International Technical Brief for the
®
CPI 260 ASSESSMENT
Nancy A. Schaubhut
Richard C. Thompson
Michael L. Morris
800-624-1765 | www.cpp.com
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved. California Psychological Inventory, CPI, CPI 260,
SkillsOne, and the CPI 260 and CPP logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of CPP, Inc., in the United States and other countries.
CON T EN TS
Conclusion 40
References 41
Introduction 1
Adaptation Process 1
Data Collection Process 1
Sample Description 2
Mean Scores 2
Measurement Properties 11
Reliability 11
Validity 13
Factor Analysis 13
Factor Congruence 20
Correlations with Other Measures 23
Organizational Level 35
Appendix A: Danish Sample 43
Appendix B: Dutch Sample 52
Appendix C: European Spanish Sample 61
Appendix D: French Sample 70
Appendix E: German Sample 79
Appendix F: Swedish Sample 88
Appendix G: Simplified Chinese Sample 97
Appendix H: Traditional Chinese Sample 108
Appendix I: Latin American Spanish Sample 119
I N TR OD U CTION
The California Psychological Inventory™ (CPI™) assessment
has a long history of use, with over 50 years of extensive
empirical research (Gough & Bradley, 2005). The CPI 260®
assessment is the most recent version of the CPI assessment to
be commercially available. It is meant “to give a true-to-life
description of the respondent, in clear, everyday language, in
formats that can help the client to achieve a better understanding of self” (Gough & Bradley, 2005, p. 1). Those interested in CPI assessments for use in the United States are
encouraged to review the respective manuals and support
documents (Devine, 2005; Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002,
2005; Manoogian, 2002/2005, 2006; McAllister, 1996;
Megargee, 1972; Meyer & Davis, 1992).
This technical brief provides an overview of the translation
and adaptation process for the CPI 260 assessment into the
following nine languages:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Danish
Dutch
European Spanish
French
German
Swedish
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Latin American Spanish
This supplement is written to enable ease of use for practitioners who use the CPI 260 tool in different countries and
for those who use it in mixed-culture groups, as well as for
academics and researchers interested in the measurement
properties of the assessment in other cultures. To that end,
the analysis results are presented in two ways. First, within the
body of the text they are combined in a format that allows for
cross-cultural comparison as well as to demonstrate the
resilience of the CPI 260 assessment when translated or
adapted. Second, they are presented in individual appendixes
structured by translated language.
ADAPTAT ION PROCESS
CPP follows the International Testing Commission (ITC)
guidelines for adaptations of its assessment products (ITC,
2000). For the CPI 260 translations, the process included an
initial translation of the assessment content by a professional
translation agency, along with an internal review by the
agency. Next, in-country experts on the CPI assessment who
were also native language speakers reviewed the translation.
Differences between the translator and the reviewer were then
reconciled. The reconciled adaptations of the assessment were
used for the research conducted and reported here. This brief
serves to meet the ITC recommendation for documentation.
DATA COL L ECT ION PROCESS
Detailed in this brief are the psychometric properties of the
translations or adaptations of the CPI 260 assessment in these
nine languages.
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this technical document in
order to show patterns of differences. The technical document shows how each of the CPI 260 scales functions psychometrically in each language. The nine samples described
here were used to create the standardization formulas for each
of the respective languages and are reflected in commercial
reports. Note that this results in means of 50 and standard
deviations of 10 for the samples and therefore are not
reported here. Raw scores and U.S. standard scores are noted
in the analyses that follow.
Data were collected through a third-party market research
company hired to recruit participants to complete the CPI
260 assessment in each language as well as demographic and
validity items. The data were collected in two waves. The first
wave collected data on the CPI 260 assessment as well as
demographic information. The second wave involved a random subset of participants from the first wave, and these participants completed the Adjective Check List. The targeted
samples were selected to reflect the working population
within each culture because employed adults are the primary
users of the assessment. No personally identifying information was collected, and respondents were paid for their participation. As a result of the desire to represent employed adults
in each of the target cultures, to be included in the individual
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
1
TABLE 1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE
European
Spanish
Invalidity
Indicator
Danish
Dutch
French
German
Swedish
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
5
4
2
1.0
0.8
0.4
8
5
3
1.7
1.1
0.6
11
17
12
2.6
3.9
2.8
5
18
8
1.0
3.7
1.6
9
13
6
1.7
2.5
1.2
1
12
6
0.2
2.5
1.2
Simplified
Chinese
n
%
5 1.7
43 15.0
14 4.9
Traditional
Chinese
n
9
111
70
Latin
American
Spanish
%
n
%
1.4
17.1
10.8
18
7
5
6.9
2.7
1.9
Note: Danish N = 499, Dutch N = 469, European Spanish N = 431, French N = 490, German N = 518, Swedish N = 481, Simplified Chinese N = 286,
Traditional Chinese N = 649, Latin American Spanish N = 261.
country samples, respondents had to be employed part- or
full-time, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated that
their country of origin and country of residence is one in
which the language of the research assessment is widely spoken. Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more)
were removed from the samples. In addition, each sample has
an approximately equal number of men and women. The
rates of invalidity indicators (fake good, fake bad, and random)
in each sample are within the normal ranges for most languages. The number and percentage of cases flagged with
each validity indicator are shown in Table 1 for each sample.
