, being too competitive with other people, and so on.
19
Once the problem statements were identified, we studied their content systematically
and eventually formed an inventory of interpersonal problems that people frequently
mention when they begin psychological or psychopharmacological treatment. The
resulting items were used to form the scales described in this manual.
Although derived empirically, the problems themselves also relate to current theory
about interpersonal behavior and interpersonal problems. The theory assumes that
interpersonal behaviors can be described along two principal dimensions: (1) a
dimension of affiliation or nurturance that ranges from hostile (cold) behavior to friendly
(warm) behavior, and (2) a dimension of control or dominance that ranges from yielding
(submissive) behavior to controlling (dominating) behavior. Different domains of
interpersonal problems can be defined in terms of particular combinations of affiliation
and dominance. For example, the trait "Overly Accommodating" is friendly and yielding
(positive in affiliation, negative in dominance). The trait "Vindictive/Controlling" is hostile
and dominating (negative in affiliation, positive in dominance).
To systematize the problems, we first simplified each problem statement, reducing it to
its behavioral content alone. The beginning phrase (e.g., "I find it hard to") was deleted,
and any target person that was mentioned was replaced by "O" (for "other person"). In
this way, the problem "I feel compelled to talk back to the adolescent boy in the house
where I work" was simplified to "talk back to O." These problem behaviors were then
studied semantically (Horowitz, 1979). Each was printed on a card, and 50 subjects
were asked to sort the cards into groups of behaviors that seemed to go together
semantically. A matrix was developed that showed, for each pair of items, how often the
judges placed the two items in the same category. A multidimensional scaling was then
performed on this matrix, yielding dimensions comparable to those reported in other
contexts by other investigators (e.g., Bales, 1970; Marwell & Hage, 1970; Rosenberg &
Sedlak, 1971; Triandis, 1995; Wish, Deutsch, & Kaplan, 1976; Foa, 1961). One
dimension was clearly a control dimension; it concerned a person's intention to
influence, change, or control another person. Examples of behaviors that were high on
the control dimension are "manipulate O in order to get praise" and "exert pressure on
O." Examples of behaviors that were low on the control dimension are "share a feeling
of being one with O" and "be genuine in a one-to-one relationship with O." A second
organizing dimension was the friendliness of the behavior, from positive (friendly) to
negative (hostile). Examples of behaviors that were high on this dimension are "be
friendly and sociable with O" and "join in on O's drinking." Examples of behaviors that
were low on this dimension are "feel angry at O" and "tell O to back off."
The multidimensional scaling procedure provided coordinates along each dimension for
each problem behavior. We correlated the coordinates on the two dimensions across
the problem behaviors and computed the Pearson r for the two dimensions: r = -.51.
This correlation suggests that, among problematic behaviors, friendliness is generally
associated with a low intention to control, and hostility is associated with a greater
intention to control. This correlation has several implications. First, more problem
behaviors exist for the combinations "hostile dominance" and "friendly submissiveness"
than for other combinations. Second, people probably expect controlling behavior to be
hostile, and friendly behavior to be non-controlling. For example, when a therapist ends
20
a session, a client, presuming a correlation between the two dimensions, may infer a
hostile intent; this tendency is particularly pronounced in paranoid clients. Similarly,
when people exercise control, they (or others) may erroneously perceive this behavior
to reflect a hostile intent, leading them to feel guilty; this tendency is particularly
pronounced in clients with problems of assertiveness. That is, an unassertive person's
difficulty with controlling behaviors might arise from the belief that controlling behaviors
are hostile.
We also performed a hierarchical clustering on the problem behaviors. This technique
helped us organize the behaviors into thematic clusters that occupy different regions of
the interpersonal space. It revealed five major clusters of problem behaviors: intimacy,
socializing, assertiveness, compliance, and independence. Since the problem behaviors
were originally derived from statements that began "I find it hard to..." or "I find it hard
not to..." we could add either frame to each problem. With five thematic clusters and two
types of frames, 10 combinations were possible. By far, the most numerous classes of
problems among the patients' original complaints were of the general form "I find it hard
to be assertive," "I find it hard to be sociable," and "I find it hard to be intimate."
A preliminary inventory was then constructed from these statements and administered
to students at Stanford University to establish its internal consistency and temporal
stability (Horowitz, Weckler, & Doren, 1983). One step in this process involved
determining whether interpersonal problems that are semantically similar actually co-
occur in people's behavior. Two behaviors that have similar coordinates in a
multidimensional scaling have similar meanings, but they may be quite different
behaviorally. For example, expressing affection and revealing personal things are
semantically similar (they both reflect friendliness), but it is conceivable that they do not
co-occur as problems. On the one hand, semantically similar problems may be
behaviorally specific; a person who has difficulty expressing affection may or may not
have difficulty revealing personal things. On the other hand, if problems are not strictly
behavioral but instead occur because of their interpersonal meaning (e.g., a problem in
relaxing control), then two behaviors that occupy a similar graphical location would
necessarily co-vary as problems.
To examine this issue, we formed a preliminary version of the inventory. Each item was
printed on a separate card, and students were tested by the Q-sort procedure. They
were asked to sort the cards into nine categories, placing items that were least
characteristic of themselves into category 1, items that were most characteristic of
themselves into category 9, and other items in the intermediate categories. Using the
category number as a rating, a Pearson r was computed between the responses of
each pair of items. Although the mean value of r across all pairs of items was 0.0, the
mean value of r between pairs of items within a cluster was always positive and
significant at the .01 level. Therefore, if a person reports one problem of socializing
(e.g., relaxing on a date), the conditional probability is high that the person will also
report a problem participating in groups, enjoying parties, and making friends. This co-
occurrence of problems within a cluster suggests that people experience a behavior as
difficult because of its underlying meaning; criticizing other people and making demands
of other people are both perceived as hostile and controlling, and their common
meaning, rather than the behaviors per se, apparently constitutes the problem.
21
Interpersonal problems can be expressed in other ways as well. For example, people
who seek psychotherapy sometimes express their problems in the form "I am
[adjective]." In other words, a complaint like "I feel lonely" may summarize a set of
related interpersonal problems. Horowitz & French (1979) showed that people who
describe themselves as lonely have difficulty with the cluster of problems that describe
difficulties socializing.
Finally, we demonstrated that students' responses to the preliminary inventory were
reasonably stable over a 2-month period (Horowitz, Weckler, & Doren, 1983). The
inventory was administered to 224 students, who were asked to indicate how well each
problem described themselves; they were also asked to select the five problems that
seemed most characteristic of themselves. Two months later, a random sub-sample of
50 students completed the inventory again. First, we computed the total number of
problems endorsed by subjects at each testing. The Pearson r between responses on
the two occasions was r = .77. The problems were then sorted into the major clusters,
and we determined the proportion of the top five problems that each subject had placed
in each of the clusters. The Pearson r for the different clusters ranged from .67 to .81.
We also evaluated what proportion of the problems the subject had classified the same
way on both occasions. These proportions, for different subjects, ranged from .74 to .98,
with a median of .85 and a mode of .90. Thus, various measures suggested reasonable
stability over a 2-month period.
To examine the validity of self-reported problems among students, Weckler (1981) and
colleagues (Horowitz, Weckler, & Doren, 1983) identified people with particular types of
self-reported problems—over-assertive people (too dominating or controlling), under-
assertive people (too submissive, compliant, or yielding), and a comparison group of
people who did not report either type of problem. Three-person discussion groups (three
males or three females) were formed to include one person from each category. Each
group worked on the Desert Survival Problem (Lafferty & Eady, 1974), a task that
requires the participants to discuss and rank order 15 items according to their
usefulness in surviving a plane crash in the desert. Each subject's behavior was
videotaped, and a behavior coding system was developed. Those with different types of
problems differed in the mean number of opinions expressed during the discussion.
People with problems of under-assertiveness expressed fewer opinions, and people
with problems of over-assertiveness expressed more opinions. Moreover, gender
interacted significantly with the type of problem. Under-assertive male students
expressed significantly fewer opinions than other males, whereas over-assertive
females expressed significantly more opinions than other females. This interaction
makes sense when we consider what a problem with assertiveness means for college-
age males and females. When a male reports a difficulty or inhibition in being assertive,
he is stating that he finds it hard to execute a class of behaviors expected in the
stereotyped male sex role; a problem engaging in such behaviors would be a salient
problem for college males. On the other hand, when a female describes herself as too
assertive, she is reporting a behavior that is counter to the stereotyped female sex role.
A problem with over-assertiveness, therefore, would be a salient problem for college-
age females.
22
Selection of Items and Basic Format

Four licensed clinical psychologists studied the items discussed above to eliminate
redundancies and ambiguities. The final pool contained 127 items. (The 63 items that
were not included in the IIP-64 or IIP-32 are listed in Appendix I.) The items were then
organized into two sections. The 78 items in the first section began with the phrase "It is
hard for me to," and the 49 items in the second section began with the phrase "These
are things I do too much." The instructions asked respondents to consider each problem
and to rate each on a scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), to indicate how
distressing that problem had been. The format was similar to that of the Symptom
Checklist-90—Revised (SCL-90—R; Derogatis, 1994).
Constructing and Validating Circumplex Scales
Horowitz and his colleagues administered the 127 items to a sample of students
(Horowitz, 1979) and a sample of psychiatric patients (Horowitz et al., 1988). Applying a
multidimensional scaling in one study and a principal components factor analysis in the
other to the inter-item correlations, they demonstrated the salience of two interpersonal
dimensions, namely, affiliation and dominance, as hypothesized by interpersonal
theorists. These two dimensions were confirmed in subsequent studies (e.g., Alden,
Wiggins, and Pincus, 1990, described below).
If an item's factor loadings on the two primary interpersonal factors are used as
coordinates, each of the original 127 items can be plotted graphically. For each item, we
can imagine a vector from the origin (0,0) to that point. The coordinates can also be
used to determine the item's angle with respect to the X-axis (from 0 degrees to 360
degrees). For example, in one study, Gurtman (1997) determined, for data from a
sample of 1,093 students, the angular location of each of the 127 items in this two-
dimensional space. Every item was plotted on a two-dimensional graph, and the points
were projected onto a unit circle. The results showed that one or more items fell in every
narrow segment of the circle. That is, a problem (or item) exists for every combination of
the two underlying factors of affiliation and dominance. Some problems reflect too much
friendly dominance, others reflect too much hostile dominance, and so on. Furthermore,
items that are close to one another on the graph are positively correlated, both reflecting
similar amounts of the two underlying factors. In contrast, items that are diametrically
opposed to each other on the graph, in general, are negatively correlated, reflecting
opposite amounts of the two underlying factors.
Alden, Wiggins, and Pincus (1990) divided this space into eight octants to create eight
subscales of items. First, they applied a principal components factor analysis to the
original 127 items to determine each item's factor loadings on the first two factors. Then,
they divided the two-dimensional space into eight octants and identified the eight items
that were most representative of each octant. In this way, they created eight 8-item
scales. Thus, each octant can be defined in terms of a different combination of the two
factors (or dimensions), and the items from each octant characterize difficulties defined
by that octant. For example, the octant labeled "Overly Accommodating" involves
friendly submissiveness; it contains the item "I let other people take advantage of me
too much." Since each scale contains eight items, the instrument as a whole contains
23
64 items. Alden et al. (1990) called this form of the instrument the IIP-C to indicate its
circumplex structure. We shall call it the IIP-64 to reflect its 64 items. The eight scales of
the IIP-64 have been renamed to reflect more accurately the item content of each scale,
and will be identified by number as Scale 1 through Scale 8. Corresponding scale
names used by Alden et al. (1990) are included in Appendix A.
Subsequent investigators have demonstrated the validity of the new circumplex
measure. For example, Gilbert, Allan, and Gross (1995) administered the IIP-64 to a
sample of students who completed other self-report measures that described their self-
image. One measure assessed the frequency with which the person engaged in
submissive behaviors; that measure included such items as "I agreed I was wrong even
though I knew I wasn't." This measure correlated most highly with the circumplex scale
labeled "Nonassertive (HI)"; the Pearson r was 0.73. It had lower correlations with other
scales, and the farther a scale was from the Nonassertive (HI) scale, the lower the
correlation. Correlations with the scales adjacent to Nonassertive (HI) were .54 for
Overly Accommodating (JK) and .57 for Socially Inhibited (FG). The scale most remote
from Nonassertive (HI) was the Domineering/Controlling (PA) scale, and that correlation
was the most negative (r = -0.13). Other studies that examined the validity of the IIP-64
are reported in the Reliability and Validity section of this manual.
Short Version
The need for a short version of the IIP was recognized by Soldz, Budman, Demby, and
Merry (1995), who identified four items from each circumplex scale that could be used
to form a short (32-item) measure. A short version is particularly useful for testing a
large number of clients in a short amount of time.
The short version developed and presented in this manual (called the IIP-32) differs
from the Soldz, et al. (1995) version and was based on the stratified community sample
described previously. Preserving the scale structure of the 64-item version, the four
items of each scale with the highest item-total correlations constituted the shortened
version of that scale. The resulting 32 items make up the IIP-32. In choosing between
items that had similar item-total correlations, we considered each item's frequency of
endorsement in earlier clinical samples and the item's sensitivity to change.
Three scales of the IIP-32 (Socially Inhibited, Nonassertive, and Intrusive/Needy)
contain exactly the same items as those in the short version developed by Soldz et al.
(1995) even though the scales were derived independently. The other scales differ by
one or two items. Psychometric properties of the short version and its relationship to the
longer version are discussed later in this manual. The items selected for each scale are
listed in Appendix H.
24
Standardization and Norming

Normative Sample
The IIP normative information presented in this manual is based on a national
standardization sample of 800 cases representative of the U.S. population of adults
aged 18-89. A stratified sampling plan ensured that the standardization samples
included representative proportions of adults according to each selected demographic
variable. An analysis of data gathered in 1999 by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (U.S.
Bureau of the Census, 1999) provides the basis for comparing the stratification by
race/ethnicity and education level within gender and the overall sample.
To assure sufficient numbers of females, males, and participants of different ages,
equal numbers of participants were selected by gender (n = 100) within each age group
(18-24, 25-44, 45-64, and 65 and over) for the total standardization sample.
Race/ethnicity and level of education were stratified within gender group and the overall
sample.
Regional representation was controlled by selecting 100 individuals in each of eight
cities. Two cities, one larger and one smaller, were selected from each of four different
regions of the country. The sample was selected initially by random-digit telephone
dialing. Potential participants were screened by telephone, and those selected
participated in small groups assembled by professional marketing research firms in
1996. Each participant received monetary reimbursement for 1-2 hours of participation,
during which a questionnaire developed by The Psychological Corporation (TPC
Questionnaire) was administered, which consisted of several test instruments, as well
as demographic and life history items.
Demographic Characteristics of the Standardization Sample
Table 4.1 presents the race/ethnic characteristics of the IIP sample within norm group
(Male, Female, Overall) as compared with the U.S. population. Table 4.2 presents the
educational characteristics of the sample within norm groups, as compared with the
U.S. population. Table 4.3 presents the median age for each age group in the IIP
sample, by gender and combined. This table shows that the median age for each age
group is close to the center of each age band and is comparable for females and males.
25
Table 4.1. Percentage of the IIP Standardization Sample and the U.S. Population by
Race/Ethnicity
African
Gender White American Hispanic Other
Male IIP 76.2 12.0 8.3 3.5
U.S. Population 74.2 10.8 10.6 4.5
Female IIP 79.3 10.5 7.5 2.8
U.S. Population 73.1 12.4 10.0 4.5
Overall IIP 77.7 11.3 7.9 3.1
U.S. Population 73.6 11.6 10.3 4.5
Note. N = 800 (400 females, 400 males). U.S. population data are from the Current Population Survey,
March 1999, on CD-ROM [Machine-readable data file] by U.S. Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of
Labor Statistics, 1999, Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census (Producer/Distributor).
Table 4.2. Percentage of the IIP Standardization Sample and the U.S. Population by
Education Level
Years of Education
Gender ≤12 Years 13-15 Years ≥16 Years
Male IIP 61.0 24.3 14.8
U.S. Population 49.7 25.8 24.5
Female IIP 54.5 26.5 19.0
Overall IIP 57.8 25.4 16.9
Note. N = 800 (400 females, 400 males). Row percentages may not sum to 100%, due to rounding error.
U.S. population data are from the Current Population Survey, March 1999, on CD-ROM [Machine-
readable data file] by U.S. Bureau of the Census for the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 1999, Washington,
DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census (Producer/Distributor).
Table 4.3. Median Ages of the IIP Standardization Sample by Age Group and Sex
Age Group Combined Female Male
18-24 21.0 21.0 20.0
25-44 34.0 36.0 33.0
45-64 53.5 52.5 55.0
≥65 72.0 71.0 72.5
Note. N = 800 (100 females and 100 males per age group).
Norming
This section describes the norming decisions and procedures used in the development
of the IIP, including the selection of norm groups and standardization procedure.
Determination of Norm Groups
To determine appropriate norm groups, the effects of age and gender on IIP scores
were assessed for the normative sample. Table 4.4 shows the mean, standard
deviation, range, skewness, and kurtosis for each scale (and for the Total Score). These
descriptive statistics are reported by age group, by gender, and for the overall sample.
26
Analyses of variance indicated significant gender effects for six of the eight scales (see
Table 4.5). Males reported more difficulty on Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling, Scale 2:
Vindictive/Self-Centered, and Scale 3: Cold/Distant, while females reported more
difficulty on Scale 5: Nonassertive, Scale 6: Overly Accommodating, and Scale 7: Self-
Sacrificing. Age effects appeared for three scales, two of which were minimal. Reported
difficulty on Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered decreased somewhat with increased age.
Based on these findings, we decided to create separate norms for each gender. This
decision was consistent with previous research using the IIP that did not differentiate by
age.
Table 4.4. IIP-64 Mean, Raw Scale Scores, Standard Deviations, Range Scores, and Distribution
18-24 Yrs 25-44 Yrs 45-64 Yrs ≥65 Yrs Overall Female Male
Scale Statistic (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (n = 200) (N = 800) (n = 400) (n = 400)
1. Domineering/Controlling
mean 5.8 4.8 4.5 4.5 4.9 4.5 5.3
SD 5.3 4.5 3.9 3.9 4.5 4.1 4.7
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 23 20 18 15 23 21 23
median 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
skewness 1.08 1.00 1.03 0.74 1.10 1.08 1.07
kurtosis 0.46 0.44 0.83 -0.23 0.90 0.85 0.74
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered
mean 6.4 5.1 4.7 4.8 5.3 4.8 5.8
SD 5.9 4.9 5.0 4.4 5.1 4.9 5.2
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 26 22 23 18 26 23 26
median 5 3 3 4 4 3 4
skewness 1.05 1.21 1.46 1.00 1.24 1.42 1.09
kurtosis 0.25 1.07 1.53 0.22 0.96 1.58 0.53
3. Cold/Distant
mean 6.4 5.1 5.5 5.8 5.7 5.1 6.3
SD 6.4 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.6 6.1
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 30 26 24 24 30 26 30
median 4 3 4 4 4 3 4
skewness 1.11 1.35 1.25 1.23 1.23 1.41 1.08
kurtosis 0.56 1.19 0.80 0.82 0.83 1.34 0.47
27
(Continued)
4. Socially Inhibited
mean 6.7 6.7 6.3 6.2 6.5 6.4 6.6
SD 6.1 6.1 5.7 4.8 5.7 5.7 5.7
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 28 32 29 19 32 32 28
median 5 5 5 6 5 5 5.5
skewness 0.95 1.28 1.16 0.66 1.08 1.22 0.95
kurtosis .57 1.70 1.20 -0.24 1.12 1.68 0.61
5. Nonassertive
mean 6.9 7.6 7.7 7.4 7.4 8.0 6.8
SD 6.5 6.3 6.2 5.6 6.1 6.1 6.1
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 28 26 29 26 29 29 26
median 5 6 7 7 6 7 5.5
skewness 0.97 0.77 0.87 0.67 0.83 0.79 0.89
kurtosis 0.29 -0.23 0.41 -0.07 0.10 0.13 0.13
6. Overly Accommodating
mean 7.1 7.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.6 7.1
SD 5.4 5.5 5.4 4.8 5.3 5.4 5.1
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 22 27 28 24 28 28 27
median 6 7 8 8 7 8 6
skewness 0.75 0.70 0.88 0.38 0.67 0.69 0.64
kurtosis -0.03 0.08 0.92 -0.11 0.21 0.25 0.08
7. Self-Sacrificing
mean 7.9 7.9 8.5 8.6 8.2 8.8 7.7
SD 5.8 5.7 5.17 5.2 5.5 5.5 5.4
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 28 29 28 26 29 29 28
median 7 7 8 9 8 8 7
skewness 0.72 0.88 0.66 0.43 0.67 0.75 0.61
kurtosis 0.11 0.64 0.56 0.13 0.31 0.47 0.10
(Continued)
28
(Continued)
8. Intrusive/Needy
mean 6.2 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.7 5.4 5.9
SD 5.4 5.0 4.7 3.9 4.8 4.6 5.0
minimum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 25 21 21 20 25 21 25
median 5 4 4 5 5 4 5
skewness 1.01 0.99 1.13 0.60 1.0 0.98 1.02
kurtosis 0.63 0.33 0.86 0.22 0.74 0.64 0.73
Total (TOT)
mean 53.2 50.5 51.1 51.2 51.5 51.6 51.5
SD 38.3 35.7 32.9 29.8 34.3 33.0 35.5
minimum 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
maximum 167 181 166 129 181 166 181
median 44.5 43.0 44.0 49.0 44.5 44.0 45.0
skewness 0.91 0.91 0.81 0.33 0.81 0.82 0.80
kurtosis 0.19 0.60 0.24 -0.76 0.28 0.21 0.32
Table 4.5. ANOVAs for IIP-64 Scales and Total with F Value and Significance Reported
Gender Age
Scale F Significance F Significance
1. Domineering/Controlling 5.71 .02 3.51 .02
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered 7.43 .007 4.66 .003
3. Cold/Distant 7.84 .005 1.51 -
4. Socially Inhibited 0.41 - 0.41 -
5. Nonassertive 8.29 .004 0.74 -
6. Overly Accommodating 15.99 .0001 2.96 .03
7. Self-Sacrificing 7.64 .006 0.85 -
8. Intrusive/Needy 2.48 - 1.02 -
Total (TOT) 0.00 - 0.24 -
29
Standardization of Raw Scale Scores

