This study is designed to test the equivalency of the paper format of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPIR) with a computerized (online) version. It is hypothesized that the psychometric properties of the PPI-R would continue to hold when the administration format was changed from paper to computer. A total of 124 respondents participate in the study. Participant scores on all 15 of the PPI-R scales are found to be similar, as are all internal scale consistencies. Test-retest reliabilities for scores on the PPI-R Overall Total, Factors, and Content scales range from r = .76 (Coldheartedness) to r = .93 (PPI-R Total). The computerized format also allows for both more efficient scoring (i.e., no hand coding) and more complete responding (i.e., less missing data).
Allard, G., Butler, J., Shea, M. T., & Faust, D. (1995). Errors in hand scoring objective personality tests: The case of the Personality Diagnostic Questionnaire-Revised (PDQ-R). Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 26, 304-308.
2.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger, R. F. (2003). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350.
3.
Butcher, J. N. (2003). Computerized psychological assessment. In J. R. Graham & J. A. Naglieri (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Assessment psychology (pp. 141-163). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
4.
Butcher, J. N., Perry, J. N., & Atlis, M. M. (2000). Validity and utility of computer-based test interpretation. Psychological Assessment, 12, 6-18.
5.
Cash, T. F., Mikulka, P. J., & Brown, T. A. (1989). Validity of Millon’s computerized interpretation system for the MCMI: Comment on Moreland and Onstad. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 57, 311-312.
6.
Chapman, A. L., Gremore, T. M., & Farmer, R. F. (2003). Psychometric analysis of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) with female inmates. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80, 165-173.
7.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309-319.
8.
Edens, J. F., Buffington, J. K., & Tomicic, T. L. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between psychopathic traits and malingering on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7, 281-296.
9.
Edens, J. F., Buffington, J. K., Tomicic, T. L., & Riley, B. D. (2001). Effects of positive impression management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Law & Human Behavior, 25, 235-256.
10.
Finger, M. S., & Ones, D. S. (1999). Psychometric equivalence of the computer and booklet forms of the MMPI: A meta-analysis. Psychological Assessment, 11, 58-66.
11.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised manual. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
12.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: A clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 23, 25-54.
13.
Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., & Hemphill, J. F. (1989). Scoring pamphlet for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: SRP-II. Unpublished manuscript.
14.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158.
15.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (2005). Psychological Assessment Inventory-Revised (PPI-R). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
16.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in non criminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488-524.
17.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). PPI-R professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
18.
Merten, T., & Ruch, W. (1996). A comparison of computerized and conventional administration of the German versions of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire and the Carroll Rating Scale for Depression. Personality and Individual Differences, 20, 281-291.
19.
Merten, T., & Siebert, K. (1997). A comparison of computerized and conventional administration of the EPQ-R and the CRS: Further data on the Merten and Ruch (1996) study. Personality and Individual Differences, 22, 283-286.
20.
Moreland, K. L., & Onstad, J. A. (1987). Validity of Millon’s computerized interpretation system for the MCMI: A controlled study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 113-114.
21.
Sandoval, A. R., Hancock, D., Poythress, N., Edens, J. D., & Lilienfeld, S. (2000). Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory in a correctional sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 74, 262-281.