The rate of each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™
Manual for numerous male and female samples, some of
which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The
rate of fake good cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 8.5% for a
sample of police officer applicants, and for men ranges from
0% for several samples to 7.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants. The rate of fake bad cases for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric
patients, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples to
4.9% for a sample of psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of
random cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 3.8% for a sample of high school students, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002). The
languages that had invalidity indicators outside the normal
ranges are Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese.
Because of the larger percentage of random and fake bad
respondents in the two Chinese samples, it is necessary to
examine these samples without such cases. Therefore, most
of the following analyses include both the Simplified and
Traditional Chinese samples, as well as a subsample of each
that does not include any cases flagged with an invalidity
indicator.
SAM PL E DESC RI PT ION
The demographic makeup of each sample is described in
Table 2. The table shows the number and percentage of individuals by gender, their full- and part-time employment status, their organizational level, whether they are satisfied with
their job, and their self-reported industry in which they are
employed. Also provided are individuals’ average age and
average number of years reported working in the current
occupation for each sample. The demographic information
reported here for the two Chinese samples includes cases
flagged with invalidity indicators.
MEAN S CORES
The CPI 260 assessment comprises three sets of scales. The
main focus of the CPI assessment is on the measurement of
what Gough (1957, 1987; Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002,
2005) calls folk concepts, such as dominance, self-control, and
sociability. Folk concepts can be found anywhere people
interact. Cross-cultural research has been conducted on the
CPI assessment in numerous languages and cultures (Ahmad,
1986; Ahmad, Haque, & Anila, 1994; Albu & Pitariu, 1999;
Alfano & Traina, 1972; Armentrout, 1977; Banissoni, 1967;
Blane & Yamamoto, 1970; Brengelmann, 1959; Casas,
Segura, Camacho, & Mojarro, 1998; Cook, Young, Taylor,
O’Shea, Chitashvili, Lepeska, Choumentauskas, Ventskovsky, Hermochova, & Uhler, 1998). CPI manuals or technical
documents are available in the following languages: German
(Weinert, 1998), Hungarian (Olah, 1985), Mandarin Chi-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
2
TABLE 2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment Status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and
technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and
sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and
communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
European
Spanish
Danish
Dutch
French
German
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
248
249
50
50
238
231
51
49
221
210
51
49
242
247
49
50
258
260
50
50
238
243
49
51
433
66
87
13
306
163
65
35
375
56
87
13
433
57
88
12
412
106
80
20
377
104
78
22
59
203
79
91
54
11
2
487
12
41
16
18
11
2
<1
98
20
337
36
48
17
9
2
436
4
72
8
10
4
2
<1
94
33
190
127
38
24
17
2
372
8
44
30
9
6
4
<1
87
78
246
34
80
31
17
4
414
16
50
7
16
6
3
1
85
43
311
69
40
19
32
4
465
8
60
13
8
4
6
1
91
23
291
115
33
8
10
1
442
5
60
24
7
2
2
<1
92
7
0
15
57
14
29
18
1
0
3
11
3
6
4
1
0
12
23
17
33
24
<1
0
3
5
4
7
4
3
2
29
15
15
33
19
1
<1
7
3
3
8
4
8
1
14
44
18
51
27
2
<1
3
9
4
10
6
2
0
19
55
17
47
32
<1
0
4
11
3
9
6
5
0
17
52
9
25
14
1
0
4
11
2
5
3
28
88
6
18
42
121
9
26
67
16
16
4
34
63
7
13