A linear T-score transformation was performed to transform the raw scores to
standardized scores, with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Standard T-
scores for each norm group were computed using means and standard deviations
specific to that norm group. Appendix B (Tables B.1-B.4) contains T-score conversions
for three norm groups for each of the eight IIP-64 scales and one Total Score.
Similar norming decisions were made for the IIP-64 Individual-based (ipsatized) T-
scores (Appendix D), the IIP-32 Standard T-Scores (Appendix F), and the IIP-32
Individual-based T-Scores (Appendix G).
30
Reliability and Validity

Reliability of Standard T-Scores
The reliability of the standard T-scores for the various scales of the IIP-64 and the IIP
32 are addressed in the first part of this section. The second part concerns the reliability
of the individual-based T-scores.
Scale Reliability: Internal Consistency for Standard T-Scores for the IIP-64 and
IIP-32
Table 5.1 presents Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the eight scales and the Total score
for the IIP-64 and IIP-32. Cronbach alpha coefficients computed for the overall
standardization sample indicated that the internal consistency of the IIP scales and the
total score were comparable to or higher than that found in the earlier studies. Alphas
for males and females were comparable (data not shown). As shown in Table 5.1,
alphas for the IIP-32 are comparable to those of the IIP-64 with the exception of two
scales (Overly Accommodating and Intrusive/Needy), which are lower for the IIP-32.
Overall alphas for the IIP-64 and IIP-32 are moderate to high.
Table 5.1. Reliability Coefficients for IIP-64 and IIP-32 Subscale Scores
IIP-64 IIP-32
IIP Scale (N = 800) (N = 800)
1. Domineering/Controlling .76 .73
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered .81 .83
3. Cold/Distant .86 .87
4. Socially Inhibited .85 .82
5. Nonassertive .88 .83
6. Overly Accommodating .81 .70
7. Self-Sacrificing .80 .78
8. Intrusive/Needy .76 .68
Total (TOT) .96 .93
Note. Cronbach’s (1951) alpha coefficients are reported. Values are based on raw scores.
Test-Retest Reliability: Standard T-Scores for the IIP-64 and IIP-32

Test-retest reliability coefficients for the overall standardization sample were computed
based on a sub-sample of 60 individuals. The median retest interval was 7 days. These
correlations were corrected for the variability of scores on the first testing (Guilford &
Fruchter, 1978, p. 420) using the standard deviation of that scale obtained by the
standardization sample (N = 800). As shown in Table 5.2, stability over time varies
among scales, with highest stability in the Socially Inhibited and Overly Accommodating
scales and lowest in the Domineering/Controlling scale.
31
Table 5.2. Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for IIP-64 Standard T-Scores
First Testing Second Testing
a b
Scale Mean SD Mean SD Difference Score Obtained r Corrected r
1. Domineering/Controlling 50.4 9.9 46.7 8.0 .38 .58 .56
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered 48.8 9.5 46.8 7.8 .20 .77 .78
3. Cold/Distant 49.6 9.8 46.5 9.2 .31 .72 .73
4. Socially Inhibited 50.3 10.3 47.4 9.5 .29 .84 .83
5. Nonassertive 51.0 9.2 47.0 8.2 .40 .73 .77
6. Overly Accommodating 50.7 9.6 45.9 8.2 .48 .79 .81
7. Self-Sacrificing 51.4 10.1 46.3 8.4 .51 .69 .68
8. Intrusive/Needy 50.9 9.3 50.0 8.4 .09 .60 .63
Total (TOT) 50.5 10.1 45.8 9.2 .47 .79 .78
Note. n = 60 per scale. Median retest interval = 7 days.
a
The difference between scale means at first and second testing, divided by the standard deviation of
that scale in the Overall sample (N = 800).
b
Correlations corrected for variability of scores on the first testing (Guilford & Fruchter, 1978, p. 420)
using the standard deviation in the Overall sample (N = 800).
This stability is somewhat lower than that found previously in clinical samples. This
finding may be due in part to the fact that the standardization sample reported in this
manual is a community, non-clinical sample. A non-clinical sample would show a
smaller range of scores and lower variability than a clinical sample, in which more
problems in general and a wider range of scores would be reported. For this reason, we
assume that test-retest reliabilities obtained from a non-clinical sample can be viewed
as conservative, lower-bound estimates of the corresponding test-retest reliabilities
obtained in a clinical sample.
Table 5.3. Test-Retest Reliability Coefficients for IIP-32 Standard T-Scores
a b
1. Domineering/Controlling 49.8 10.2 47.8 8.7 .20 .61 .57
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered 49.0 10.2 47.5 8.3 .15 .74 .72
3. Cold/Distant 49.5 9.7 47.0 8.0 .25 .61 .64
4. Socially Inhibited 50.3 10.4 48.1 9.7 .22 .83 .82
5. Nonassertive 51.3 8.3 46.8 7.3 .45 .72 .80
8. Intrusive/Needy 50.1 8.6 47.7 9.3 .24 .61 .71
Total (TOT) 50.2 10.0 46.0 9.5 .42 .78 .78
Note. n = 60 per scale. Median retest interval = 7 days.
a
b
Table 5.3 reports the test-retest reliabilities for the IIP-32. These reliabilities are reason-
ably similar to those found with the IIP-64.
32
Reliability of Individual-Based (Ipsatized) T-Scores for the IIP-64

Test-Retest Reliability
The individual-based (ipsatized) scale scores indicated less stability over time than the
norm-based scores. This is to be expected because these scores are difference scores
(the difference between a total score and a scale score), and difference scores are
known to be less reliable. Because individual-based (ipsatized) scale scores have
traditionally been viewed as patterns in circumplex space, the decision was made to
evaluate consistency of the relative ranking of these scales within individuals across two
testings using the Spearman correlation coefficient (see Table 5.4). These correlations
are moderate and somewhat lower than those found for the standard T-scores.
Table 5.4. Test-Retest Correlations of IIP-64 Individual-Based Scale T-Scores
a b
1. Domineering/Controlling 49.6 9.5 51.0 7.7 -.14 .56 .60
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered 47.1 7.8 51.4 7.2 -.43 .61 .76
3. Cold/Distant 48.8 8.7 51.4 7.2 -.26 .56 .67
4. Socially Inhibited 49.7 9.6 53.2 7.7 -.35 .64 .67
5. Nonassertive 50.9 9.9 52.1 7.4 -.12 .55 .56
8. Intrusive/Needy 50.1 9.4 51.3 7.9 -.12 .69 .73
Note. n = 60 per scale.
Median retest interval = 7 days.
a
b
r = Spearman Correlation Coefficient.
33
Other Measures of Consistency
Table 5.5 shows Pearson correlations comparing scale scores on the IIP-64 and IIP-32
for the overall standardization sample (N = 800). As expected due to item overlap,
correlations range from .88 to .98 and are all significant at the p < .0001 level. These
high correlations suggest that the IIP-32 scales, particularly the Total score, may be
good estimates of the scale scores on the IIP-64.
Table 5.5. Correlation of Standard IIP-64 with Standard IIP-32 for

Overall Sample
IIP Scales r
1. Domineering/Controlling .88
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered .88
3. Cold/Distant .94
4. Socially Inhibited .92
5. Nonassertive .95
6. Overly Accommodating .93
7. Self-Sacrificing .91
8. Intrusive/Needy .89
Total (TOT) .98
Note. N = 800. Pearson correlation coefficients are significant at p < .0001
34
Table 5.6 displays interscale correlations for males, females, and for the overall sample.
As illustrated, these intercorrelations are high, ranging from .33 to .87. This is consistent
with previous research identifying the large complaint factor underlying the self-reported
difficulty indicated in these scales. The reason for the individual-based (ipsatized) scale
scoring is to control for this common factor.
Table 5.6. Intercorrelations of the IIP-64 Scale Scores for the Overall, Male, and Female Samples
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOT
1. Domineering/Controlling
Overall .73 .64 .58 .44 .41 .53 .73 .77
Male .72 .67 .59 .53 .48 .58 .75 .80
Female .74 .60 .56 .37 .38 .51 .69 .75
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered
Overall .81 .68 .52 .39 .40 .63 .80
Male .81 .68 .58 .43 .43 .66 .81
Female .82 .69 .48 .38 .38 .60 .80
3. Cold/Distant
Overall .74 .59 .41 .39 .57 .81
Male .78 .67 .50 .48 .65 .85
Female .71 .53 .36 .33 .48 .77
4. Socially Inhibited
Overall .76 .60 .55 .54 .86
Male .77 .64 .59 .57 .87
Female .76 .59 .52 .50 .86
5. Nonassertive
Overall .75 .61 .51 .82
Male .74 .61 .57 .85
Female .75 .60 .46 .81
6. Overly Accommodating
Overall .78 .53 .77
Male .76 .55 .78
Female .80 .53 .78
7. Self-Sacrificing
Overall .61 .76
Male .65 .77
Female .57 .75
8. Intrusive/Needy
Overall .79
Male .82
Female .75
Note. N = 800 (400 Males, 400 Females).
Table 5.7 shows the correlations between the standard IIP-64 scale scores and the
individual-based (ipsatized) IIP-64 scale scores. These correlations, though statistically
significant, are low. This result underscores the fact that the Standard T- and Individual-
based T-scoring methods tell us different things about the individual. For instance, a
person whose individual-based scale score on a particular scale is his or her highest is
35
not necessarily the person in the sample whose overall level of distress on that scale is
the highest. This difference in the two scores reflects the different purposes of the
Standard and Individual-based scoring methods. Note that there is no individual-based
total score.
Table 5.7. Correlation of Standard IIP-64 with Individual-Based IIP-64
Scale Scores
IIP Scales r
1. Domineering/Controlling .30
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered .29
3. Cold/Distant .32
4. Socially Inhibited .25
5. Nonassertive .29
6. Overly Accommodating .34
7. Self-Sacrificing .35
8. Intrusive/Needy .29
Note. N = 800. Pearson correlation coefficients significant at p < .0001
Validity
This section on validity is divided into two parts. The first compares the standard scale
scores with self-reported scores on other instruments. The second discusses the
circumplex nature of the scales. Standard T-scores rather than individual-based T-
scores are discussed here because in the individual-based T-scores the overall
complaint factor has been controlled by ipsatizing, thereby reducing much of what would
account for shared variance across self-report measures of distress.
Psychological Symptoms
Convergent validity was examined by correlating the IIP-64 standard scale scores with
scores on other assessments of psychological symptoms among the non-clinical
standardization sample. Correlations with the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II; Beck
et al., 1996) and the Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI; Beck & Steer, 1990) are displayed in
Table 5.8. The sample consisted of 495 individuals (248 males, 247 females).
Correlations between IIP-64 scales and both Beck scales ranged from .31 to .48,
indicating between 10% and 23% shared variance. The IIP-64 scales did not differ
significantly in their correlations with these measures of self-reported depression and
anxiety. As one would anticipate, interpersonal difficulties may be related to, but may
not be highly predictive of, the psychological symptoms of depression and anxiety in the
overall community sample.
36
Table 5.8. Correlations Between the IIP-64 and the BDI-II and BAI
IIP Scales BDI-II BAI
Total (TOT) .48 .44
Note. N = 495.
Global Measures of Psychological Symptoms

Correlations between the IIP-64 Standard T-Scores and the Global Severity Index (GSI)
of the Brief Symptom Inventory (BSI; Derogatis, 1993) and the Symptom Checklist-90-R
(SCL-90—R; Derogatis, 1994) are shown in Table 5.9. The BSI validity sample
consisted of 59 individuals (29 males, 30 females). The SCL-90-R validity sample
consisted of 60 individuals (30 males, 30 females).
Table 5.9. Correlations Between the IIP-64 Scales and the Brief
Symptom Inventory (BSI) and Symptom Checklist-90-R (SCL-90-R)
Global Severity Indices
BSI SCL-90-R
IIP Scales
GSI GSI
Total (TOT) .78 .25
Note. GSI = Global Severity Index. BSI Sample N = 59. SCL-90-R Sample N = 60
The Global Severity Index was chosen for both the BSI and the SCL-90-R because this
index measures the level of distress reported across all items and scales and is
reported to be more reliable than individual scales on these two measures. Correlations
with the BSI were generally higher than those with the SCL-90-R. This difference may
be accounted for by the fact that individuals in the BSI sample obtained a wider range of
scores than those in the SCL-90-R sample. Again, these results suggest that
interpersonal difficulties may be related to, but not highly predictive of, subjective
distress.
37
Interpersonal Problems and Self-Report of General Functioning

Correlations between the IIP-64 and the Behavior and Symptom Identification Scale
(BASIS-32; Eisen, Dill, & Grob, 1994), a measure of mental health functioning
commonly used with psychiatric patients, are displayed in Table 5.10. The sample upon
which these analyses were based consisted of 799 individuals (400 males, 399
females).
Table 5.10. Correlations Between the IIP-64 Standard Scales and the Behavior and Symptom Identification
Scale (BASIS-32)
BASIS-32 Scales
Daily Impulsive
Relation to Depression/ Living/Role Addictive
Self/Others Anxiety Functioning Behavior Psychosis Total
1. Domineering/Controlling .50 .47 .50 .42 .52 .56
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered .50 .50 .51 .46 .55 .57
3. Cold/Distant .45 .41 .41 .37 .50 .50
4. Socially Inhibited .56 .51 .42 .35 .61 .59
5. Nonassertive .49 .45 .33 .30 .53 .51
6. Overly Accommodating .48 .46 .29 .26 .49 .48
7. Self-Sacrificing .49 .46 .32 .29 .47 .49
8. Intrusive/Needy .53 .51 .47 .44 .52 .57
Total (TOT) .62 .59 .50 .44 .65 .66
Note. N = 799.
Among the BASIS-32 scales, the Total Score, Psychosis scale, and Relation to Self and
Others scale correlate the highest with the IIP-64 Total Score. This is consistent with the
IIP-64 Total Score as an indicator of overall interpersonal difficulty. Among IIP-64
scales, the Socially Inhibited scale has the highest correlation with the BASIS-32 scales,
particularly with the Psychosis and Relation to Self and Others scales. The Daily
Living/Role Functioning scale of the BASIS-32 shows a particularly interesting pattern of
correlations in Table 5.10. Its correlation was highest (r = .51) with the Vindictive/Self-
Centered scale of the IIP and lowest (r = .29) with the diametrically opposite Overly
Accommodating scale. Correlations with the other scales of the IIP showed a regular
pattern, ranging systematically from highest to lowest. Apparently, the difficulties
reported on the Daily Living/Role Functioning scale are primarily the interpersonal
difficulties reflected in the Domineering/Controlling and Vindictive/Self-Centered scales
of the IIP (being too hostile and too dominating). A similar pattern occurred for the
Impulsive/Addictive Behavior scale of the BASIS-32.
Correlations between the IIP-64 and the Social Adjustment Scale-Self Report (SAS-SR;
Weissman & Bothwell, 1976) are shown in Table 5.11. Correlations between the IIP-64
scales and the SAS-SR are mild to moderate (.16 − .49). Among IIP-64 scales, the
Nonassertive and Socially Inhibited scales correlated highest with self-reported role
functioning, particularly with respect to social and leisure time.
38
Table 5.11. Correlation Between the IIP-64 and the Social Adjustment Scale – Self Report (SAS-SR)
SAS-SR Scales
WD SL FO PR PA FU FI FF GL
IIP Scale N=514 N=792 N=782 N=459 N=246 N=592 N =782 N=787 N = 792
1. Domineering/Controlling .31 .33 .33 .18 .31 .35 .27 .21 .30
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered .32 .39 .31 .16 .29 .32 .25 .16 .31
3. Cold/Distant .27 .39 .25 .19 .25 .29 .22 .16 .27
4. Socially Inhibited .30 .49 .33 .28 .27 .36 .24 .25 .40
5. Nonassertive .30 .44 .32 .27 .26 .37 .27 .35 .42
6. Overly Accommodating .23 .35 .23 .30 .29 .34 .21 .33 .36
7. Self-Sacrificing .24 .31 .26 .26 .18 .39 .24 .34 .32
8. Intrusive/Needy .34 .33 .30 .19 .28 .35 .29 .26 .33
Total (TOT) .36 .48 .36 .29 .33 .43 .31 .33 .43
Note. WD = Work Domain; SL = Social & Leisure; FO = Family Outside Home; PR = Primary
Relationship; PA = Parental; FU = Family Unit; Fl = Financial; FF = Financial & Family; GL = Global.
Circumplex Factor Structure

The development of the circumplex scales by Alden, Wiggins, and Pincus (1990) was
discussed earlier in this manual. The related theory maintains that interpersonal
problems can be organized along two dimensions. These two dimensions correspond to
the two basic factors that emerge from a principal components factor analysis of the
matrix of inter-item correlations of ipsatized scores. In an effort to simplify individual-
based (ipsatized) scoring by hand, the method of ipsatizing used in this manual differs
from that employed by Alden et al. (1990). To confirm that the individual-based
(ipsatized) scoring procedure used in this manual provided comparable results, a
principal components factor analysis with procrustean rotation was performed (Hurley &
Cattell, 1962). Table 5.12 reports the factor loadings of the eight IIP scales on Factors 1
and 2 for the community sample. Factor loadings are very similar to those reported by
Alden et al. (1990) despite the different methods of ipsatizing. For both samples, Factor
1 (affiliation) was positively loaded on Self-Sacrificing and negatively loaded on
Cold/Distant. For both samples, Factor 2 (dominance) was positively loaded on
Domineering/Controlling and negatively loaded on Nonassertive. Thus, the factor
analysis supported the theory that warmth/affiliation and dominance underlie issues of
interpersonal relatedness. The factor structure reported in Table 5.12 was replicated
across gender and ethnic groups (tables not presented).
39
Table 5.12. Factor Patterns for IIP-64 Individual-Based Scale Scores
1
TPC Community Sample
IIP Scales F1 F2
1. Domineering/Controlling -.269 .716
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered -.717 .297
3. Cold/Distant -.767 -.049
4. Socially Inhibited -.320 -.589
5. Nonassertive .299 -.636
6. Overly Accommodating .760 -.194
Note. N = 800. Factor analyses were principal components, Procrustean rotation.
1
For factor analyses, ipsatized scale score = scale score minus total score.
Figure 5.1 illustrates the relationship between the factor loadings of the eight IIP-64
individual-based scales and two underlying factors as listed in Table 5.12. Figure 5.1 is
based on earlier work by Alden et al. (1990). The X-axis represents Factor 1, Affiliation,
and the Y-axis represents Factor 2, Dominance. The perpendicular placement of these
factors represents the assumption of orthogonality or presumed independence of
factors. These factors define what has been referred to in related research as
circumplex space. Each scale is represented by a line drawn between the origin and the
intersection point of the scales' loadings on the two axes. Figure 5.1 shows scale
locations found originally by Alden et al. (1990) as well as locations identified for the
community sample reported in this manual.
40
Figure 5.1 Graph of Factor Patterns for IIP-64 Individual-Based Scale Scores
As illustrated, scale locations maintain the same sequential positions as seen in the
Alden et al. study (1990). Five of the eight scales match almost exactly, while three
show a clockwise rotation: 18 degrees for Scale 7 (LM), 15 degrees for Scale 4 (FG),
and 27 degrees for Scale 3 (DE). Even with these differences, the patterns illustrated in
these two samples are quite close, considering that they were tested more than 6 years
apart and were compositionally different. The Alden sample consisted of university
students in British Columbia, while the sample reported in this manual was a stratified
U.S. sample.
41
Scale Score Interpretation and Clinical Applications of the IIP

Interpretation of Standard T-Scores
Standard T-scores for the scales of the IIP-64 may provide useful benchmarks in
evaluating the degree and nature of a person's distress. The Total T-score indicates the
person's self-report of overall interpersonal difficulty across all problem areas. If the
Total T-score is more than 2 standard deviations above the mean (T = 70), the person's
distress is very high relative to the general population. Scores on the eight domain
scales will then identify specific areas of interpersonal difficulty relative to the general
population.
The individual-based T-scores for each scale represent the difference between the level
of distress expressed in a particular area compared with distress experienced across all
areas by the individual. The individual-based T-score indicates whether a particular type
of difficulty is salient to the individual relative to his or her overall distress. In summary,
the first (norm-based) score shows whether an individual's self-reported distress is high
relative to the general population, and if so, which problem domains are specifically
elevated. The individual-based scores then allow the clinician to identify areas of diffi-
culty that are significant after controlling for the person's overall level of distress across
all scales. Note that the two approaches provide different kinds of information. In some
instances a respondent may show a response bias that makes all scores high or low. In
these cases, the individual-based scores highlight the relative degree of distress across
the individual scales. Individual-based scores should be interpreted in relation to the
corresponding Standard T-scale score and to the Standard T-Total score.
The following section describes the clinical interpretation of a high score on each scale
of the IIP-64. To generate these interpretations, we have drawn upon numerous
sources—correlations with other measures, empirical studies validating the scales, and
the interpretations of Alden, Wiggins, and Pincus (1990). We have also drawn upon
each scale's correlations with the scales of Wiggins' Interpersonal Adjective Scales
(IAS; Wiggins, 1995), a self-report instrument containing 64 adjective trait dimensions.
Since the eight scales of the IAS span the two-dimensional interpersonal space, they
have been used as marker scales for locating numerous other measures in that space
(Wiggins & Broughton, 1985; 1991). As a result, it has been possible to integrate a
variety of measures by locating them in a common underlying two-dimensional
interpersonal space. The resulting "nomological net" of measures (Cronbach & Meehl,
1955; Gurtman, 1992a; 1992b) brings together traditional trait measures of personality,
a measure of motivational orientation (Wiggins, 1980; 1995), Murray's needs (Wiggins &
Broughton, 1985), and assessments of the personality disorders described in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders—Fourth Edition (DSM-IV;
American Psychiatric Association, 1994; Wiggins & Pincus, 1994). The following
interpretations thus rest upon a wealth of inter-related empirical data.
42
Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling
A high score on this scale (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher) indicates that the
person finds it difficult to relax control. People with high scores have described
themselves as too controlling or manipulative. They might characterize their efforts to
influence other people as hostile (or even aggressive), but the emphasis here is more
on control than hostility. Sometimes a loss of control is threatening to the person
because it produces a feeling that he or she has lost dignity, worth, or self-respect. In
extreme cases, the person's very identity is threatened—the person's sense of self gets
rattled whenever another person seems to be giving him or her orders, guidance, or
instruction. One goal in treating such people is to help the person clarify the meaning of
losing control and the reason it feels so threatening. Indeed, some people find it so
unpleasant to relax control that they cannot even listen to another person's point of view
without challenging it. Unable to consider another person's perspective, the individual
may argue excessively with others. People with antisocial personality disorders and
people with narcissistic personality disorders obtain high scores on this scale as well as
on the Vindictive/Self-Centered scale.
Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered
This scale describes problems of hostile dominance. The person readily experiences
and expresses anger and irritability, is preoccupied with getting revenge, and fights too
much with other people. A high score (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher) reflects
distrust of and suspiciousness toward other people; the person suspects, for example,
that other people are being exploitive or deceptive. The person expresses anger, holds
grudges, and finds it difficult to forgive insults or slights. As a result, the person reports
feeling little support or concern for other people and not caring much about their needs,
happiness, success, or welfare. As seen in people with an antisocial personality
disorder, these characteristics may include a reckless disregard for the safety and rights
of other people as well as consistent irresponsibility. People with antisocial personality
disorders and people with narcissistic personality disorders obtain high scores on this
scale.
Scale 3: Cold/Distant
A high score on this scale (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher) indicates minimal feel-
ings of affection for and little connection with other people. People with high scores do
not feel close to or loving toward others, and they find it hard to make and maintain
long-term commitments to other people. Such a person may describe himself or herself
as "a lone wolf," even enjoying the apparent freedom from social obligations, social
conventions, and other demands. However, the person has come to realize that, relative
to other people, he or she is unusually lacking in sympathy, nurturance, generosity, for-
giveness, and warmth, and, for one reason or another, the person has come to regard
the deficit as a problem.
43
Scale 4: Socially Inhibited
A high score on this scale (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher) indicates feelings of
anxiety, timidity, or embarrassment in the presence of other people. The person finds it
hard to initiate social interactions, express feelings to other people, join groups, or
socialize. People who are socially avoidant are described as introverted, aloof, distant,
and unsociable. In order to avoid humiliation, criticism, disapproval, or rejection, they
have come to limit their social life and avoid activities that seem to entail personal social
risks; for this reason they often refuse social invitations. They score particularly low on
measures of extraversion and high on measures of social anxiety, social avoidance,
shyness, and loneliness. A pervasive pattern of social inhibition and hypersensitivity to
negative evaluation is characteristic of people with an avoidant personality disorder. The
problems described on this scale also pertain to people with a schizoid personality
disorder, which is characterized by a pervasive pattern of detachment from social
relationships. Such people do not desire or enjoy close relationships; they almost
always choose solitary activities and lack close friends or confidants.
Scale 5: Nonassertive
A high score on this scale (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher) indicates a severe lack
of self-confidence and self-esteem. People with high scores describe themselves as
self-doubting and unassertive. They have difficulty taking the initiative or being the
center of attention. They especially avoid situations that involve social challenge or
require the exercise of power or influence over other people (e.g., being another
person's boss, expressing opinions authoritatively). Similarly, they have difficulty being
firm with other people and sticking to their guns in the face of opposition. Other people's
disapproval or negative evaluation threatens their already shaky self-esteem, so they
avoid making their wishes and needs known. People with a dependent personality
disorder typically score high on this scale and on the Overly Accommodating scale.
Problems indicated by a high score on this scale are consistent with characteristics of
the dependent personality disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders—Fourth Edition (DSM-IV; American Psychiatric Association, 1994). For
example, DSM-IV notes that people with a dependent personality disorder (1) have
difficulty initiating projects or doing things because of a lack of self-confidence, and (2)
feel uncomfortable or helpless when alone because of exaggerated fears of being
unable to care for themselves.
Scale 6: Overly Accommodating
People who achieve a high score on this scale (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher)
report an excess of friendly submissiveness. In an effort to please other people and win
their approval, they try to be inoffensive. They are reluctant to say "no" to other people
and allow themselves to be easily persuaded. They may be contrasted with people
whose problems fall in the Vindictive/Self-Centered octant (e.g., people who express
anger readily); instead, they are loathe to express or even to feel anger, lest they incur
another person's hostility or retaliation. They assume that assertive acts offend, and
they avoid being assertive in order to maintain friendly relationships. They characterize
themselves as obliging, accommodating, deferential, and gentle; they freely
acknowledge their own errors and avoid being argumentative, egotistical, or devious.
44
Among their problems, they report being too exploitable, too easily taken advantage of
by others, and too gullible. They score high on the agreeableness factor scale of the
NEO Personality Inventory—Revised (NEO PI-R; Costa & McCrae, 1992). People with
a dependent personality disorder obtain high scores on this scale as well as on the Self-
Sacrificing scale. Several characteristics of the dependent personality disorder reflect
these problems: (1) difficulty expressing disagreement with others, lest they lose the
other person's support or approval; (2) difficulty making everyday decisions without
excessive amounts of reassurance and advice from others; and (3) going to excessive
lengths to obtain nurturance and support from others, including volunteering to do things
that are unpleasant.
Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing
People who obtain a high score on this scale (defined as a T-score of 70 or higher)
report that they are excessively affiliative. They regard themselves as warm, nurturant,
and generous and use terms like "kind," "sympathetic," and "forgiving" to describe
themselves. They score high on the femininity scale of Bem's Sex-Role Inventory
(BSRI; Bem, 1974). They easily connect with other people emotionally and readily
provide help and care for people in need. However, these socially desirable
characteristics have become problematic: High-scorers describe themselves as too
eager to serve and too ready to give—too generous, too caring, too trusting, too
permissive. They complain that they find it difficult to set limits on other people. Part of
the problem, at times, is that the person may find it difficult to maintain boundaries; he
or she empathizes too readily with another person's misery and experiences the other
person's needs as extremely pressing. Some high-scorers report that they put other
people's needs before their own. This protective attitude towards others also makes it
difficult for high-scorers to permit themselves to feel angry toward someone they like. In
this way, they protect other people from their own hostility, anger, or aggression. People
with a dependent personality disorder obtain high scores on this scale.
Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy
This scale describes problems with friendly dominance. People with high scores
(defined as a T-score of 70 or higher) describe themselves as friendly, outgoing, and
sociable, and achieve high scores on the extraversion factor of the NEO PI-R (Costa &
McCrae, 1992). However, the person's readiness to take control has come to produce
problems: The person has a powerful need to feel engaged with other people and
imposes his or her presence onto their attention. The person finds it difficult to spend
time alone. The person may disclose personal things inappropriately, involve himself or
herself in another person's business in ways that others find offensive, and take
inappropriate responsibility for solving other people's problems. In a word, the person's
poor boundaries create interpersonal difficulty. People with high scores on this scale
report that they open up too much, tell personal things too much, and have a hard time
keeping things private from other people. People with a histrionic personality disorder
obtain high scores on this scale. The criteria for histrionic personality disorder described
in DSM-IV indicate how easily people with this disorder become involved with others:
They (1) are easily influenced by other people, (2) consider relationships to be more
intimate than they actually are, (3) are uncomfortable in situations in which they are not
45
the center of attention, and (4) draw attention to themselves by their physical
appearance and self-dramatizing.
We have chosen a standard T-score of 70 or higher to indicate a high score for two
reasons. First, such scores are 2 or more standard deviations above the mean, and
second, only a small percentage of the population scored above this point. Table 6.1
reports the cumulative percentages for individuals obtaining a standard T-score of 50 or
below and a standard T-score of 70 or below. As shown in the table, 56 to 68 percent of
the standardization sample obtained a standard T-score of 50 or below on these scales,
94 to 97 percent obtained a standard T-score of 70 or below. Typically, then, about 3 to
6 percent of the non-clinical population obtained scores higher than 70.
Table 6.1 Cumulative Percentages at Standard T Scores of 50 and 70
Scale T = 50 T = 70
1. Domineering/Controlling 63.1 95.5
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered 63.6 93.9
3. Cold/Distant 67.5 94.3
4. Socially Inhibited 58.0 96.4
5. Nonassertive 57.4 95.4
6. Overly Accommodating 59.8 96.8
7. Self-Sacrificing 56.1 96.8
8. Intrusive/Needy 58.5 95.4
Total (TOT) 57.8 96.6
Note. N = 800; see Appendix C.1.
Review of Previous Clinical Research on the IIP (Individual-Based T-

Scores)
This section describes three ways in which the IIP has been applied in clinical research.
First is a discussion of research that relates particular types of interpersonal problems to
specific diagnostic categories. Most of these studies concern interpersonal problems
that are associated with personality disorders, but some concern other mental disorders
as well. This is followed by an examination of antecedents of different interpersonal
problems, particularly attachment experiences. These studies help relate different
attachment styles to the different diagnostic categories. The third section discusses
ways in which the IIP has been used to study the process and outcome of treatment.
This section shows which problems are discussed most often in a brief treatment and
which seem most amenable to change. It also compares changes in interpersonal
problems to changes in non-interpersonal symptoms. For clarity, the new scale names
employed in this manual are used in the discussion below.
46
Diagnostic Correlates of Interpersonal Problems
Personality Disorders
An individual with a personality disorder is usually described as enacting maladaptive
patterns in relation to significant others in an effort to maintain psychological ties to
them and to preserve an acceptable self-image. Although the person usually
experiences maladaptive relationship patterns as painful, his or her defensive efforts to
avoid anxiety and to protect the self-image lead the person to repeat those patterns
(e.g., Carson, 1969; Kiesler, 1983; Leary, 1957; McLemore & Brokaw, 1987; Pincus &
Wiggins, 1990; Sullivan, 1953). A person with an avoidant personality disorder, for
example, assumes a consistently fearful, self-effacing, and protective stance toward the
world that precludes the very experience of acceptance and intimacy that the person
desires (McLemore & Brokaw, 1987, p. 281).
To examine the relationship between interpersonal problems and personality disorders,
Pincus & Wiggins (1990) studied 321 undergraduate students (44% men, 56% women),
who completed a battery of self-report questionnaires, including the IIP-64 and two
measures of personality disorders—the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory
Personality Disorder Scales (Morey, Waugh, & Blashfield, 1985) and the Personality
Adjective Checklist (Strack, 1987).
Six personality disorders showed clear correlations with particular octants of the IIP-64.
People with an antisocial personality disorder scored high on Scale 1:
Domineering/Controlling (PA) and Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered (BC), reflecting an
excess of dominance and hostile dominance. People with a narcissistic personality
disorder had similar problems, scoring high on Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling (PA),
Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered (BC), and Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy(NO). Thus, people
who are antisocial and people who are narcissistic reported that they are too controlling
in their interpersonal behavior. In contrast, people with a histrionic personality disorder
scored high on Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling (PA), Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing (LM),
and Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy (NO), reflecting an excess of friendly dominance.
Three personality disorders correlated with problems in the lower quadrants. People
with a dependent personality disorder scored high on Scale 5: Nonassertive (HI), Scale
6: Overly Accommodating (JK), and Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing (LM), reflecting an excess
of friendly submissiveness. People with an avoidant personality disorder scored high on
Scale 4: Socially Inhibited (FG) and Scale 5: Nonassertive (HI), and people with a
schizoid personality disorder scored high on Scale 3: Cold/Distant (DE), Scale 4:
Socially Inhibited (FG), and, to some extent, Scale 5: Nonassertive (HI). The mean
location of each group is shown graphically in Figure 6.1 (Pincus & Wiggins, 1990).
47
Figure 6.1. Location of Personality Disorders on the Circumplex Defined by the
IIP-64
Soldz, Budman, Demby, & Merry (1993) performed a similar study of 102 patients who
were in treatment for personality disorders, and they obtained similar results. Each
patient's primary personality disorder was diagnosed using two different scales—the
Personality Disorder Examination and the Millon Clinical Multiaxial Inventory. The
location of the personality disorders in the two-dimensional interpersonal space was
very similar to that reported by Pincus and Wiggins (1990). Soldz et al. reported that
people with an avoidant or schizoid personality disorder scored high on Scale 4:
Socially Inhibited (FG), reflecting anxiety and embarrassment in the presence of others
and difficulty initiating social interactions. People with a histrionic personality disorder
scored high on Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy (NO), reflecting inappropriate self-disclosure
and attention-seeking and difficulty spending time alone. People with an antisocial or
narcissistic personality disorder scored high on Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling (PA)
and Scale 2: Vindictive/ Self-Centered (BC), reflecting hostile dominance. People with a
dependent personality disorder scored high on Scale 6: Overly Accommodating (JK)
and Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing (LM), reflecting self-demeaning behaviors designed to
obtain approval.
Matano and Locke (1995), studying alcohol-dependent patients, compared diagnostic
groups for their overall level of self-reported distress (i.e., the mean response across all
items). People with problems reflecting submissiveness (avoidant, dependent,
schizotypal, and schizoid personality disorders) reported greater distress, whereas
people with a narcissistic, antisocial, or histrionic personality disorder reported less
distress. The authors concluded that alcoholic patients who are overly
domineering/controlling (e.g., narcissistic, antisocial, and paranoid patients) "may have
a hard time relinquishing autonomy and control—whether to a treatment program or to a
higher power in Alcoholics Anonymous"; people who are nonassertive (e.g., dependent
48
patients) may be able to relinquish control "but have a hard time resisting social
pressures to drink." People who are self-sacrificing (e.g., histrionic and dependent
patients) "may have a hard time respecting or maintaining boundaries in therapy," and
people who are overly cold/distant (e.g., schizoid, avoidant, schizotypal, paranoid, and
antisocial patients) may have a problem developing dependencies; they may also find it
difficult to open up "and form connections in individual therapy and in their recovery
groups" (p. 66).
Matano and Locke (1995) noted that people who report being too cold/distant (paranoid,
antisocial, schizoid) may assume that other people are hostile, whereas those who
report being too warm (histrionic, dependent) may assume that others are loving;
people who act domineering/controlling (narcissistic, antisocial) may assume that they
take precedence over others, whereas people who act submissive (dependent) may
assume that others take precedence over them. In this way, the interpersonal theory
allows a clinician to anticipate a patient's problems and design interventions to provide
the patients with a corrective emotional experience.
Social Phobia
A few studies have examined the interpersonal problems of people with a specific men-
tal disorder. One is a study of people with social phobia by Krupnick, Goldberg,
Weinfurt, and Spertus (1995). According to DSM-IV, social phobia is an anxiety disorder
in which the person has "a marked and persistent fear of social or performance
situations in which the person could be embarrassed." Exposure to the feared situation
almost invariably provokes immediate anxiety, which the person recognizes as
excessive or unreasonable. Therefore, the person generally avoids that situation. In
order to examine the interpersonal problems of people with this disorder, Krupnick and
colleagues (1995) administered the IIP to a sample of 15 adults who were participating
in a drug treatment study. People with social phobia scored particularly high on Scale 4:
Socially Inhibited (FG) and Scale 5: Nonassertive (HI); they also scored particularly low
on the four scales that connoted dominance—namely, Scale 1: Domineering/Controlling
(PA), Scale 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered (BC), Scale 7: Self-Sacrificing (LM), and Scale
8: Intrusive/Needy (NO). The pattern of scores was very consistent from patient to
patient; in contrast, the pattern of scores on the various subscales of the SCL-90-R
varied considerably from patient to patient.
All 15 patients in this sample responded 0 ("not at all") or 1 ("a little bit") to the item "I
manipulate other people too much to get what I want." All but one patient responded 0
or 1 to the items "I fight with other people too much" and "I am too aggressive toward
other people." Thus, the patients reported extreme reluctance to be aggressive or
controlling. People with social phobia also differed from those with a panic disorder in
that the latter are often comforted by the presence of familiar others, whereas people
experiencing social phobia prefer to be alone. The social avoidance of people with
social phobia suggests a cold or hostile submissiveness, whereas people with panic
disorder seem to experience a warm or affiliative submissiveness. This portrayal of the
problems of people with social phobia thus resembles that of people with an avoidant
personality disorder, and the authors showed that these patients did, in fact, score very
high on the Avoidant Personality Disorder scale of the Wisconsin Personality Inventory.
49
Avoidant Personality Disorder

Alden and Capreol (1993) studied 76 nondepressed young adults with an avoidant per-
sonality disorder who completed the IIP-64. The mean location of each patient's
interpersonal problems is shown in Figure 6.2. Most of these patients experienced prob-
lems in the quadrant reflecting hostile submissiveness (octants FG and HI), but their
problems varied along the X-axis: The problems of some people fell toward the warmer,
friendlier region, whereas those of others fell toward the colder, more hostile region of
the graph. Treatment consisted of 10 weekly group sessions. Patients from each
subgroup were randomly assigned to one of three treatment conditions or to a waiting
list control condition. The three types of treatment were: (1) graduated exposure
(counter-conditioning and progressive relaxation), (2) social skills training, or (3) skill
training that emphasized the development of intimacy and close relationships. The
results showed that patients with relatively "colder" interpersonal problems benefited
only from graduated exposure, whereas patients with relatively "warmer" interpersonal
problems benefited from all three types of treatment, particularly from an intimacy-
focused treatment. Thus, patients from a single diagnostic category can differ in ways
that are relevant to treatment.
50
Figure 6.2. Mean Graphical Location of Interpersonal Problems of Patients With
an Avoidant Personality Disorder
Note. Adapted with permission from Alden and Capreol, 1993.
Depression and Interpersonal Problems

A number of writers have proposed that different people experience depression differ-
ently. For some, the experience includes feeling rejected, isolated, and abandoned; for
others, it does not. Beck (1983) proposed two subtypes of depression. "Socially depen-
dent" individuals, motivated to experience friendly, interpersonal interactions, are
susceptible to depression over interpersonal loss, whereas "autonomous" individuals,
motivated to confirm their own competence and individuality, are susceptible to depres-
sion over performance failures. Blatt and his associates (Blatt, 1974; Blatt & Schichman,
1983) have proposed a similar distinction, as have Arieti and Bemporad (1980). Recent
research has demonstrated the importance of interpersonal loss for people with a
dependent subtype of depression (Robins, Block, Peselow, & Klein, 1986; Zuroff &
Mongrain, 1987; Hammen, Marks, Mayol, & deMayo, 1985).
Based on these findings, Alden and Bieling (1996) hypothesized that different types of
interpersonal problems might be associated with each subtype of depression. For
example, autonomous depressives, trying to preserve a positive self-image, may be
more competitive with and critical of other people and more sensitive to receiving
respect and recognition (Luthar & Blatt, 1993). Alden and Bieling therefore postulated
that there are two different types of vulnerability to depression, one related to issues of
dependency, the other to issues of autonomy. They assessed each person's type of
vulnerability to depression using the Personal Style Inventory (Robins et al., 1986) and
the Depressive Experiences Questionnaire (Blatt, D'Afflitti, & Quinlan, 1976) and
correlated these scores with the different scales of the IIP-64. The pattern of
51
correlations supported their hypothesis. People vulnerable to a "dependent" type of
depression scored high on Scale 6: Overly Accommodating (JK), whereas people
vulnerable to an "autonomous" type of depression scored high on Scale 3: Cold/Distant
(DE) and Scale 4: Socially Inhibited (FG). Thus, both types of vulnerability to depression
reflected problems with submissiveness—one with friendly submissiveness, the other
with hostile submissiveness.
Alden and Phillips (1990) assessed people's level of depression using the Beck
Depression Inventory (BDI; Beck & Beamsdorfer, 1974) and their level of social anxiety
using the Social Avoidance and Distress Scale (SAD; Watson & Friend, 1969). Four
groups were compared—people who were depressed (D) but not socially anxious,
people who were socially anxious (S) but not depressed, people who were both (B)
depressed and socially anxious, and people who were neither (N) depressed nor
socially anxious. The IIP-64 was also administered. The results showed that the
interpersonal problems of the two socially anxious groups (Group S and Group B) were,
on the average, in the hostile-submissive quadrant, whereas those of the other two
groups (Group D and Group N) were in the friendly-submissive quadrant.
Origins of Interpersonal Problems: Attachment Style
Interpersonal problems sometimes arise because of conflicting desires: a desire to
engage in a particular class of behaviors and a desire to avoid the potentially aversive
consequences of doing so. For example, a person may wish to be taken care of, but be
wary of the consequences of dependency. Such conflicts may arise out of the person's
interpersonal learning history. People whose early experiences with others have been
disappointing may come to distrust other people, so they avoid intimate contact with
them. As a result, their problems reflect their wariness (hostile control); they under-
standably refuse to relinquish control to other people.
Recent research has examined people's attachment styles in adulthood. Bartholomew
and Horowitz (1991) proposed a model that was based upon one of Bowlby's
suggestions. Bowlby (1977) had hypothesized that children, over time, internalize early
attachment experiences and use these internal representations to judge "(a) whether or
not the attachment figure is...the sort of person who...responds to calls for support and
protection; [and] (b) whether or not the self is...the sort of person towards whom
anyone, and the attachment figure in particular, is likely to respond in a helpful way" (p.
204). The first judgment concerns the child's image of other people, the second
concerns the child's image of the self. By dichotomizing each of Bowiby's two variables,
we can form a matrix with four prototypic forms of adult attachment (Bartholomew,
1990; Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991). As shown in Figure 6.3, the person's image of
the self is dichotomized as positive or negative (the self is or is not worthy of love,
support, and respect), and the person's image of other people is also dichotomized as
positive or negative (other people are seen as trustworthy and available or unreliable
and rejecting).
52
Figure 6.3. Four Theoretical Attachment Styles
Model of Self
Positive Negative
CELL I CELL II
Positive
Secure Preoccupied
Comfortable with Preoccupied with
Model of intimacy and autonomy Relationships
Other CELL IV CELL III

Dismissing Fearful
Negative
Dismissing of intimacy Fearful of intimacy
Counter-dependent Socially avoidant
Figure 6.3 shows the four resulting attachment patterns. Each cell represents a
theoretical ideal of an attachment style. The different attachment styles illustrated imply
different types of interpersonal problems. Cells I and II, for example, imply a friendly
orientation toward other people, whereas Cells III and IV imply a hostile or cold
orientation. Therefore, the corresponding interpersonal problems should reflect
differences in affiliation. Similarly, Cells II and III imply a negative self-image, so the
corresponding interpersonal problems of these people should reflect self-doubt, self-
devaluation, and submissiveness. Each cell describes a prototypic attachment style. In
this study, semi-structured interviews were administered in which students were asked
about the importance of close relationships, their experiences with loneliness and shy-
ness, their trust of other people, their impressions of other people's evaluations of
themselves, and their hopes for change in their social lives (Bartholomew & Horowitz,
1991). The interviews were tape recorded, and three raters listened to each interview
and independently rated the subject with respect to each of the prototypic attachment
styles to determine the degree to which the person's interpersonal style approximated
each category. A close friend of the same sex also agreed to complete a "friend report"
for each student.
As shown in Figure 6.4, the Secure group's pattern of scores on the IIP showed higher
scores on the warm side of the interpersonal space (in both self-reports and friend-
reports), but no one subscale score was extreme. In contrast, the Dismissing group
(negative image of others) showed higher scores on the hostile side of the interpersonal
space. Problems of coldness thus seem to be associated with the Dismissing
attachment style. The Preoccupied group (positive image of others) scored high on
Scale 8: Intrusive/Needy (NO). The friends' reports also described them as highest on
Intrusive/Needy. This octant reflects friendly control or dominance. Although
Preoccupied individuals appear to be needy and dependent, they and their friends both
53
emphasized their controlling interpersonal style. Finally, the Fearful group scored high
on Scale 4: Socially Inhibited (FG) and Scale 5: Nonassertive (HI), and the
corresponding friends' reports confirmed this general pattern of results. Their problems
primarily reflected hostile submissiveness.
Figure 6.4. Self-Report and Friend-Report Profiles of Interpersonal Problems
Across Attachment Groups
54
These results indicate that different types of interpersonal problems are associated with
different attachment styles. Thus, attachment styles may explain the relationship
between interpersonal problems and personality disorders. Apparently, a Preoccupied
attachment style characterizes people with a histrionic personality disorder, reflecting
problems of friendly dominance. A Dismissing attachment style characterizes people
with an antisocial, paranoid, or narcissistic personality disorder, reflecting problems of
hostile dominance. A Fearful attachment style characterizes people with an avoidant or
schizoid personality disorder, reflecting problems of hostile submissiveness.
Interpersonal Problems and Psychotherapy
Most treatments, particularly insight-oriented treatments, focus on interpersonal behav-
iors; these treatments typically identify interpersonal problems, clarify conflicts that
seem to be producing the problems, and help the person experiment with alternative
behaviors. Since interpersonal behaviors are often the most observable, describable,
and verifiable components of a client's complaint, many different treatments begin with
an exploration of interpersonal problems.
Research suggests that certain types of problems improve more readily than others,
and the treatability of a problem may be related to its location in the interpersonal
space. Therefore, Horowitz, Rosenberg, and Bartholomew (1993) first determined, for
each problem on the IIP-64, how often a patient and his or her therapist agreed that the
problem had been discussed during treatment. Figure 6.5 shows the relative
frequencies. Problems from the "Nonassertive" and "Exploitable" octants were
discussed most often, whereas problems from the "Cold," "Vindictive," and
"Domineering" octants were discussed least often.
They then determined what proportion of the problems that were discussed improved;
those results are shown in Figure 6.6. Problems in the "Exploitable" octant improved
most frequently (nearly 90% of them improved), whereas problems in the octants
labeled "Domineering," "Vindictive," and "Cold" improved the least often. Problems of
hostile dominance apparently are not as amenable to change through brief dynamic
psychotherapy as are problems of friendly submissiveness. These results suggest that
a patient whose interpersonal problems are primarily in the region of hostile dominance
is less apt to succeed in a brief dynamic psychotherapy. Strauss and Hess (1993) report
further evidence that patients whose problems primarily concern hostile dominance tend
to have poorer outcomes.
55
Figure 6.5. Total Number of Times That Problems of Each Subscale Were
Considered Discussed
Figure 6.6. Percentage of Problems of Each Subscale That Were Considered

Improved
56
Appendix A: IIP-64 Items by Scale
Previous Scale Name: Domineering (PA)

17. understand another person's point of view
31. take instructions from people who have authority over me
44. I am too independent.
45. I am too aggressive toward other people.
50. I try to control other people too much.
52. I try to change other people too much.
57. I manipulate other people too much to get what I want.
59. I argue with other people too much.
Previous Scale Name: Vindictive (BC)

1. trust other people
22. be supportive of another person's goals in life
24. really care about other people's problems
29. put somebody else's needs before my own
32. feel good about another person's happiness
40. I fight with other people too much.
56. I am too suspicious of other people.
64. I want to get revenge against people too much.
Previous Scale Name: Cold (DE)

11. make a long-term commitment to another person
15. show affection to people
16. get along with people
20. experience a feeling of love for another person
23. feel close to other people
27. give a gift to another person
36. forgive another person after I've been angry
60. I keep other people at a distance too much.
57
Previous Scale Name: Socially Avoidant (FG)

3. join in on groups
7. introduce myself to new people
14 socialize with other people
18. express my feelings to other people directly
33. ask other people to get together socially with me
35. open up and tell my feelings to another person
55. I am too afraid of other people.
62. I feel embarrassed in front of other people too much.
Previous Scale Name: Nonassertive (HI)

5. let other people know what I want
6. tell a person to stop bothering me
8. confront people with problems that come up
9. be assertive with another person
12. be another person's boss
13. be aggressive toward other people when the situation calls for it
19. be firm when I need to be
39. be self-confident when I am with other people
Previous Scale Name: Exploitable (JK)

2. say "no" to other people
10. let other people know when I am angry
25. argue with another person
34. feel angry at other people
38. be assertive without worrying about hurting the other person's feelings
42. I am too easily persuaded by other people.
53. I am too gullible.
61. I let other people take advantage of me too much.
58
Previous Scale Name: Overly Nurturant (LM)

21. set limits on other people
28. let myself feel angry at somebody I like
37. attend to my own welfare when somebody else is needy
46. I try to please other people too much.
49. I trust other people too much.
51. I put other people's needs before my own too much.
54. I am overly generous to other people.
63. I am affected by another person's misery too much.
Previous Scale Name: Intrusive (NO)

4. keep things private from other people
26. spend time alone
30. stay out of other people's business
41. I feel too responsible for solving other people's problems.
43. I open up to people too much.
47. I clown around too much.
48. I want to be noticed too much.
58. I tell personal things to other people too much.
59
Appendix B
Table B.1. IIP-64 Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scale Scores:
Overall
T-Score
Raw Score Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 Raw Score
0 40 40 40 39 38 35 35 39 0
1 42 42 42 40 40 37 37 41 1
2 44 44 44 42 41 39 39 43 2
3 46 46 45 44 43 41 40 45 3
4 48 48 47 46 44 43 42 47 4
5 50 49 49 47 46 45 44 49 5
6 52 51 50 49 48 47 46 51 6
7 55 53 52 51 49 48 48 53 7
8 57 55 54 53 51 50 50 55 8
9 59 57 56 54 53 52 51 57 9
10 61 59 57 56 54 54 53 59 10
11 64 61 59 58 56 56 55 61 11
12 66 63 61 60 57 58 57 63 12
13 68 65 62 61 59 60 59 65 13
14 70 67 64 63 61 62 61 67 14
15 73 69 66 65 62 64 62 70 15
16 75 71 67 67 64 65 64 72 16
17 77 73 69 68 66 67 66 74 17
18 79 75 71 70 67 69 68 76 18
19 82 77 72 72 69 71 70 78 19
20 84 79 74 74 71 73 72 80 20
21 86 81 76 75 72 75 73 82 21
22 88 83 78 77 74 77 75 84 22
23 90 85 79 79 75 79 77 86 23
24 92 87 81 81 77 81 79 88 24
25 94 89 83 82 79 82 81 90 25
26 96 90 84 84 80 84 83 93 26
27 98 92 86 86 82 86 84 95 27
28 99 94 88 88 84 88 86 97 28
29 99 96 90 90 85 90 88 99 29
30 99 98 92 92 87 92 90 99 30
31 99 99 94 94 89 94 92 99 31
32 99 99 96 96 91 96 94 99 32
60

Male
T-Score
0 39 39 40 38 39 36 36 38 0
1 41 41 41 40 40 38 38 40 1
2 43 43 43 42 42 40 39 42 2
3 45 45 45 44 44 42 41 44 3
4 47 47 46 45 45 44 43 46 4
5 49 49 48 47 47 46 45 48 5
6 52 50 50 49 49 48 47 50 6
7 54 52 51 51 50 50 49 52 7
8 56 54 53 52 52 52 51 54 8
9 58 56 54 54 54 54 52 56 9
10 60 58 56 56 55 56 54 58 10
11 62 60 58 58 57 58 56 60 11
12 64 62 59 59 59 60 58 62 12
13 66 64 61 61 60 62 60 64 13
14 68 66 63 63 62 64 62 66 14
15 71 68 64 65 64 66 64 68 15
16 73 70 66 66 65 67 65 70 16
17 75 71 67 68 67 69 67 72 17
18 77 73 69 70 68 71 69 74 18
19 79 75 71 72 70 73 71 76 19
20 81 77 72 74 72 75 73 78 20
21 83 79 74 75 73 77 75 80 21
22 85 81 76 77 75 79 77 82 22
23 87 83 77 79 77 81 78 84 23
24 89 85 79 81 78 83 80 86 24
25 91 87 80 82 80 85 82 88 25
26 93 89 82 84 82 87 84 90 26
27 95 90 84 86 83 89 86 92 27
28 97 92 86 88 85 91 88 94 28
29 99 94 88 90 87 93 90 96 29
30 99 96 90 92 89 95 92 98 30
31 99 98 92 94 91 97 94 99 31
32 99 99 94 96 93 99 96 99 32
61

Female
T-Score
0 39 40 41 39 37 34 34 39 0
1 41 42 43 41 39 36 36 41 1
2 44 44 44 42 40 38 38 43 2
3 46 46 46 44 42 40 39 45 3
4 49 48 48 46 43 42 41 47 4
5 51 50 50 48 45 43 43 49 5
6 54 52 52 49 47 45 45 51 6
7 56 54 53 51 48 47 47 54 7
8 58 56 55 53 50 49 49 56 8
9 61 59 57 55 52 51 50 58 9
10 63 61 59 56 53 53 52 60 10
11 66 63 60 58 55 54 54 62 11
12 68 65 62 60 56 56 56 64 12
13 71 67 64 62 58 58 58 67 13
14 73 69 66 63 60 60 60 69 14
15 75 71 68 65 61 62 61 71 15
16 78 73 69 67 63 64 63 73 16
17 80 75 71 69 65 66 65 75 17
18 83 77 73 70 66 67 67 78 18
19 85 79 75 72 68 69 69 80 19
20 88 81 76 74 69 71 70 82 20
21 90 83 78 76 71 73 72 84 21
22 92 85 80 77 73 75 74 86 22
23 95 87 82 79 74 77 76 89 23
24 97 89 84 81 76 79 78 91 24
25 99 91 85 83 78 80 80 93 25
26 99 93 87 84 79 82 81 95 26
27 99 95 89 86 81 84 83 97 27
28 99 97 91 88 83 86 85 99 28
29 99 99 93 90 85 88 87 99 29
30 99 99 95 92 87 90 89 99 30
31 99 99 97 94 89 92 91 99 31
32 99 99 99 96 91 94 93 99 32
62
Table B.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scores: Total Score

T-Score T-Score
Raw Score Overall Male Female Raw Score Overall Male Female
0 35 36 34 50 50 50 50
1 35 36 35 51 50 50 50
2 36 36 35 52 50 50 50
3 36 36 35 53 50 50 50
4 36 37 36 54 51 51 51
5 36 37 36 55 51 51 51
6 37 37 36 56 51 51 51
7 37 37 36 57 52 52 52
8 37 38 37 58 52 52 52
9 38 38 37 59 52 52 52
10 38 38 37 60 52 52 53
11 38 39 38 61 53 53 53
12 38 39 38 62 53 53 53
13 39 39 38 63 53 53 53
14 39 39 39 64 54 54 54
15 39 40 39 65 54 54 54
16 40 40 39 66 54 54 54
17 40 40 40 67 55 54 55
18 40 41 40 68 55 55 55
19 41 41 40 69 55 55 55
20 41 41 40 70 55 55 56
21 41 41 41 71 56 55 56
22 41 42 41 72 56 56 56
23 42 42 41 73 56 56 56
24 42 42 42 74 57 56 57
25 42 43 42 75 57 57 57
26 43 43 42 76 57 57 57
27 43 43 43 77 57 57 58
28 43 43 43 78 58 57 58
29 43 44 43 79 58 58 58
30 44 44 43 80 58 58 59
31 44 44 44 81 59 58 59
32 44 45 44 82 59 59 59
33 45 45 44 83 59 59 60
34 45 45 45 84 59 59 60
35 45 45 45 85 60 59 60
36 45 46 45 86 60 60 60
37 46 46 46 87 60 60 61
38 46 46 46 88 61 60 61
39 46 46 46 89 61 61 61
40 47 47 46 90 61 61 62
41 47 47 47 91 62 61 62
42 47 47 47 92 62 61 62
43 48 48 47 93 62 62 63
44 48 48 48 94 62 62 63
45 48 48 48 95 63 62 63
46 48 48 48 96 63 63 63
47 49 49 49 97 63 63 64
48 49 49 49 98 64 63 64
49 49 49 49 99 64 63 64
(Continued)
63
Table B.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scores: Total Score
(Continued)
T-Score T-Score
100 64 64 65 150 79 78 80
101 64 64 65 151 79 78 80
102 65 64 65 152 79 78 80
103 65 64 66 153 80 79 81
104 65 65 66 154 80 79 81
105 66 65 66 155 80 79 81
106 66 65 66 156 80 79 82
107 66 66 67 157 81 80 82
108 66 66 67 158 81 80 82
109 67 66 67 159 81 80 83
110 67 66 68 160 82 81 83
111 67 67 68 161 82 81 83
112 68 67 68 162 82 81 83
113 68 67 69 163 83 81 84
114 68 68 69 164 83 82 84
115 69 68 69 165 83 82 84
116 69 68 70 166 83 82 85
117 69 68 70 167 84 82 85
118 69 69 70 168 84 83 85
119 70 69 70 169 84 83 86
120 70 69 71 170 85 83 86
121 70 70 71 171 85 84 86
122 71 70 71 172 85 84 86
123 71 70 72 173 85 84 87
124 71 70 72 174 86 84 87
125 71 71 72 175 86 85 87
126 72 71 73 176 86 85 88
127 72 71 73 177 87 85 88
128 72 72 73 178 87 86 88
129 73 72 73 179 87 86 89
130 73 72 74 180 87 86 89
131 73 72 74 181 88 86 89
132 73 73 74 182 88 87 90
133 74 73 75 183 88 87 90
134 74 73 75 184 89 87 90
135 74 73 75 185 89 88 90
136 75 74 76 186 90 88 91
137 75 74 76 187 90 88 91
138 75 74 76 188 90 88 91
139 76 75 76 189 90 89 92
140 76 75 77 190 90 89 92
141 76 75 77 191 91 89 92
142 76 75 77 192 91 90 93
143 77 76 78 193 91 90 93
144 77 76 78 194 92 90 93
145 77 76 78 195 92 90 93
146 78 77 79 196 92 91 94
147 78 77 79 197 92 91 94
148 78 77 79 198 93 91 94
149 78 77 80 199 93 92 95
(Continued)
64
Table B.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scores: Total Score (Continued)
T-Score
Raw Score Overall Male Female
200 93 92 95
201 94 92 95
202 94 92 96
203 94 93 96
204 94 93 96
205 95 93 96
206 95 93 97
207 95 94 97
208 96 94 97
209 96 94 98
210 96 95 98
211 97 95 98
212 97 95 99
213 97 95 99
214 97 96 99
215 98 96 99
216 98 96 99
217 98 97 99
218 99 97 99
219 99 97 99
220 99 97 99
221 99 98 99
222 99 98 99
223 99 98 99
≥224 99 99 99
65
Appendix C
Table C.1. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-
Scores – Overall
Cumulative Percent
T-Score Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 TOT T Score
≤34 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ≤34
35 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.0 5.5 <0.1 1.3 35
36 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6.0 5.5 <0.1 3.3 36
37 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10.8 9.9 <0.1 6.4 37
38 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11.5 10.8 9.9 <0.1 9.8 38
39 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 13.6 11.5 16.4 16.3 11.3 13.6 39
40 15.3 12.6 16.8 22.3 19.4 16.4 21.9 11.3 17.3 40
41 15.3 12.6 16.8 22.3 25.4 23.6 21.9 21.8 22.9 41
42 27.1 25.9 28.9 30.1 25.4 23.6 27.9 21.8 25.8 42
43 27.1 25.9 28.9 30.1 32.4 30.1 27.9 30.8 31.0 43
44 37.5 40.0 40.4 37.4 39.5 30.1 33.5 30.8 35.4 44
45 37.5 40.0 48.5 37.4 39.5 38.0 33.5 39.8 41.6 45
46 47.4 49.6 48.5 44.8 46.4 38.0 42.0 39.8 44.5 46
47 47.4 49.6 57.3 51.6 46.4 44.8 42.0 49.6 47.3 47
48 56.5 58.3 57.3 51.6 52.1 52.1 49.6 49.6 51.8 48
49 56.5 63.6 63.3 58.0 57.4 52.1 49.6 58.5 54.0 49
50 63.1 63.6 67.5 58.0 57.4 59.8 56.1 58.5 57.8 50
51 63.1 68.0 67.5 63.5 63.6 59.8 62.5 64.3 61.5 51
52 69.6 68.0 71.0 63.5 63.6 65.8 62.5 64.3 65.4 52
53 69.6 72.8 71.0 69.1 67.9 65.8 69.6 69.9 67.8 53
54 69.6 72.8 73.9 73.8 71.4 71.8 69.6 69.9 70.0 54
55 75.5 78.6 73.9 73.8 71.4 71.8 73.8 74.1 72.9 55
56 75.5 78.6 77.1 78.9 75.5 76.5 73.8 74.1 75.1 56
57 80.9 80.6 79.5 78.9 79.0 76.5 79.0 78.4 78.3 57
58 80.9 80.6 79.5 82.3 79.0 80.6 79.0 78.4 80.0 58
59 84.4 84.5 81.9 82.3 82.3 80.6 82.8 83.6 82.3 59
60 84.4 84.5 81.9 85.0 82.3 84.4 82.8 83.6 83.4 60
61 87.9 86.4 84.6 87.6 85.1 84.4 87.1 88.1 85.5 61
62 87.9 86.4 87.3 87.6 88.3 87.9 90.5 88.1 87.5 62
63 87.9 88.6 87.3 90.5 88.3 87.9 90.5 91.4 89.3 63
64 91.1 88.6 89.0 90.5 90.6 90.9 92.6 91.4 91.1 64
65 91.1 90.8 89.0 92.0 90.6 93.6 92.6 93.4 91.9 65
66 92.6 90.8 90.4 92.0 92.6 93.6 93.6 93.4 93.1 66
67 92.6 92.5 92.8 93.5 94.0 95.4 93.6 94.6 94.1 67
68 94.6 92.5 92.8 94.4 94.0 95.4 95.0 94.6 95.1 68
(Continued)
66
Table C.1. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-Scores –
Overall (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
T-Score Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 TOT T Score
69 94.6 93.9 94.3 94.4 95.4 96.8 95.0 94.6 95.9 69
70 95.5 93.9 94.3 96.4 95.4 96.8 96.8 95.4 96.6 70
71 95.5 95.3 95.8 96.4 96.6 97.5 96.8 95.4 96.8 71
72 95.5 95.3 96.4 97.3 97.5 97.5 97.9 96.1 97.0 72
73 97.1 96.6 96.4 97.3 97.5 98.1 98.1 96.1 97.6 73
74 97.1 96.6 97.4 97.6 98.3 98.1 98.1 97.3 97.9 74
75 97.9 97.5 97.4 98.3 98.8 98.6 98.6 97.3 98.1 75
76 97.9 97.5 98.3 98.3 98.8 98.6 98.6 98.3 98.6 76
77 98.5 98.4 98.3 98.8 98.9 99.1 98.8 98.3 98.6 77
78 98.5 98.4 98.8 98.8 98.9 99.1 98.8 98.6 98.9 78
79 99.1 98.9 99.0 98.9 99.3 99.3 99.4 98.6 99.1 79
80 99.1 98.9 99.0 98.9 99.6 99.3 99.4 99.1 99.4 80
81 99.1 99.5 99.6 99.0 99.6 99.5 99.5 99.1 99.5 81
82 99.4 99.5 99.6 99.1 99.6 99.5 99.5 99.6 99.5 82
83 99.4 99.8 99.6 99.1 99.6 99.5 99.6 99.6 99.6 83
84 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.9 99.9 84
85 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.9 99.9 85
86 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 86
87 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 87
88 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 88
≥89 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 ≥89
67

Scores – Male
Cumulative Percent
T-Score Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 TOT T-Score
≤35 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ≤35
36 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.3 8.5 <0.1 3.3 36
37 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9.3 8.5 <0.1 7.3 37
38 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 14.0 <0.1 14.3 13.8 11.0 10.8 38
39 13.8 9.3 <0.1 14.0 16.0 14.3 19.3 11.0 14.8 39
40 13.8 9.3 15.8 21.5 25.0 21.0 19.3 20.0 17.5 40
41 25.0 21.3 26.0 21.5 25.0 21.0 25.8 20.0 22.8 41
42 25.0 21.3 26.0 28.8 30.3 28.5 25.8 28.8 25.5 42
43 37.0 38.0 36.5 28.8 30.3 28.5 32.3 28.8 31.5 43
44 37.0 38.0 36.5 37.3 37.5 35.8 32.3 38.3 36.5 44
45 45.3 46.3 43.8 44.3 44.0 35.8 38.3 38.3 40.5 45
46 45.3 46.3 51.5 44.3 44.0 43.0 38.3 48.3 44.5 46
47 53.0 53.5 51.5 50.0 50.0 43.0 44.8 48.3 47.0 47
48 53.0 53.5 57.5 50.0 50.0 50.3 44.8 57.0 50.8 48
49 59.8 59.0 57.5 57.3 56.0 50.3 53.0 57.0 53.5 49
50 59.8 63.5 63.8 57.3 59.8 56.8 53.0 62.3 57.0 50
51 59.8 63.5 66.8 62.0 59.8 56.8 59.0 62.3 59.8 51
52 65.5 68.5 66.8 67.3 67.0 63.5 65.0 69.0 64.5 52
53 65.5 68.5 70.3 67.3 67.0 63.5 65.0 69.0 67.3 53
54 73.8 75.5 73.5 72.5 71.5 69.8 72.0 72.5 70.3 54
55 73.8 75.5 73.5 72.5 75.8 69.8 72.0 72.5 73.3 55
56 78.3 77.0 76.3 77.3 75.8 76.3 75.8 76.8 75.0 56
57 78.3 77.0 76.3 77.3 78.5 76.3 75.8 76.8 78.0 57
58 81.8 82.0 78.8 80.8 78.5 81.0 80.8 81.3 79.8 58
59 81.8 82.0 82.0 84.0 82.5 81.0 80.8 81.3 83.3 59
60 85.8 84.3 82.0 84.0 85.3 84.3 84.3 87.0 84.5 60
61 85.8 84.3 85.0 87.0 85.3 84.3 84.3 87.0 87.0 61
62 89.3 87.0 85.0 87.0 87.0 86.5 89.0 89.8 87.8 62
63 89.3 87.0 87.5 90.0 87.0 86.5 89.0 89.8 89.5 63
64 91.0 89.5 89.0 90.0 88.8 90.8 91.8 91.5 91.0 64
65 91.0 89.5 89.0 92.0 91.0 90.8 93.8 91.5 92.3 65
66 93.3 91.3 91.8 93.0 91.0 93.3 93.8 93.3 93.5 66
67 93.3 91.3 93.5 93.0 93.3 95.8 95.0 93.3 94.3 67
68 93.8 92.5 93.5 94.3 94.5 95.8 95.0 94.5 95.3 68
69 93.8 92.5 95.0 94.3 94.5 97.0 96.5 94.5 95.5 69
(Continued)
68
Table C.2. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-Scores – Male
(Continued)
Cumulative Percent
70 93.8 95.0 95.0 96.8 95.8 97.0 96.5 95.5 96.0 70
71 95.8 96.8 95.8 96.8 95.8 98.3 98.0 95.5 96.3 71
72 95.8 96.8 96.8 97.8 96.8 98.3 98.0 96.8 96.8 72
73 96.8 97.5 96.8 97.8 98.0 98.8 98.5 96.5 97.5 73
74 96.8 97.5 98.0 97.8 98.0 98.8 98.5 98.0 98.0 74
75 97.8 98.3 98.0 98.5 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.0 98.5 75
76 97.8 98.3 98.5 98.5 98.8 98.8 98.8 98.3 98.5 76
77 98.8 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.3 99.3 98.3 98.8 77
78 98.8 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.0 99.3 99.3 98.8 99.0 78
79 99.0 99.5 99.5 99.0 99.0 99.5 99.3 98.8 99.3 79
80 99.0 99.5 99.5 99.0 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.3 99.3 80
81 99.5 99.8 99.5 99.0 99.5 99.8 99.5 99.3 99.3 81
82 99.5 99.8 99.8 99.0 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.8 99.8 82
83 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.0 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.8 99.8 83
84 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 84
85 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 85
86 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 86
87 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 87
88 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 88
89 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 89
≥90 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 ≥90
69

Scores – Female
Cumulative Percent
≤33 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ≤33
34 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8 2.5 <0.1 0.5 34
35 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 2.8 2.5 <0.1 0.8 35
36 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.3 6.0 <0.1 3.5 36
37 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.0 7.3 6.0 <0.1 5.8 37
38 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7.0 11.8 13.3 <0.1 8.3 38
39 16.8 <0.1 <0.1 13.3 13.8 11.8 18.0 11.5 14.3 39
40 16.8 16.0 <0.1 13.3 20.5 18.8 18.0 11.5 18.5 40
41 29.3 16.0 17.8 23.0 20.5 18.8 23.5 23.5 22.0 41
42 29.3 30.5 17.8 31.5 27.3 24.5 23.5 23.5 25.5 42
43 29.3 30.5 31.8 31.5 35.0 33.0 28.8 32.8 31.0 43
44 38.0 42.0 44.3 37.5 35.0 33.0 28.8 32.8 35.5 44
45 38.0 42.0 44.3 37.5 42.8 39.3 39.3 41.3 41.3 45
46 49.5 53.0 53.3 45.3 42.8 39.3 39.3 41.3 45.8 46
47 49.5 53.0 53.3 45.3 48.3 47.5 46.3 51.0 49.3 47
48 49.5 63.0 63.0 53.3 55.0 47.5 46.3 51.0 52.8 48
49 60.0 63.0 63.0 58.8 55.0 56.0 53.3 60.0 54.5 49
50 60.0 68.3 69.0 58.8 60.3 56.0 60.0 60.0 58.5 50
51 66.5 68.3 69.0 65.0 60.3 61.8 60.0 66.3 63.3 51
52 66.5 72.5 71.3 65.0 64.3 61.8 67.3 66.3 65.8 52
53 66.5 72.5 75.3 71.0 67.0 67.3 67.3 66.3 68.3 53
54 73.8 77.0 75.3 71.0 67.0 72.0 71.8 70.8 70.5 54
55 73.8 77.0 77.5 75.0 72.5 72.0 71.8 70.8 72.0 55
56 77.3 81.8 77.5 80.5 75.5 77.0 77.3 75.8 76.3 56
57 77.3 81.8 80.8 80.5 75.5 77.0 77.3 75.8 77.5 57
58 83.5 81.8 80.8 83.8 79.3 82.3 81.3 80.0 79.3 58
59 83.5 84.3 82.8 83.8 79.3 82.3 81.3 80.0 80.3 59
60 83.5 84.3 85.0 86.0 83.3 85.0 85.3 86.0 82.5 60
61 87.0 87.0 85.0 86.0 87.8 85.0 89.3 86.0 84.8 61
62 87.0 87.0 87.3 88.3 87.8 88.5 89.3 89.3 86.0 62
63 90.0 88.5 87.3 91.0 90.3 88.5 91.5 89.3 90.0 63
64 90.0 88.5 89.5 91.0 90.3 91.5 91.5 93.0 91.0 64
65 90.0 90.3 89.5 92.0 92.0 91.5 92.3 93.0 92.3 65
66 93.0 90.3 90.5 92.0 93.5 93.8 92.3 93.0 93.0 66
67 93.0 92.0 90.5 94.0 93.5 95.3 93.5 95.3 93.5 67
(Continued)
70
Table C.3. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-Scores –
Female (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
68 94.3 92.0 91.8 94.0 95.0 95.3 93.5 95.3 95.0 68
69 94.3 93.8 93.8 94.5 96.5 96.3 95.5 96.0 95.5 69
70 94.3 93.8 93.8 96.0 96.5 96.3 97.3 96.0 96.7 70
71 96.0 95.3 95.0 96.0 97.0 97.5 97.3 96.3 97.5 71
72 96.0 95.3 95.0 96.8 97.0 97.5 97.5 96.3 97.5 72
73 97.3 95.5 96.5 96.8 97.8 98.0 97.5 96.8 98.0 73
74 97.3 95.5 96.5 97.5 98.5 98.0 98.0 96.8 98.3 74
75 98.5 96.5 97.0 97.5 98.5 98.8 98.0 97.8 98.3 75
76 98.5 96.5 98.0 98.0 98.8 98.8 98.3 97.8 98.3 76
77 98.5 97.5 98.0 98.5 98.8 98.8 98.3 97.8 98.8 77
78 99.0 97.5 98.5 98.5 99.0 98.8 99.3 98.5 98.8 78
79 99.0 98.5 98.5 98.8 99.3 99.3 99.3 98.5 99.0 79
80 99.3 98.5 99.0 98.8 99.3 99.3 99.5 99.0 99.3 80
81 99.3 98.8 99.0 99.0 99.3 99.3 99.5 99.0 99.5 81
82 99.3 98.8 99.0 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.5 99.5 99.5 82
83 99.5 99.5 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.5 99.8 83
84 99.5 99.5 99.8 99.5 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.9 99.8 84
85 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.9 85
86 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 86
87 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 87
88 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 88
89 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 89
90 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 90
91 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 91
92 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 92
93 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 93
94 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 94
95 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 95
≥96 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 ≥96
71
Appendix D
Table D.1. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T -Score
Conversion – Overall
T-Score
Difference Difference
Score Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 Score
-34 - - - - - 1 1 - -34
-33 1 - - - - 2 2 - -33
-32 2 - - - - 3 4 1 -32
-31 3 1 - - - 5 5 2 -31
-30 5 2 1 - - 6 7 3 -30
-29 6 4 3 - 1 8 8 5 -29
-28 8 5 5 - 3 9 10 6 -28
-27 9 7 6 - 4 10 11 8 -27
-26 11 8 8 1 6 12 13 9 -26
-25 12 10 10 2 8 13 14 11 -25
-24 14 12 11 4 9 15 15 12 -24
-23 15 13 13 6 11 16 17 14 -23
-22 17 15 14 8 13 18 18 16 -22
-21 18 16 16 10 15 19 20 17 -21
-20 20 18 18 12 16 21 21 19 -20
-19 21 19 19 14 18 22 23 20 -19
-18 23 21 21 16 20 24 24 22 -18
-17 24 23 23 18 21 25 25 23 -17
-16 26 24 24 20 23 27 27 25 -16
-15 27 26 26 21 25 28 28 26 -15
-14 29 27 27 23 26 29 30 28 -14
-13 30 29 29 25 28 31 31 29 -13
-12 32 31 31 27 30 32 33 31 -12
-11 33 32 32 29 31 34 34 32 -11
-10 35 34 34 31 33 35 36 34 -10
-9 36 35 36 33 35 37 37 36 -9
-8 38 37 37 35 36 38 38 37 -8
-7 39 39 39 37 38 40 40 39 -7
-6 41 40 40 39 40 41 41 40 -6
-5 42 42 42 41 42 43 43 42 -5
-4 44 43 44 42 43 44 44 43 -4
-3 45 45 45 44 45 46 46 45 -3
-2 47 47 47 46 47 47 47 46 -2
-1 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 48 -1
0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 49 0
(Continued)
72
Table D.1. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion –
Overall (Continued)
T-Score
1 51 51 52 52 52 51 51 51 1
2 53 53 53 54 53 53 53 52 2
3 54 55 55 56 55 54 54 54 3
4 56 56 57 58 57 56 56 56 4
5 57 58 58 60 58 57 57 57 5
6 59 59 60 61 60 59 59 59 6
7 60 61 61 63 62 60 60 60 7
8 62 63 63 65 63 62 61 62 8
9 63 64 65 67 65 63 63 63 9
10 65 66 66 69 67 65 64 65 10
11 66 67 68 71 69 66 66 66 11
12 68 69 70 73 70 68 67 68 12
13 69 70 71 75 72 69 69 69 13
14 71 72 73 77 74 70 70 71 14
15 72 74 74 79 75 72 72 73 15
16 74 75 76 80 77 73 73 74 16
17 75 77 78 82 79 75 74 76 17
18 77 78 79 84 80 76 76 77 18
19 78 80 81 86 82 78 77 79 19
20 80 82 83 88 84 79 79 80 20
21 81 83 84 90 85 81 80 82 21
22 83 85 86 92 87 82 82 83 22
23 84 86 87 94 89 84 83 85 23
24 86 88 89 96 90 85 85 86 24
25 87 90 91 98 92 87 86 88 25
26 89 91 92 99 94 88 87 89 26
27 90 93 94 99 96 89 89 91 27
28 92 94 96 99 97 91 90 93 28
29 93 96 97 99 99 92 92 94 29
30 95 98 99 99 99 94 93 96 30
31 96 99 99 99 99 95 95 97 31
32 98 99 99 99 99 97 96 97 32
33 99 99 99 99 99 98 97 99 33
≥34 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ≥34
73
Table D.2. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Conversion – Male
T-Score
-33 - - - - - 1 1 - -33
-32 - - - - - 2 3 - -32
-31 1 - - - - 3 4 - -31
-30 3 1 - - - 5 6 1 -30
-29 4 3 - - - 6 7 2 -29
-28 6 4 - - - 8 9 4 -28
-27 7 6 1 - 1 9 10 6 -27
-26 9 8 2 1 3 11 11 7 -26
-25 10 9 4 2 5 12 13 9 -25
-24 12 11 5 4 7 14 14 11 -24
-23 14 12 7 6 9 15 16 12 -23
-22 15 14 9 8 10 17 17 14 -22
-21 17 16 11 10 12 18 19 16 -21
-20 18 17 13 12 14 20 20 17 -20
-19 20 19 15 14 16 21 22 19 -19
-18 22 21 17 16 18 23 23 21 -18
-17 23 22 18 18 19 24 25 22 -17
-16 25 24 20 19 21 26 26 24 -16
-15 26 25 22 21 23 27 28 26 -15
-14 28 27 24 23 25 29 29 27 -14
-13 29 29 26 25 27 30 31 29 -13
-12 31 30 28 27 28 32 32 30 -12
-11 33 32 30 29 30 33 34 32 -11
-10 34 34 31 31 32 35 35 34 -10
-9 36 35 33 33 34 36 37 35 -9
-8 37 37 35 35 36 38 38 37 -8
-7 39 38 37 37 37 39 40 39 -7
-6 40 40 39 39 39 41 41 40 -6
-5 42 42 41 41 41 42 43 42 -5
-4 44 43 42 42 43 44 44 44 -4
-3 45 45 44 44 45 45 46 45 -3
-2 47 47 46 46 46 47 47 47 -2
-1 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 49 -1
0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0
1 52 51 52 52 52 51 51 52 1
(Continued)
74
Table D.2. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion – Male
(Continued)
T-Score
2 53 53 54 54 54 53 53 54 2
3 55 55 55 56 55 54 54 55 3
4 56 56 57 58 57 56 56 57 4
5 58 58 59 60 59 57 57 58 5
6 59 60 61 62 61 59 59 60 6
7 61 61 63 64 63 60 60 62 7
8 63 63 65 66 64 62 62 63 8
9 64 65 67 67 66 63 63 65 9
10 66 66 68 69 68 65 65 67 10
11 67 68 70 71 70 66 66 68 11
12 69 69 72 73 72 68 68 70 12
13 71 71 74 75 73 69 69 72 13
14 72 73 76 77 75 71 71 73 14
15 74 74 78 79 77 72 72 75 15
16 75 76 79 81 79 74 74 77 16
17 77 78 81 83 81 75 75 78 17
18 78 79 83 85 82 77 77 80 18
19 80 81 85 87 84 78 78 82 19
20 82 82 87 89 86 80 80 83 20
21 83 84 89 91 88 81 81 85 21
22 85 86 91 92 89 83 83 86 22
23 86 87 92 94 91 84 84 88 23
24 88 89 94 96 93 86 85 90 24
25 90 91 96 98 95 87 87 91 25
26 91 92 98 99 97 89 88 93 26
27 93 94 99 99 98 90 90 95 27
28 94 95 99 99 99 92 91 96 28
29 96 97 99 99 99 93 93 98 29
30 97 99 99 99 99 95 94 99 30
31 99 99 99 99 99 96 96 99 31
32 99 99 99 99 99 98 97 99 32
≥33 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ≥33
75
Table D.3. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Conversion – Female
T-Score
-35 1 - - - - - - - -35
-34 3 - 1 - - - 1 1 -34
-33 4 - 2 - - 1 3 2 -33
-32 5 1 3 - - 2 4 4 -32
-31 7 2 5 - - 4 6 5 -31
-30 8 4 6 - 1 5 7 6 -30
-29 10 5 8 - 3 7 8 8 -29
-28 11 7 9 - 4 8 10 9 -28
-27 12 8 11 - 6 10 11 11 -27
-26 14 10 12 1 8 11 13 12 -26
-25 15 11 14 3 9 13 14 14 -25
-24 17 13 15 5 11 14 16 15 -24
-23 18 15 16 7 12 16 17 17 -23
-22 19 16 18 9 14 17 18 18 -22
-21 21 18 19 11 16 19 20 19 -21
-20 22 19 21 12 17 20 21 21 -20
-19 24 21 22 14 19 22 23 22 -19
-18 25 22 24 16 21 23 24 24 -18
-17 26 24 25 18 22 25 26 25 -17
-16 28 25 27 20 24 26 27 27 -16
-15 29 27 28 22 25 28 28 28 -15
-14 31 29 30 24 27 29 30 29 -14
-13 32 30 21 26 29 31 31 31 -13
-12 33 32 32 27 30 32 33 32 -12
-11 35 33 34 29 32 34 34 34 -11
-10 36 35 35 31 34 35 36 35 -10
-9 37 36 37 33 35 37 37 37 -9
-8 39 38 38 35 37 38 39 38 -8
-7 40 39 40 37 39 40 40 40 -7
-6 42 41 41 39 40 41 41 41 -6
-5 43 43 43 41 42 42 43 42 -5
-4 44 44 44 42 43 44 44 44 -4
-3 46 46 46 44 45 45 46 45 -3
-2 47 47 47 46 47 47 47 47 -2
-1 49 49 48 48 48 48 49 48 -1
(Continued)
76
Table D.3. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion –
Female (Continued)
T-Score
0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0
1 51 52 51 52 52 51 51 51 1
2 53 53 53 54 53 53 53 53 2
3 54 55 54 56 55 54 54 54 3
4 56 57 56 57 56 56 56 55 4
5 57 58 57 59 58 57 57 57 5
6 58 60 59 61 60 59 59 58 6
7 60 61 60 63 61 60 60 60 7
8 61 63 62 65 63 62 61 61 8
9 63 64 63 67 65 63 63 63 9
10 64 66 65 69 66 65 64 64 10
11 65 67 66 71 68 66 66 65 11
12 67 69 67 72 69 68 67 67 12
13 68 71 69 74 71 69 69 68 13
14 70 72 70 76 73 71 70 70 14
15 71 74 72 78 74 72 71 71 15
16 72 75 73 80 76 74 73 73 16
17 74 77 75 82 78 75 74 74 17
18 75 78 76 84 79 77 76 76 18
19 77 80 78 86 81 78 77 77 19
20 78 81 79 87 83 80 79 78 20
21 79 83 81 89 84 81 80 80 21
22 81 85 82 91 86 83 81 81 22
23 82 86 83 93 87 84 83 83 23
24 84 88 85 95 89 86 84 84 24
25 85 89 86 97 91 87 86 86 25
26 86 91 88 99 92 89 87 87 26
27 88 92 89 99 94 90 89 88 27
28 89 94 91 99 96 92 90 90 28
29 91 95 92 99 97 93 92 91 29
30 92 97 94 99 99 95 93 93 30
31 93 99 95 99 99 96 94 94 31
32 95 99 97 99 99 98 96 96 32
33 96 99 98 99 99 99 98 97 33
34 97 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 34
≥35 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ≥35
77
Appendix E
Table E.1. IIP-64 Individual-Based T -Score to Cumulative Percent
Conversion: Overall
Cumulative Percent
T-Score Scale 1 Scale 2 Scale 3 Scale 4 Scale 5 Scale 6 Scale 7 Scale 8 T-Score
≤2 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ≤2
3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 3
4 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 4
5 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 5
6 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 6
7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 7
8 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8
9 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9
10 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10
11 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11
12 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 12
13 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 <0.1 13
14 0.1 <0.1 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 14
15 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 15
16 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 16
17 0.4 0.3 0.1 <0.1 0.1 0.1 0.3 0.3 17
18 0.5 0.4 0.3 <0.1 0.3 0.1 0.3 0.3 18
19 0.5 0.4 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.4 19
20 0.8 0.4 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.4 0.6 20
21 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 21
22 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.6 0.9 22
23 1.4 0.8 0.6 0.6 0.9 1.1 0.8 1.0 23
24 1.5 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.9 2.0 1.1 1.0 24
25 1.5 1.0 0.8 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.4 1.3 25
26 1.5 1.1 1.3 1.5 2.4 2.5 1.4 1.6 26
27 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.8 1.6 27
28 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.8 2.9 3.6 2.4 2.3 28
29 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.9 2.9 4.4 2.4 2.9 29
30 3.3 2.5 3.0 2.9 3.6 4.4 3.4 2.9 30
31 3.3 3.1 4.4 4.6 4.4 5.0 4.5 3.9 31
32 4.6 4.0 5.5 4.6 4.4 5.8 4.5 5.1 32
33 5.5 4.0 5.5 6.1 6.0 5.8 5.6 5.1 33
34 5.5 6.0 6.8 6.1 6.0 6.4 7.5 6.4 34
35 7.1 8.6 6.8 7.9 7.8 7.8 7.5 6.4 35
36 9.5 8.6 8.3 7.9 9.9 7.8 8.6 8.5 36
(Continued)
78
Table E.1. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion:
Overall (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
37 9.5 11.4 11.0 9.4 9.9 9.5 11.1 10.9 37
38 11.0 11.4 11.0 9.4 12.4 11.8 14.0 10.9 38
39 13.1 13.5 13.8 13.0 12.4 11.8 14.0 13.6 39
40 13.1 18.6 16.3 13.0 15.8 14.8 15.9 16.9 40
41 16.8 18.6 16.3 18.0 15.8 17.4 18.8 16.9 41
42 20.6 21.0 21.9 23.5 20.9 17.4 18.8 19.8 42
43 20.6 24.9 21.9 23.5 25.0 21.0 22.1 24.3 43
44 26.4 24.9 26.0 30.1 25.0 24.9 25.9 24.3 44
45 31.0 31.5 31.3 30.1 30.4 24.9 25.9 29.4 45
46 31.0 31.5 31.3 36.6 30.4 30.0 30.5 35.1 46
47 36.4 37.5 36.5 36.6 36.1 36.4 36.9 35.1 47
48 41.9 44.5 45.0 45.0 42.5 42.8 36.9 40.6 48
49 41.9 44.5 45.0 45.0 42.5 42.8 44.3 48.3 49
50 49.4 50.3 50.6 51.5 51.0 50.6 53.0 48.3 50
51 56.9 59.3 50.6 51.5 51.0 59.3 59.8 55.5 51
52 56.9 59.3 59.4 61.6 59.8 59.3 59.8 64.0 52
53 63.1 64.1 66.3 61.6 66.8 66.4 65.5 64.0 53
54 69.3 64.1 66.3 69.9 66.8 72.0 72.3 69.9 54
55 69.3 70.1 73.3 69.9 74.8 72.0 72.3 69.9 55
56 76.4 77.3 73.3 78.6 74.8 77.1 76.5 77.0 56
57 82.5 77.3 81.6 78.6 80.8 81.9 80.9 82.0 57
58 82.5 84.0 87.3 85.3 85.4 81.9 80.9 82.0 58
59 85.9 88.9 87.3 85.3 85.4 86.3 85.5 86.6 59
60 88.9 88.9 90.8 88.8 89.6 89.1 88.8 89.0 60
61 88.9 91.3 93.3 90.9 89.6 89.1 91.1 89.0 61
62 90.1 91.3 93.3 90.9 91.8 91.3 91.1 91.9 62
63 92.3 93.1 94.8 93.5 93.6 92.9 93.3 94.6 63
64 92.3 94.5 94.8 93.5 93.6 92.9 94.8 94.6 64
65 94.4 94.4 95.6 95.0 94.6 94.5 94.8 95.8 65
66 95.6 95.9 96.0 95.0 94.6 95.8 95.5 96.4 66
67 95.6 96.4 96.0 96.3 95.9 95.8 96.5 96.4 67
68 97.3 96.4 96.4 96.3 95.9 96.9 96.5 97.4 68
69 97.6 97.4 96.4 97.3 96.9 97.6 96.8 97.6 69
70 97.6 97.8 96.9 97.3 97.3 98.1 97.5 97.6 70
71 98.1 97.8 97.5 98.1 97.3 98.1 97.5 98.0 71
(Continued)
79
Overall (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
72 98.9 98.3 97.5 98.1 98.1 98.6 97.8 98.0 72
73 98.9 98.3 98.0 98.5 98.1 99.0 98.3 98.4 73
74 99.1 98.6 98.4 98.5 98.8 99.0 98.4 98.6 74
75 99.3 98.9 98.4 98.6 99.1 99.4 98.4 98.6 75
76 99.3 98.9 98.5 98.6 99.4 99.5 99.0 99.0 76
77 99.4 98.9 98.5 98.8 99.6 99.5 99.4 99.1 77
78 99.6 99.4 98.9 98.8 99.6 99.6 99.4 99.1 78
79 99.6 99.4 99.1 99.3 99.8 99.8 99.6 99.3 79
80 99.8 99.6 99.1 99.5 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.4 80
81 99.9 99.6 99.5 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.4 81
82 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.5 82
83 99.9 99.8 99.5 99.6 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 83
84 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 84
85 99.9 99.8 99.6 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 85
86 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 86
87 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.6 87
88 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 88
89 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 89
90 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 90
≥91 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 ≥91
80
Table E.2. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent

Conversion: Male
Cumulative Percent
≤7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ≤7
8 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 8
9 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 9
10 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 10
11 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 11
12 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.3 12
13 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 0.3 13
14 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 14
15 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 15
16 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 16
17 0.5 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 17
18 1.0 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.8 18
19 1.0 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 19
20 1.5 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.3 0.5 1.0 20
21 1.5 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.3 0.5 1.0 21
22 1.8 0.5 <0.1 <0.1 0.5 0.3 0.8 1.5 22
23 1.8 0.5 <0.1 0.3 0.8 1.3 0.8 1.5 23
24 1.8 0.8 0.3 0.3 0.8 2.0 0.8 1.5 24
25 2.0 1.0 0.3 0.5 1.5 2.0 1.3 1.5 25
26 2.3 1.0 1.3 0.5 1.5 2.5 1.3 2.0 26
27 2.3 1.5 1.3 1.5 2.0 3.5 1.3 2.3 27
28 2.3 1.5 2.3 1.5 2.5 3.5 1.5 2.3 28
29 3.3 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.5 3.8 2.0 2.8 29
30 3.3 3.0 3.0 2.3 3.0 5.3 2.0 3.8 30
31 3.8 3.0 4.8 3.8 3.0 5.3 2.5 3.8 31
32 3.8 3.8 4.8 3.8 4.5 6.8 4.5 4.8 32
33 5.5 3.8 5.8 4.5 4.5 7.0 4.5 4.8 33
34 7.0 5.3 5.8 4.5 5.5 7.0 6.3 6.0 34
35 7.0 8.8 8.5 8.0 5.5 7.5 8.0 7.3 35
36 8.5 8.8 8.5 8.0 6.5 8.8 8.0 7.3 36
37 10.5 11.0 11.0 10.0 10.0 8.8 9.8 10.0 37
38 10.5 15.8 11.0 10.0 10.0 9.5 12.5 10.0 38
39 13.0 15.8 13.5 12.3 13.5 12.8 12.5 11.3 39
40 14.5 17.8 13.5 12.3 13.5 12.8 16.3 15.5 40
41 14.5 17.8 19.0 18.0 19.3 15.0 19.0 15.5 41
(Continued)
81
Male (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
42 19.3 22.0 22.5 23.8 19.3 20.5 19.0 21.3 42
43 19.3 25.0 22.5 23.8 25.3 20.5 23.8 21.3 43
44 23.8 25.0 27.8 30.3 25.3 24.0 26.8 26.5 44
45 30.3 30.0 27.8 30.3 31.0 29.5 26.8 30.8 45
46 30.3 30.0 36.5 37.3 36.8 29.5 32.0 30.8 46
47 35.5 37.3 36.5 37.3 36.8 36.8 37.3 34.5 47
48 43.0 43.8 45.3 46.0 44.3 43.5 44.8 34.5 48
49 43.0 43.8 45.3 46.0 44.3 43.5 44.8 43.8 49
50 52.8 52.5 51.8 53.3 52.8 52.3 55.3 52.3 50
51 52.8 56.3 51.8 53.3 52.8 58.8 60.8 52.3 51
52 61.5 56.3 59.8 64.3 61.3 58.8 60.8 62.3 52
53 67.3 63.0 59.8 64.3 61.3 66.0 67.3 62.3 53
54 67.3 63.0 69.3 75.5 70.5 72.5 72.3 69.3 54
55 75.8 73.0 77.0 75.5 79.0 72.5 72.3 75.3 55
56 80.5 78.8 77.0 81.0 79.0 77.3 76.8 75.3 56
57 80.5 78.8 85.0 81.0 82.5 80.8 80.5 81.3 57
58 83.8 86.0 85.0 86.0 82.5 80.8 80.5 87.5 58
59 86.8 86.0 89.0 86.0 87.8 84.3 85.0 87.5 59
60 86.8 90.5 89.0 89.8 87.8 87.5 88.0 90.0 60
61 89.3 92.5 92.3 89.8 91.0 87.5 88.0 90.0 61
62 89.3 92.5 92.3 91.8 91.0 90.5 90.3 92.0 62
63 91.5 93.5 94.3 91.8 93.3 93.5 92.5 94.5 63
64 94.0 93.5 94.3 94.3 95.0 93.5 92.5 94.5 64
65 94.0 94.8 95.5 94.3 95.0 95.0 94.8 95.3 65
66 96.0 95.8 95.5 95.3 96.0 95.8 96.5 95.3 66
67 97.0 95.8 96.0 96.0 96.0 95.8 96.5 96.5 67
68 97.0 96.3 96.5 96.0 96.0 96.8 96.8 97.5 68
69 97.5 97.3 96.5 96.8 96.0 98.0 97.5 97.5 69
70 97.5 97.3 97.0 96.8 97.0 98.0 97.5 97.8 70
71 98.8 98.0 97.0 97.5 97.0 99.0 98.0 97.8 71
72 99.0 98.0 98.0 97.5 97.8 99.3 98.3 98.0 72
73 99.0 98.3 98.0 97.8 97.8 99.3 98.3 98.5 73
74 99.3 98.8 98.3 97.8 97.8 99.3 98.5 98.5 74
75 99.3 98.8 98.3 98.3 98.3 99.5 99.0 98.8 75
76 99.3 98.8 98.5 98.3 98.3 99.5 99.0 98.8 76
(Continued)
82
Male (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
77 99.8 98.8 98.5 98.3 98.8 99.5 99.0 99.3 77
78 99.8 99.5 98.5 98.3 98.8 99.5 99.3 99.3 78
79 99.8 99.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 99.5 99.3 99.3 79
80 99.8 99.8 98.8 98.8 98.8 99.8 99.5 99.5 80
81 99.8 99.8 99.0 99.0 99.3 99.9 99.5 99.5 81
82 99.8 99.8 99.0 99.0 99.5 99.9 99.5 99.8 82
83 99.8 99.8 99.3 99.3 99.5 99.9 99.8 99.8 83
84 99.8 99.8 99.3 99.3 99.5 99.9 99.8 99.8 84
85 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.5 99.5 99.9 99.8 99.8 85
86 99.8 99.8 99.5 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 86
87 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.8 87
88 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.5 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 88
89 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 89
90 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 90
91 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 91
92 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 92
93 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 93
≥94 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 ≥94
83
Table E.3. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent

Conversion: Female
Cumulative Percent
≤7 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 ≤7
8 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 8
9 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 9
10 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 10
11 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 11
12 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 12
13 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 13
14 0.3 <0.1 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 14
15 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 <0.1 15
16 0.3 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.3 0.3 <0.1 <0.1 16
17 0.5 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 <0.1 17
18 0.5 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.5 0.3 <0.1 18
19 0.5 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.5 0.8 0.3 <0.1 19
20 0.5 0.3 0.3 <0.1 0.5 1.3 0.8 <0.1 20
21 0.5 0.5 0.3 <0.1 0.8 1.3 1.0 <0.1 21
22 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.0 0.5 22
23 0.5 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 23
24 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.3 2.0 2.0 1.3 0.8 24
25 1.0 1.3 1.3 1.3 3.3 2.0 1.3 0.8 25
26 1.3 1.3 1.3 2.0 3.3 2.8 2.0 0.8 26
27 1.3 1.5 1.3 3.0 3.3 2.8 2.0 1.0 27
28 1.3 1.5 2.8 3.0 3.3 3.0 2.8 1.8 28
29 2.0 2.0 2.8 4.3 4.0 3.8 2.8 2.3 29
30 2.0 2.5 3.0 4.3 4.8 3.8 4.3 2.3 30
31 3.0 2.5 4.0 5.5 4.8 3.8 5.5 3.5 31
32 3.8 4.0 6.8 5.5 5.5 4.8 5.5 5.0 32
33 5.3 5.3 6.8 6.0 5.5 4.8 6.3 5.0 33
34 5.3 5.3 7.8 6.0 7.0 6.3 7.0 6.0 34
35 6.0 7.5 9.0 7.5 8.0 7.8 7.0 8.0 35
36 8.3 9.5 9.0 7.5 8.0 7.8 9.3 8.0 36
37 10.5 9.5 10.8 10.0 10.8 10.0 11.3 10.5 37
38 10.5 12.8 12.8 10.0 10.8 11.3 11.3 12.5 38
39 12.0 15.3 12.8 13.3 12.5 11.3 12.8 12.5 39
40 16.0 15.3 15.3 13.3 16.0 14.0 14.8 16.8 40
41 16.0 19.5 18.3 17.8 16.0 16.3 17.0 20.8 41
(Continued)
84
Female (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
42 20.0 19.5 18.3 24.0 20.3 20.0 17.0 23.3 42
43 25.0 22.5 21.0 24.0 24.0 20.0 20.3 23.3 43
44 31.0 26.0 27.3 29.3 24.0 25.3 25.5 27.5 44
45 31.0 26.0 27.3 29.3 30.0 31.0 25.5 30.3 45
46 35.8 32.8 32.8 34.8 30.0 31.0 30.3 30.3 46
47 42.3 40.3 38.3 34.8 35.5 35.3 36.8 36.8 47
48 42.3 40.3 43.8 43.3 40.8 42.3 36.8 43.5 48
49 47.3 47.0 43.8 43.3 40.8 42.3 43.8 43.5 49
50 52.5 54.0 49.3 52.0 50.0 51.0 53.0 51.0 50
51 59.8 54.0 54.8 52.0 50.0 59.5 59.5 56.5 51
52 59.8 61.5 54.8 60.8 58.5 59.5 59.5 56.5 52
53 65.0 67.8 64.0 60.8 65.0 68.3 66.5 64.0 53
54 72.0 67.8 69.5 69.3 65.0 73.8 72.0 70.3 54
55 72.0 73.8 69.5 69.3 72.5 73.8 72.0 76.0 55
56 74.3 73.8 77.0 77.0 78.3 78.5 77.5 76.0 56
57 81.8 79.5 84.5 81.5 78.3 83.0 82.5 80.3 57
58 85.3 85.3 84.5 81.5 84.3 83.0 82.5 84.8 58
59 85.3 85.3 88.5 87.3 84.3 86.3 86.0 84.8 59
60 88.0 90.3 92.3 87.3 88.8 88.3 89.0 87.0 60
61 89.5 92.0 92.3 89.3 90.8 88.3 91.0 90.0 61
62 89.5 92.0 93.8 89.3 90.8 91.8 91.0 90.0 62
63 90.8 93.0 94.3 92.0 93.0 92.3 92.8 92.0 63
64 92.0 93.5 94.3 92.0 93.0 92.3 94.3 94.8 64
65 94.3 93.5 95.3 94.8 94.8 94.3 94.3 96.5 65
66 94.3 94.8 96.0 94.8 96.3 96.0 95.5 96.5 66
67 95.8 96.8 96.3 96.5 96.3 96.0 96.0 97.3 67
68 96.8 96.8 96.3 96.5 97.0 96.8 96.0 97.5 68
69 96.8 97.0 96.3 97.5 98.0 97.5 96.5 97.5 69
70 97.3 97.0 96.8 97.5 98.0 97.5 97.0 97.8 70
71 98.3 97.3 96.8 98.8 98.5 98.5 97.5 97.8 71
72 98.5 98.5 97.5 99.0 98.5 99.0 97.5 97.8 72
73 98.5 98.5 97.8 99.0 99.8 99.0 98.5 98.5 73
74 99.0 98.5 97.8 99.3 99.9 99.3 98.8 98.8 74
75 99.0 98.8 98.5 99.3 99.9 99.3 98.8 98.8 75
76 99.0 98.8 98.8 99.3 99.9 99.3 99.5 98.8 76
(Continued)
85
Female (Continued)
Cumulative Percent
77 99.3 99.0 98.8 99.3 99.9 99.3 99.8 99.3 77
78 99.3 99.0 98.8 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.3 78
79 99.3 99.0 99.3 99.8 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.3 79
80 99.3 99.5 99.3 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.3 80
81 99.8 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.3 81
82 99.8 99.5 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.3 82
83 99.8 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 99.5 83
84 99.9 99.8 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 84
85 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 85
86 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 86
87 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 87
88 99.9 99.8 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 88
89 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 89
90 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.5 90
91 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 91
92 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.8 92
≥93 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 99.9 ≥93
86
Appendix F
Table F.1. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Raw Scale Scores:
Overall
T-Score
0 42 43 42 40 39 36 37 40 0
1 46 45 45 43 42 39 40 44 1
2 50 48 48 46 44 42 43 48 2
3 54 51 51 49 47 45 46 51 3
4 58 54 53 52 50 49 49 55 4
5 62 57 56 55 53 52 52 59 5
6 66 60 59 58 56 55 55 63 6
7 70 63 62 61 59 59 58 66 7
8 74 66 65 64 62 62 61 70 8
9 78 69 67 67 64 65 64 74 9
10 83 72 70 70 67 68 67 78 10
11 87 75 73 73 70 72 70 81 11
12 91 78 76 76 73 75 73 85 12
13 94 81 79 79 76 78 76 89 13
14 96 84 82 82 79 82 79 93 14
15 98 87 84 84 82 85 82 96 15
16 99 90 87 87 85 88 85 99 16
87

Males
T-Score
0 41 41 42 40 39 36 38 40 0
1 45 44 44 43 42 40 41 44 1
2 49 47 47 46 45 43 44 47 2
3 53 50 50 49 48 47 47 51 3
4 57 53 53 52 51 50 51 55 4
5 61 56 55 55 54 54 54 58 5
6 65 59 58 57 57 57 57 62 6
7 69 62 61 60 60 60 60 66 7
8 72 65 64 63 63 64 63 70 8
9 76 68 66 66 66 67 66 73 9
10 80 71 69 69 69 71 69 77 10
11 84 74 72 72 72 74 73 81 11
12 88 77 75 75 75 78 76 84 12
13 91 80 78 78 77 81 79 88 13
14 94 82 80 81 80 84 82 92 14
15 97 85 83 84 83 88 85 96 15
16 99 88 86 87 86 91 88 99 16
88

Females
T-Score
0 42 44 43 41 38 35 36 40 0
1 47 47 46 44 41 38 39 44 1
2 51 50 48 47 43 41 42 48 2
3 55 53 51 50 46 44 45 52 3
4 59 56 54 53 49 47 48 55 4
5 64 59 57 56 52 51 51 59 5
6 68 62 60 59 55 54 54 63 6
7 72 65 63 62 58 57 57 67 7
8 77 68 66 65 60 60 60 71 8
9 81 71 69 68 63 63 63 74 9
10 85 74 71 71 66 66 66 78 10
11 90 77 74 74 69 68 68 82 11
12 94 80 77 76 72 71 71 86 12
13 97 83 80 79 75 74 74 90 13
14 98 86 83 82 78 77 77 93 14
15 99 89 86 85 80 80 80 96 15
16 99 92 89 88 83 83 83 99 16
89
Table F.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Total Raw Scores

T-Score T-Score
0 36 36 35 49 63 62 63
1 36 37 36 50 63 63 64
2 37 37 36 51 64 64 64
3 37 38 37 52 64 64 65
4 38 38 38 53 65 65 65
5 38 39 38 54 66 65 66
6 39 39 39 55 66 66 66
7 40 40 39 56 67 66 67
8 40 40 40 57 67 67 68
9 41 41 40 58 68 67 68
10 41 42 41 59 68 68 69
11 42 42 42 60 69 68 69
12 42 43 42 61 69 69 70
13 43 43 43 62 70 69 70
14 43 44 43 63 70 70 71
15 44 44 44 64 71 71 72
16 45 45 44 65 72 71 72
17 45 45 45 66 72 72 73
18 46 46 46 67 73 72 73
19 46 46 46 68 73 73 74
20 47 47 47 69 74 73 74
21 47 47 47 70 74 74 75
22 48 48 48 71 75 74 75
23 48 48 48 72 76 75 76
24 49 49 49 73 76 75 76
25 50 50 49 74 77 76 77
26 50 50 50 75 77 76 78
27 51 51 51 76 78 77 78
28 51 51 51 77 78 77 79
29 52 52 52 78 79 78 80
30 52 52 52 79 79 79 80
31 53 53 53 80 80 79 81
32 53 53 53 81 80 80 81
33 54 54 54 82 81 80 82
34 54 54 55 83 81 81 82
35 55 55 55 84 82 81 83
36 56 55 56 85 82 82 83
37 56 56 56 86 83 82 84
38 57 57 57 87 83 83 84
39 57 57 57 88 84 83 85
40 58 58 58 89 84 84 85
41 58 58 59 90 85 84 86
42 59 59 59 91 85 85 86
43 59 59 60 92 86 85 87
44 60 60 60 93 87 86 87
45 61 60 61 94 87 86 88
46 61 61 61 95 88 87 88
47 62 61 62 96 88 87 89
48 62 62 63 ≥97 89 88 89
90
Appendix G
Table G.1. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score
Conversion: Overall
T-Score
-44 1 - - - - - - - -44
-43 2 - - - - - - - -43
-42 3 - - - - - - - -42
-41 4 - - - - - 1 - -41
-40 5 - - - - - 2 - -40
-39 6 - - - - - 3 1 -39
-38 7 - - - - - 4 3 -38
-37 8 1 - - - - 6 4 -37
-36 10 3 - - - 1 7 5 -36
-35 11 4 - - - 2 8 6 -35
-34 12 5 1 - - 3 9 8 -34
-33 13 7 2 - 1 5 11 9 -33
-32 14 8 4 1 3 6 12 10 -32
-31 15 9 5 3 4 8 13 11 -31
-30 16 11 7 4 6 9 14 13 -30
-29 17 12 8 6 7 10 15 14 -29
-28 19 13 9 7 9 12 17 15 -28
-27 20 15 11 9 10 13 18 16 -27
-26 21 16 12 10 12 14 19 18 -26
-25 22 17 14 12 13 16 20 19 -25
-24 23 19 15 13 15 17 21 20 -24
-23 24 20 17 15 16 19 23 21 -23
-22 25 21 18 17 18 20 24 23 -22
-21 26 22 20 18 19 21 25 24 -21
-20 27 24 21 20 20 23 26 25 -20
-19 29 25 22 21 22 24 27 26 -19
-18 30 26 24 23 23 25 29 28 -18
-17 31 28 25 24 25 27 30 29 -17
-16 32 29 27 26 26 28 31 30 -16
-15 33 30 28 27 28 29 32 31 -15
-14 34 32 30 29 29 31 33 33 -14
-13 35 33 31 30 31 32 35 34 -13
-12 36 34 33 32 32 34 34 35 -12
-11 37 36 34 33 34 35 37 36 -11
-10 39 37 36 35 35 36 38 37 -10
(Continued)
91
Table G.1. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion:
Overall (Continued)
T-Score
-9 40 38 37 36 37 38 39 39 -9
-8 41 40 38 38 38 39 41 40 -8
-7 42 41 40 39 40 40 42 41 -7
-6 43 42 41 41 41 42 43 42 -6
-5 44 44 43 43 43 43 44 44 -5
-4 45 45 44 44 44 45 46 45 -4
-3 46 46 46 46 45 46 47 46 -3
-2 48 47 47 47 47 47 48 47 -2
-1 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 49 -1
0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0
1 51 51 52 52 51 51 52 51 1
2 52 53 53 53 53 53 53 52 2
3 53 54 54 55 54 54 54 54 3
4 54 55 56 56 56 55 55 55 4
5 55 57 57 58 57 57 56 56 5
6 56 58 59 59 59 58 58 57 6
7 58 59 60 61 60 60 59 59 7
8 59 61 62 62 62 61 60 60 8
9 60 62 63 64 63 62 61 61 9
10 61 63 65 66 65 64 62 62 10
11 62 65 66 67 66 65 64 64 11
12 63 66 67 69 68 66 65 65 12
13 64 67 69 70 69 68 66 66 13
14 65 68 70 72 70 69 67 67 14
15 66 70 72 73 72 71 68 69 15
16 68 71 73 75 73 72 70 70 16
17 69 72 75 76 75 73 71 71 17
18 70 74 76 78 76 75 72 72 18
19 71 75 78 79 78 76 73 74 19
20 72 76 79 81 79 77 74 75 20
21 73 78 81 82 81 79 76 76 21
22 74 79 82 84 82 80 77 77 22
23 75 80 83 85 84 81 78 79 23
24 77 82 87 87 85 83 79 80 24
25 78 83 88 88 87 84 81 81 25
(Continued)
92
Table G.1. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score Conversion:
Overall (Continued)
T-Score
26 79 84 88 90 88 86 82 82 26
27 80 86 89 92 90 87 83 84 27
28 81 87 91 93 91 88 84 85 28
29 82 88 92 95 93 90 85 86 29
30 83 89 94 96 94 91 87 87 30
31 84 91 95 98 95 92 88 88 31
32 85 92 97 99 97 94 89 90 32
33 87 93 98 99 98 95 90 91 33
34 88 95 99 99 99 96 91 92 34
35 89 96 99 99 99 98 93 93 35
36 90 97 99 99 99 99 94 95 36
37 91 99 99 99 99 99 95 96 37
38 92 99 99 99 99 99 96 97 38
39 93 99 99 99 99 99 97 98 39
40 94 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 40
41 95 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 41
42 97 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 42
43 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 43
≥44 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ≥44
93

Conversion: Male
T-Score
-42 1 - - - - - - - -42
-41 2 - - - - - 1 - -41
-40 4 - - - - - 2 - -40
-39 5 - - - - - 3 - -39
-38 6 - - - - - 4 - -38
-37 7 - - - - - 5 1 -37
-36 8 1 - - - 1 6 3 -36
-35 9 2 - - - 2 8 4 -35
-34 10 3 - - - 3 9 5 -34
-33 12 5 - - - 5 10 7 -33
-32 13 6 1 1 1 6 11 8 -32
-31 14 8 2 3 3 8 12 9 -31
-30 15 9 3 4 5 9 14 10 -30
-29 16 10 5 6 6 10 15 12 -29
-28 17 12 6 7 8 12 16 13 -28
-27 19 13 8 9 9 13 17 14 -27
-26 20 14 9 10 11 14 19 16 -26
-25 21 16 11 12 12 16 20 17 -25
-24 22 17 13 13 14 17 21 18 -24
-23 23 19 14 15 15 18 22 20 -23
-22 24 20 16 16 17 20 23 21 -22
-21 26 21 17 18 18 21 25 22 -21
-20 27 23 19 19 20 23 26 24 -20
-19 28 24 20 21 21 24 27 25 -19
-18 29 26 22 22 23 25 28 26 -18
-17 30 27 23 24 24 27 30 28 -17
-16 31 28 25 25 26 28 31 29 -16
-15 32 30 27 27 27 29 32 30 -15
-14 34 31 28 29 29 31 33 32 -14
-13 35 32 30 30 31 32 34 33 -13
-12 36 34 31 32 32 34 36 34 -12
-11 37 35 33 33 34 35 37 35 -11
-10 38 37 34 35 35 36 38 37 -10
-9 39 38 36 36 37 38 39 38 -9
-8 41 39 37 38 38 39 40 39 -8
(Continued)
94

Conversion: Male (Continued)
T-Score
-7 42 41 39 39 40 40 42 41 -7
-6 43 42 41 41 41 42 43 42 -6
-5 44 43 42 43 43 43 44 43 -5
-4 45 45 44 44 44 45 45 45 -4
-3 46 46 45 45 46 46 47 46 -3
-2 47 48 47 47 47 47 48 47 -2
-1 49 49 48 48 49 49 49 49 -1
0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0
1 51 52 51 51 52 51 51 51 1
2 52 53 53 53 53 53 53 53 2
3 53 55 55 54 55 54 54 54 3
4 54 56 56 56 56 55 55 55 4
5 56 57 57 58 58 57 56 57 5
6 57 59 59 59 60 58 57 58 6
7 58 60 60 61 61 60 59 59 7
8 59 61 62 62 63 61 60 60 8
9 60 63 64 64 64 62 61 62 9
10 61 64 66 65 66 64 62 63 10
11 63 66 67 67 67 65 64 64 11
12 64 67 69 68 69 66 65 66 12
13 65 68 70 70 70 68 66 67 13
14 66 70 72 71 72 69 67 68 14
15 67 71 73 73 73 71 68 70 15
16 68 73 75 74 75 72 70 71 16
17 69 74 76 76 76 73 71 72 17
18 71 75 78 77 78 75 72 74 18
19 72 77 80 79 79 76 73 75 19
20 73 78 81 80 81 77 74 76 20
21 74 79 83 82 82 79 76 78 21
22 75 81 84 84 84 80 77 79 22
23 76 82 86 85 85 82 78 80 23
24 78 84 87 87 87 83 79 82 24
25 79 85 89 88 89 84 81 83 25
26 80 86 90 90 90 86 82 84 26
27 81 88 92 91 92 87 83 85 27
(Continued)
95

Conversion: Male (Continued)
T-Score
28 82 89 94 93 93 88 84 87 28
29 83 91 95 94 95 90 85 88 29
30 84 92 97 96 96 91 87 89 30
31 86 93 98 97 98 92 88 91 31
32 87 95 99 99 99 94 89 92 32
33 88 96 99 99 99 95 90 93 33
34 89 97 99 99 99 97 91 95 34
35 90 99 99 99 99 98 93 96 35
36 91 99 99 99 99 99 94 97 36
37 93 99 99 99 99 99 95 99 37
38 94 99 99 99 99 99 96 99 38
39 95 99 99 99 99 99 98 99 39
40 96 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 40
41 97 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 41
42 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 42
≥43 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 ≥43
96

Conversion: Female
T-Score
-46 1 - - - - - - - -46
-45 2 - - - - - - - -45
-44 3 - - - - - - - -44
-43 4 - - - - - - - -43
-42 5 - - - - - - 1 -42
-41 6 - - - - - 1 2 -41
-40 8 - - - - - 2 3 -40
-39 9 1 - - - - 3 4 -39
-38 10 2 - - - - 4 6 -38
-37 11 3 - - - - 5 7 -37
-36 12 4 1 - - - 6 8 -36
-35 13 5 2 - 1 1 8 9 -35
-34 14 7 3 - 2 3 9 10 -34
-33 15 8 4 - 3 4 10 11 -33
-32 16 9 6 - 5 5 11 13 -32
-31 17 10 7 1 6 7 12 14 -31
-30 18 12 9 2 8 8 14 15 -30
-29 19 13 10 4 9 10 15 16 -29
-28 20 14 11 6 10 11 16 17 -28
-27 21 15 13 7 12 12 17 18 -27
-26 22 17 14 9 13 14 19 20 -26
-25 23 18 15 10 15 15 20 21 -25
-24 25 19 17 12 16 17 21 22 -24
-23 26 21 18 13 17 18 22 23 -23
-22 27 22 20 15 19 19 23 24 -22
-21 28 23 21 17 20 21 25 25 -21
-20 29 24 22 18 22 22 26 27 -20
-19 30 26 24 20 23 24 27 28 -19
-18 31 27 25 21 25 25 28 29 -18
-17 32 28 26 23 26 26 29 30 -17
-16 33 29 28 24 27 28 31 31 -16
-15 34 31 29 26 29 29 32 32 -15
-14 35 32 31 28 30 31 33 34 -14
-13 36 33 32 29 32 32 34 35 -13
-12 37 34 33 31 33 33 36 36 -12
97

Conversion: Female (Continued)
T-Score
-11 38 36 35 32 34 35 49 49 -11
-10 39 37 36 34 36 36 50 50 -10
-9 41 38 37 35 37 37 51 51 -9
-8 42 39 39 37 39 39 53 52 -8
-7 43 41 40 38 40 40 54 54 -7
-6 44 42 42 40 42 42 55 55 -6
-5 45 43 43 42 43 43 56 56 -5
-4 46 45 44 43 44 44 57 57 -4
-3 47 46 46 45 46 46 59 58 -3
-2 48 47 47 46 47 47 60 59 -2
-1 49 48 48 48 49 49 61 61 -1
0 50 50 50 49 50 50 62 62 0
1 51 51 51 51 51 51 63 63 1
2 52 52 53 53 53 53 65 64 2
3 53 53 54 54 54 54 66 65 3
4 54 55 55 56 56 56 67 66 4
5 55 56 57 57 57 57 68 68 5
6 57 57 58 59 59 58 70 69 6
7 58 58 59 60 60 60 71 70 7
8 59 60 61 62 61 61 72 71 8
9 60 61 62 64 63 63 73 72 9
10 61 62 64 65 64 64 74 73 10
11 62 63 65 67 66 65 76 75 11
12 63 65 66 68 67 67 77 76 12
13 64 66 68 70 68 68 78 77 13
14 65 67 69 71 70 70 79 78 14
15 66 69 70 73 71 71 80 79 15
16 67 70 72 75 73 72 82 81 16
17 68 71 73 76 74 74 83 82 17
18 69 72 75 78 76 75 84 83 18
19 70 74 76 79 77 77 85 84 19
20 71 75 77 81 78 78 87 85 20
21 72 76 79 82 80 79 88 86 21
22 74 77 80 84 81 81 89 88 22
23 75 79 82 86 83 82 90 89 23
98

Conversion: Female (Continued)
T-Score
24 76 80 83 87 84 84 79 78 24
25 77 81 84 89 85 85 80 79 25
26 78 82 86 90 86 86 82 81 26
27 79 84 87 92 88 88 83 82 27
28 80 85 88 93 89 89 84 83 28
29 81 86 90 95 91 91 85 84 29
30 82 87 91 97 92 92 87 85 30
31 83 89 93 98 93 93 88 86 31
32 84 90 94 99 95 95 89 88 32
33 85 91 95 99 96 96 90 89 33
34 86 93 97 99 98 98 91 90 34
35 87 94 98 99 99 99 93 91 35
36 88 95 99 99 99 99 94 92 36
37 90 96 99 99 99 99 95 93 37
38 91 98 99 99 99 99 96 95 38
39 92 99 99 99 99 99 98 96 39
40 93 99 99 99 99 99 99 97 40
41 94 99 99 99 99 99 99 98 41
42 95 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 42
43 96 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 43
44 97 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 44
45 98 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 45
46 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 99 46
99
Appendix H: IIP-32 Items by Scale

22. I am too aggressive toward other people.
25. I try to control other people too much.
28. I manipulate other people too much to get what I want.
30. I argue with other people too much.
14. Be supportive of another person’s goals in life
16. Really care about other people’s problems
17. Put somebody else’s needs before my own
18. Feel good about another person’s happiness
10. Show affection to people
11. Get along with people
13. Experience a feeling of love for another person
15. Feel close to other people

2. Join in on groups
5. Introduce myself to new people
9. Socialize with other people
19. Ask other people to get together socially with me
4. Tell a person to stop bothering me
6. Confront people with problems that come up
7. Be assertive with another person
12. Be firm when I need to be
100

1. Say "no" to other people
8. Let other people know when I am angry
20. Be assertive without worrying about hurting the other person’s feelings
31. I let other people take advantage of me too much.
23. I try to please other people too much.
26. I put other people’s needs before my own too much.
27. I am overly generous to other people.
32. I am affected by another person’s misery too much.
3. Keep things private from other people
21. I open up to people too much.
24. I want to be noticed too much.
29. I tell personal things to other people too much.
101
Appendix I: Original IIP Items Not Used in the IIP-64 or IIP-32

65. make friends
66. express my admiration for another person
67. have someone dependent on me
68. disagree with other people
69. stick to my own point of view and not be swayed by other people
70. do what another person wants me to do
71. get along with people who have authority over me
72. compete against other people
73. make reasonable demands of other people
74. get out of a relationship that I don’t want to be in
75. take charge of my own affairs without help from other people
76. feel comfortable around other people
77. tell personal things to other people
78. believe that other people find me lovable
79. be competitive when the situation calls for it
80. be honest with other people
81. relax and enjoy myself when I go out with other people
83. become sexually aroused toward the person I really care about
84. feel that I deserve another person’s affection
85. keep up my side of a friendship
86. have loving and angry feelings toward the same person
87. maintain a working relationship with someone I don’t like
88. set goals for myself without other people’s advice
89. accept another person’s authority over me
90. feel good about winning
91. Ignore criticism from other people
92. feel like a separate person when I am in a relationship
102
93. allow myself to be ore successful than other people
94. Feel or act competent in my role as a parent
95. Respond sexually to another person
96. Accept praise from another person
97. Give credit to another person for doing something well.
98. Get over the feeling of loss after a relationship has ended
99. Give constructive criticism to another person
100. Experience sexual satisfaction
101. Be involved with another person without feeling trapped
102. Do work for my own sake instead of for someone else’s approval
103. Be close to somebody without feeling that I’m betraying somebody else
104. I am too sensitive to criticism.
105. I get irritated or annoyed too easily.
106. I want people to admire me too much.
107. I act like a child too much.
108. I am too dependent on other people.
109. I am too sensitive to rejection.
110. I feel attacked by other people too much.
111. I feel too guilty fr what I have done.
112. I criticize other people too much.
113. I avoid other people too much.
114. I am affected by another person’s moods too much.
115. I worry too much about other people’s reactions to me.
116. I am influenced too much by another person’s thoughts and feelings.
117. I compliment other people too much.
118. I worry too much about disappointing other people.
119. I lose my temper too easily.
120. I blame myself too much fo causing other people’s problems.
121. I am too easily bothered by other people making demands of me.
103
122. I am too envious and jealous of other people.
123. I worry too much about my family’s reactions to me.
124. I too easily lose a sense of myself when I am around a strong-minded person.
125. I feel too guilty for what I have failed to do.
126. I feel competitive even when the situation does not call for it.
127. I feel too anxious when I am involved with another person.
104
References
Alden, L. E., & Bieling, P. J. (1996). Interpersonal convergence of personality constructs in dynamic and
cognitive models of depression. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(1), 60-75.
Alden, L. E., & Capreol, M. J. (1993). Avoidant personality disorder: Interpersonal problems as predictors
of treatment response. Behavior Therapy, 24, 357-376.
Alden, L. E., & Phillips, N. (1990). An interpersonal analysis of social anxiety and depression. Cognitive
Therapy and Research, 14(5), 499-512.
Alden, L. E., Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1990). Construction of circumplex scales for the Inventory of
Interpersonal Problems. Journal of Personality Assessment, 55(3 & 4), 521-536.
Allport, G. W., & Odbert, H. S. (1936). Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs,
47(1, 211).
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, (4th ed.).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
Arieti, S., & Bemporad, J. R. (1980). The psychological organization of depression. American Journal of
Psychiatry, 137(11), 1360-1365.
Bales, R. F. (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Bartholomew, K., (1990). Avoidance of intimacy: An attachment perspective. Journal of Social and
Personal Relationships, 7(2), 147-178.
Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-
category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226-244.
Beck, A. T. (1983). Cognitive therapy of depression: New perspectives. In P. J. Clayton & J. E. Barrett
(Eds.), Treatment of depression: Old controversies and new approaches (pp. 265-290). New
York: Raven Press.
Beck, A. T., & Steer, R. A. (1990). Beck Anxiety Inventory: Manual. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological
Corporation.
Beck, A. T., Steer, R. A., & Brown, G. K. (1996). Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition: Manual.
San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
Bern, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 42(2), 155-162.
Benjamin, L. S. (1993). Interpersonal diagnosis and treatment of personality disorders. New York:
Guilford Press.
Blatt, S. J. (1974). Levels of object representation in anaclitic and introjective depression. Psychoanalytic
Study of the Child, 29, 107-157.
Blatt, S. J., D'Afflitti, J. P., & Quinlan, D. M. (1976). Experiences of depression in normal young adults.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85(4), 383-389.
Blatt, S. J., & Schichman, S. (1983). Two primary configurations of psychopathology. Psychoanalysis and
Contemporary Thought, 6(2), 187-254.
Bloch, S., Bond, G., Qualls, B., Yalom, I., & Zimmerman, E. (1977). Outcome in psychotherapy evaluated
by independent judges. British Journal of Psychiatry, 131, 410-414.
Bowlby, J. (1977). The making and breaking of affectional bonds: I. Aetiology and psychopathology in the
105
light of attachment theory. British Journal of Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.
Carson, R. C. (1969). Interaction concepts of personality. Chicago: Aldine.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory-Revised (NEO PI-R) professional
manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-
334.
Cronbach, L. J., & Meehl, P. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin,
52(4), 281-302.
Derogatis, L. R. (1993). Brief Symptom Inventory: Administration, scoring, and procedures manual.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Derogatis, L. R. (1994). Symptom Checklist-90-R: Administration, scoring and procedures manual.
Minneapolis, MN: National Computer Systems.
Eisen, S. V., Dill, D. L., & Grob, M. C. (1994). Reliability and validity of a brief patient-report instrument for
psychiatric outcome evaluation. Hospital and Community Psychiatry, 45(3), 242-247.
Foa, U. G. (1961). Convergences in the analysis of the structure of interpersonal behavior. Psychological
Review, 68(5), 341-353.
Foa, U. G., & Foa, E. B. (1974). Societal structures of the mind. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Freedman, M. B., Leary, T. E, Ossorio, A. G., & Coffey, H. S. (1951). The interpersonal dimension of
personality. Journal of Personality, 20, 143-161.
Gilbert, P., Allan, S., & Gross, K. (1995). Parental representations, shame, interpersonal problems, and
vulnerability to psychopathology. Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 2, 1-12.
Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Harmondsworth: Pelican.
Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Gurtman, M. B. (1997). Studying personality traits: The circular way. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.),
Circumplex models of personality and emotions (pp. 81-102). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992a). Construct validity of interpersonal personality measures: The interpersonal
circumplex as a nomological net. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63(1), 105-118.
Gurtman, M. B. (1992b). Trust, distrust, and interpersonal problems: A circumplex analysis. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 62(6), 989-1002.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In P. F. Lazarsfeld (Ed.), Mathematical
thinking in the social sciences. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Hammen, C., Marks, T., Mayol, A., & deMayo, R. (1985). Depressive self-schemas, life stress, and
vulnerability to depression. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 94(3), 308-319.
Hogan, R., Jones, W. H., & Cheek, J. M. (1985). Socioanalytic theory: An alternative to armadillo
psychology. In B. R. Schlenker (Ed.), The self in social life (pp. 175-196). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Homans, G. C. (1961). Social behavior: Its elementary forms. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Horowitz, L. M. (1979). On the cognitive structure of interpersonal problems treated in psychotherapy.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(1), 5-15.
106
Horowitz, L. M., Dryer, D. C., & Krasnoperova, E. N. (1997). The circumplex structure of interpersonal
problems. In R. Plutchik & H. R. Conte (Eds.), Circumplex Models of Personality and Emotions
(pp. 347-384). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Horowitz, L. M., & French, R. deS. (1979). Interpersonal problems of people who describe themselves as
lonely. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 47(4), 762-764.
Horowitz, L. M., French, R. deS., & Anderson, C. A. (1982). The prototype of a lonely person. In L. A.
Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research, and therapy
(pp. 183-205). New York: Wiley Interscience.
Horowitz, L, M., Rosenberg, S. E., Baer, B. A., Ureño, G., & Villaseñor, V. S. (1988). Inventory of
Interpersonal Problems: Psychometric properties and clinical applications. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical Psychology, 56(6), 885-892.
Horowitz, L. M., Rosenberg, S. E., & Bartholomew, K. (1993). Interpersonal problems, attachment styles,
and outcome in brief dynamic psychotherapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
61(4), 549-560.
Horowitz, L. M., Sampson, H., Siegelman, E. Y., Weiss, J., & Goodfriend, S. (1978). Cohesive and
dispersal behaviors: Two classes of concomitant change in psy¬chotherapy. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46(3), 556-564.
Horowitz, L. M., & Vitkus, J. (1986). The interpersonal basis of psychiatric symptoms. Clinical Psychology
Review, 6,443-469.
Horowitz, L. M., Weckler, D. A., & Doren, R. (1983). Interpersonal problems and symptoms: A cognitive
approach. In P. Kendall (Ed.), Advances in cognitive-behavioral research and therapy, 81-125.
London: Academic Press.
Hurley, J. R., & Cattell, R. B. (1962). The Procrustes program: Producing direct rotation to test a
hypothesized factor structure. Behavioral Science, 7,258-262.
John, O. P. (1990). The Big Five factor taxonomy: Dimensions of personality in the natural language and
in questionnaires. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research, (pp. 66-
100). New York: Guilford Press.
Kiesler, D. J. (1983). The 1982 Interpersonal Circle: A taxonomy for complementarity in human
transactions. Psychological Review, 90(3), 185-214.
Kiesler, D. J. (1996). Contemporary interpersonal theory and research: Personality, psychopathology, and
psychotherapy. New York: Wiley.
Krupnick, J. L., Goldberg, R. L., Weinfurt, K., & Spertus, I. (1995). A profile of social phobic patients
based on the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Society for Psychotherapy Research, Vancouver.
Lafferty, J., & Eady, P. (1974). 'The Desert Survival Problem. Plymouth, MI: Experimental Learning
Methods.
LaForge, R., & Suczek, R. F. (1955). The interpersonal dimension of personality: III. An interpersonal
check list. Journal of Personality, 24, 94-112.
Leary, T. F. (1957). Interpersonal diagnosis of personality: A functional theory and methodology for
personality evaluation. New York: Ronald Press.
Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1963). An interpersonal behavior circle. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 67(1), 68-75.
Lorr, M., & McNair, D. M. (1965). Expansion of the interpersonal behavior circle. Journal of Personality
107
and Social Psychology, 2(6), 823-830.
Lorr, M., & Youniss, R. (1986). Interpersonal Style Inventory (ISI) manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Luthar, S. S., & Blatt, S. J. (1993). Dependent and self-critical depressive experiences among inner-city
adolescents. Journal of Personality, 61(3), 365-386.
Marwell, G., & Hage, J. (1970). The organization of role-relationships: A systematic description. American
Sociological Review, 35,884-900.
Matano, R. A., & Locke, K. D. (1995). Personality disorder scales as predictors of inter-personal problems
of alchoholics. Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(1), 62-67.
McLemore, C. W., & Brokaw, D. W. (1987). Personality disorders as dysfunctional interpersonal behavior.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 1(3), 270-285
Morey, L. C., Waugh, M. H., & Blashfield, R. K. (1985). MMPI scales for DSM—III personality disorders:
Their derivation and correlates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(3), 245-251.
Pincus, A. L., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Interpersonal problems and conceptions of personality disorders.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 4(4), 342-352.
Robins, C. J., Block, P., Peselow, E. D., & Klein, R. (1986). Relationship of sociotropic and autonomous
personality styles to specific symptoms in depressed patients. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, New York.
Rosenberg, S., & Sedlak, A. (1971). Structural representations of implicit personality theory. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, (Vol. 6). New York: Academic
Press.
Soldz, S., Budman, S. Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1993). Representation of personality disorders in
circumplex and five-factor space: Explorations with a clinical sample. Psychological Assessment,
5(1), 41-52.
Soldz, S., Budman, S. Demby, A., & Merry, J. (1995). A short form of the Inventory of Interpersonal
Problems circumplex scales. Assessment, 2(1), 53-63.
Strack, S. (1987). Development and validation of an adjective check list to assess the Millon personality
types in a normal population. Journal of Personality Assessment, 51(4), 572-587.
Strauss, B., & Hess, H. (1993). Interpersonale Probleme, interpersonale Orientierung and
Behandlungserfolg nach stationarer Gruppenpsychotherapie. Psychotherapie, Psychosomatik,
medizinische Psychologie, 43,82-92.
Sullivan, H. S. (1953). The interpersonal theory of psychiatry. New York: Norton.
Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley. Triandis, H. C.
(1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. (1999). Current population survey, March 1999 on CD-ROM [machine-
readable data file]. Washington, DC: U.S. Bureau of the Census (Producer/ Distributor).
Weckler, D. (1981). Personality, small group process and performance: Assertive behavior and gender in
cooperative problem solving. Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
Weissman, M. M., & Bothwell, S. (1976). Assessment of social adjustment by patient self-report. Archives
of General Psychiatry, 33(9), 1111-1115.
Wiggins, J. S. (1980). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior. In L. Wheeler (Ed.). Review of
personality and social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 265-293). Beverly Hills: Sage.
108
Wiggins, J. S. (1982). Circumplex models of interpersonal behavior in clinical psychology. In P. C. Kendall
& J. N. Butcher (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in clinical psychology (pp. 183-221). New
York: Wiley.
Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Agency and communion as conceptual coordinates for the understanding and
measurement of interpersonal behavior. In W. Grove & D. Cicchetti (Eds.). Thinking clearly about
psychology: Essays in honor of Paul E. Meehl (Vol. 2, pp. 89-113). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota Press.
Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales: Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources.
Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1985). The interpersonal circle: A structural model for the integration of
personality research. In R. Hogan & W. H. Jones (Eds.), Perspectives in personality: A research
annual (Vol. 1, pp. 1-47). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Wiggins, J. S., & Broughton, R. (1991). A geometric taxonomy of personality scales. European Journal of
Personality, 5, 343-365.
Wiggins, J. S., Phillips, N., & Trapnell, P. (1989). Circular reasoning about interpersonal behavior:
Evidence concerning some untested assumptions underlying diagnostic classification. Journal of
Wiggins, J. S., & Pincus, A. L. (1994). Personality structure and the structure of personality disorders. In
P. T. Costa, Jr. & T. A. Widiger (Eds.), Personality disorders and the five-factor model of
personality (pp. 73-93). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Wiggins, J. S., Steiger, J. H., & Gaelick, L. (1981). Evaluating circumplexity in personality data.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 16, 263-289.
Wish, M., Deutsch, M., & Kaplan, S. J. (1976). Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations. Journal of
Zuroff, D. C., & Mongrain, M. (1987). Dependency and self-criticism: Vulnerability factors for depressive
affective states. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(1), 14-22.
109
110
Appendix: Sample Inventory of Interpersonal Problems
Inventory of Interpersonal Problems
Leonard M. Horowitz
Lynn E. Alden
Jerry S. Wiggins
Aaron L. Pincus
Published by Mind Garden, Inc.

www.mindgarden.com
Note to Masters and Doctoral Students:

You may insert the following SAMPLE copy of the instrument
in your IRB proposal if necessary.
You may NOT insert a complete copy of the instrument
in your Thesis or Dissertation!!!
See Mind Garden Sample Item letter for details.
Copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins and Aaron L. Pincus.
All rights reserved.
It is your legal responsibility to compensate the copyright holder of this work for any reproduction
in any medium. If you need to reproduce the Inventory of Interpersonal Problems, please contact
Mind Garden www.mindgarden.com. Mind Garden is a registered trademark of Mind Garden, Inc.
111
IIP-64
Name: Date:
Gender: ! Male ! Female
People have reported having the following problems in relating to other people. Please read the list
below, and for each item, consider whether it has been a problem for you with respect to any
significant person in your life. Then, using the following choices, circle the response that describes
how distressing that problem has been for you.
Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
0 1 2 3 4
The following are things you find hard to do with other people.
Moderately
Quite a bit
Extremely
A little bit
Not at all
It is hard for me to:
1 Trust other people 0 1 2 3 4

2 Say "no" to other people 0 1 2 3 4
3 Join in on groups 0 1 2 3 4
4 Keep things private from other people 0 1 2 3 4
5 Let other people know what I want 0 1 2 3 4
6 Tell a person to stop bothering me 0 1 2 3 4
7 Introduce myself to new people 0 1 2 3 4
8 Confront people with problems that come up 0 1 2 3 4
9 Be assertive with another person 0 1 2 3 4
10 Let other people know when I am angry 0 1 2 3 4
11 Make a long-term commitment to another person 0 1 2 3 4
12 Be another person's boss 0 1 2 3 4
13 Be aggressive toward other people when the situation calls for it 0 1 2 3 4
14 Socialize with other people 0 1 2 3 4
15 Show affection to people 0 1 2 3 4
16 Get along with people 0 1 2 3 4
17 Understand another person's point of view 0 1 2 3 4
18 Express my feelings to other people directly 0 1 2 3 4
19 Be firm when I need to be 0 1 2 3 4
20 Experience a feeling of love for another person 0 1 2 3 4
Copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins and Aaron L. Pincus. All rights reserved. Published
by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com
1
IIP-64
0 1 2 3 4
Moderately
Quite a bit
Extremely
A little bit
Not at all
21 Set limits on other people 0 1 2 3 4

22 Be supportive of another person's goals in life 0 1 2 3 4
23 Feel close to other people 0 1 2 3 4
24 Really care about other people's problems 0 1 2 3 4
25 Argue with another person 0 1 2 3 4
26 Spend time alone 0 1 2 3 4
27 Give a gift to another person 0 1 2 3 4
28 Let myself feel angry at somebody I like 0 1 2 3 4
29 Put somebody else's needs before my own 0 1 2 3 4
30 Stay out of other people's business 0 1 2 3 4
31 Take instructions from people who have authority over me 0 1 2 3 4
32 Feel good about another person's happiness 0 1 2 3 4
33 Ask other people to get together socially with me 0 1 2 3 4
34 Feel angry at other people 0 1 2 3 4
35 Open up and tell my feelings to another person 0 1 2 3 4
36 Forgive another person after I’ve been angry 0 1 2 3 4
37 Attend to my own welfare when somebody else is needy 0 1 2 3 4
38 Be assertive without worrying about hurting the other person's feelings 0 1 2 3 4
39 Be self-confident when I am with other people 0 1 2 3 4
(Continued on next page.)
2
IIP-64
0 1 2 3 4
Moderately
Quite a bit
Extremely
A little bit
Not at all
The following are things that you do too much.
40 I fight with other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4

41 I feel too responsible for solving other people's problems. 0 1 2 3 4
42 I am too easily persuaded by other people. 0 1 2 3 4
43 I open up to people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
44 I am too independent. 0 1 2 3 4
45 I am too aggressive toward other people. 0 1 2 3 4
46 I try to please other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
47 I clown around too much. 0 1 2 3 4
48 I want to be noticed too much. 0 1 2 3 4
49 I trust other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
50 I try to control other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
51 I put other people's needs before my own too much. 0 1 2 3 4
52 I try to change other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
53 I am too gullible. 0 1 2 3 4
54 I am overly generous to other people. 0 1 2 3 4
55 I am too afraid of other people. 0 1 2 3 4
56 I am too suspicious of other people. 0 1 2 3 4
57 I manipulate other people too much to get what I want. 0 1 2 3 4
58 I tell personal things to other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
59 I argue with other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
60 I keep other people at a distance too much. 0 1 2 3 4
61 I let other people take advantage of me too much. 0 1 2 3 4
62 I feel embarrassed in front of other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
63 I am affected by another person's misery too much. 0 1 2 3 4
64 I want to get revenge against people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
3
IIP-32
Name:
Date:
Gender: ! Male ! Female
People have reported having the following problems in relating to other people. Please read
the list below, and for each item, consider whether it has been a problem for you with respect
to any significant person in your life. Then, using the following choices, circle the response that
describes how distressing that problem has been for you.
0 1 2 3 4
The following are things you find hard to do with other people.
Moderately
Quite a bit
Extremely
A little bit
Not at all
1 Say "no" to other people 0 1 2 3 4
2 Join in on groups 0 1 2 3 4
3 Keep things private from other people 0 1 2 3 4
4 Tell a person to stop bothering me 0 1 2 3 4
5 Introduce myself to new people 0 1 2 3 4
6 Confront people with problems that come up 0 1 2 3 4
7 Be assertive with another person 0 1 2 3 4
8 Let other people know when I am angry 0 1 2 3 4
9 Socialize with other people 0 1 2 3 4
10 Show affection to people 0 1 2 3 4
11 Get along with people 0 1 2 3 4
12 Be firm when I need to be 0 1 2 3 4
4
13 Experience a feeling of love for another person 0 1 2 3 4

Be supportive of another person's goals in life
14 0 1 2 3 4
15 Feel close to other people 0 1 2 3 4
16 Really care about other people's problems 0 1 2 3 4
17 Put somebody else's needs before my own 0 1 2 3 4
18 Feel good about another person's happiness 0 1 2 3 4
19 Ask other people to get together socially with me 0 1 2 3 4

Be assertive without worrying about hurting the other person's
20 feelings 0 1 2 3 4
5
IIP-32
0 1 2 3 4
Moderately
Quite a bit
Extremely
A little bit
Not at all
The following are things that you do too much.
I open up to people too much.

21 0 1 2 3 4
22 I am too aggressive toward other people. 0 1 2 3 4
23 I try to please other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
24 I want to be noticed too much. 0 1 2 3 4
25 I try to control other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
26 I put other people's needs before my own too much. 0 1 2 3 4
27 I am overly generous to other people. 0 1 2 3 4
28 I manipulate other people too much to get what I want. 0 1 2 3 4
29 I tell personal things to other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
30 I argue with other people too much. 0 1 2 3 4
31 I let other people take advantage of me too much. 0 1 2 3 4
32 I am affected by another person's misery too much. 0 1 2 3 4
6
Sample Item Letter
www.mindgarden.com
To whom it may concern,
This letter is to grant permission for the above named person to use the following
copyright material for his/her thesis or dissertation research;
Instrument:
Authors:
Copyright:
Three sample items from this instrument may be reproduced for inclusion in a
proposal, thesis, or dissertation.
The entire instrument may not be included or reproduced at any time in any other
published material.
1
Supplement. Means and Standard Deviations of IIP-32 Scale

Scores: Males, Females and Overall
Males Females Overall
Scale Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
1. Domineering/Controlling 2.3 2.5 1.8 2.5 2.0 2.5
2. Vindictive/Self-Centered 3.0 3.3 2.0 3.3 2.7 3.3
3. Cold/Distant 3.0 3.7 2.7 3.3 2.7 3.7
4. Socially Inhibited 3.3 3.7 3.0 3.3 3.3 3.3
5. Nonassertive 3.7 3.3 4.3 3.7 4.0 3.3
6. Overly Accommodating 4.0 3.0 4.8 3.3 4.3 3.0
7. Self-Sacrificing 3.8 3.3 4.7 3.3 4.3 3.3
8. Intrusive/Needy 2.8 2.8 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.6
Total Raw Score 25.5 19 26 17.5 25.5 18.5
Copyright © 2003 by Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins and Aaron L. Pincus. All rights
reserved. Published by Mind Garden, Inc. www.mindgarden.com

Document 561543

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Document 561543

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

For use by Nabeel Salman only. Received from Mind Garden, Inc.

on December 31, 2017

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems

Published by Mind Garden, Inc.

Leonard M. Horowitz, Lynn E. Alden, Jerry S. Wiggins, Aaron L. Pincus

Administration and Scoring

Scoring the IIP-64

Standard T-Score Interpretation:

Note: Individual-Based T-Scores should be

1: Domineering/Controlling; 2: Vindictive/Self-Centered; 3: Cold/Distant; 4: Socially Inhibited; 5:

Obtaining Raw Scores

Development of the Instrument

Selection of Items and Basic Format

Standardization and Norming

Standardization of Raw Scale Scores

Reliability and Validity

Test-Retest Reliability: Standard T-Scores for the IIP-64 and IIP-32

Reliability of Individual-Based (Ipsatized) T-Scores for the IIP-64

Table 5.5. Correlation of Standard IIP-64 with Standard IIP-32 for

Global Measures of Psychological Symptoms

Interpersonal Problems and Self-Report of General Functioning

Circumplex Factor Structure

Scale Score Interpretation and Clinical Applications of the IIP

Review of Previous Clinical Research on the IIP (Individual-Based T-

Avoidant Personality Disorder

Depression and Interpersonal Problems

Other CELL IV CELL III

Figure 6.6. Percentage of Problems of Each Subscale That Were Considered

Appendix A: IIP-64 Items by Scale

Previous Scale Name: Domineering (PA)

Previous Scale Name: Vindictive (BC)

Previous Scale Name: Cold (DE)

Scale 4: Socially Inhibited

Previous Scale Name: Socially Avoidant (FG)

Previous Scale Name: Nonassertive (HI)

Previous Scale Name: Exploitable (JK)

Previous Scale Name: Overly Nurturant (LM)

Previous Scale Name: Intrusive (NO)

Table B.2. IIP-64 Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scale Scores:

Table B.3. IIP-64 Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scale Scores:

Table B.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of Raw Scores: Total Score

Table C.2. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-

Table C.3. T-Score to Cumulative Percent Conversion: Standard T-

Table D.2. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table D.3. IIP-64 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table E.2. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent

Table E.3. IIP-64 Individual-Based T-Score to Cumulative Percent

Table F.2. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Raw Scale Scores:

Table F.3. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Raw Scale Scores:

Table F.4. Standard T-Score Equivalents of IIP-32 Total Raw Scores

Table G.2. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table G.2. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table G.2. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table G.3. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table G.3. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Table G.3. IIP-32 Difference Score to Individual-Based T-Score

Appendix H: IIP-32 Items by Scale

Scale 4: Socially Inhibited

12. Be firm when I need to be

Scale 6: Overly Accommodating

Appendix I: Original IIP Items Not Used in the IIP-64 or IIP-32

Appendix: Sample Inventory of Interpersonal Problems

Inventory of Interpersonal Problems

Published by Mind Garden, Inc.