25
56
5
11
52
76
11
16
36
34
7
7
24
16
5
3
27
36
6
8
21
9
4
2
22
22
4
4
19
26
4
5
26
146
5
29
14
144
3
31
22
145
5
34
13
186
3
38
24
195
5
38
35
149
7
31
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
45.6 11.0
14.7 11.7
45.0 11.1
13.0 11.0
38.8 9.6
12.9 10.4
10.7 11.3
12.8 11.0
Swedish
43.2 10.9
11.8 10.1
43.1 10.6
12.5 10.8
(cont’d)
nese (Yang & Gong, 1993), Polish (Kottas & Markowska,
1966), Romanian (Pitariu, 1995), Russian (Tarabrina &
Grafinina, 1998), Spanish (Gough & Seisdedos, 1992), Urdu
(Ahmad, 1986), and U.K. English (OPP, 2005). The CPI
260 assessment also contains three vector scales assessing
individuals’ orientations toward the interpersonal world,
societal values, and the self (Gough & Bradley, 2005). The
final group is special purpose scales that typically measure
various work-related dispositions.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
3
TABLE 2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Simplified
Chinese
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment Status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and
technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and
sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and
communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
Traditional
Chinese
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Latin
American
Spanish
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
146
140
51
49
308
341
47
53
107
118
48
52
210
249
46
54
110
151
42
58
268
18
94
6
598
51
92
8
210
15
93
7
421
38
92
8
178
83
68
32
20
110
83
42
25
6
0
235
7
38
29
15
9
2
0
82
96
244
151
94
41
22
1
524
15
38
23
14
6
3
<1
81
15
92
66
29
20
3
0
185
7
41
29
13
9
1
0
82
63
187
99
63
27
19
1
373
14
41
22
14
6
4
<1
81
24
65
58
46
41
24
3
234
9
25
22
18
16
9
1
90
3
0
17
56
16
17
16
1
0
6
20
6
6
6
5
3
41
81
43
65
55
1
<1
6
12
7
10
8
2
0
11
42
12
14
13
1
0
5
19
5
6
6
3
2
32
56
28
43
43
1
<1
7
12
6
9
9
3
0
19
13
15
30
19
1
0
7
5
6
11
7
28
6
10
2
70
33
11
5
24
5
11
2
53
23
12
5
50
5
19
2
22
22
8
8
26
42
4
6
20
14
9
6
16
31
3
7
6
19
2
7
22
59
8
21
44
141
7
22
21
46
9
20
30
99
7
22
16
64
6
25
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
29.5
6.3
7.1
6.1
30.6
7.2
7.3
6.2
29.9
6.3
7.2
6.0
31.1
7.2
7.6
6.4
34.6 10.5
8.7 7.9
Note: Danish N = 499, Dutch N = 469, European Spanish N = 431, French N = 490, German N = 518, Swedish N = 481, Simplified Chinese N = 286,
Traditional Chinese N = 649, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459, Latin American Spanish N = 261.
Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
4
CPI 260
5. ®CPI
260 ®RAW
SCORE MEANS
RAW
AND
SCORE
STANDARD
MEANS DEVIATIONS
TABLE 3. U.S.TABLE
SCALE
STANDARDIZED
BY GENDER
BYFOR
LANGUAGE
INDIAN AND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Danish
Dutch
European
Spanish
French
German
Swedish
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
18.93
13.53
14.59
17.63
13.36
14.36
14.07
16.00
20.22
16.49
14.90
18.68
15.07
13.05
18.95
6.74
4.20
4.19
4.41
4.02
4.12
3.26
3.28
3.86
4.64
4.02
1.92
3.62
3.72
3.65
19.35
12.04
13.84
17.42
12.77
14.31
13.07
15.21
20.20
17.68
15.33
18.56
15.43
11.46
19.12
6.27
4.38
4.25
3.99
3.70
3.96
3.36
3.15
3.63
4.11
3.94
1.84
3.59
3.64
3.77
18.24
13.30
14.05
17.34
12.84
13.45
13.59
15.31
20.02
14.92
13.66
18.09
13.21
10.56
19.60
6.46
4.10
4.47
3.89
3.60
3.97
3.34
3.29
4.33
4.30
4.24
2.56
3.58
3.84
4.24
17.29
11.69
13.21
16.29
11.61
12.20
12.84
14.40
19.24
16.91
13.81
17.45
12.87
9.91
18.33
6.56
4.23
4.26
4.13
3.85
4.28
3.44
3.17
4.32
4.54
4.18
2.15
3.71
3.39
3.88
17.95
11.20
13.27
16.32
12.34
13.24
11.90
14.15
18.27
16.59
14.33
18.64
13.76
9.70
18.48
6.50
3.84
4.10
3.96
3.96
4.25
3.26
3.35
4.37
4.99
4.49
2.30
3.97
3.34
4.20
19.83
13.77
14.29
18.48
13.67
14.36
13.37
14.88
19.33
14.54
12.34
17.96
13.79
11.87
18.35
6.89
4.34
4.25
4.24
4.21
4.38
3.37
3.36
3.93
4.71
4.24
2.18
3.81
3.76
3.79
15.46
3.83
14.30
3.90
13.91
3.69
12.83
3.59
12.79
3.49
14.51
3.90
19.64
13.34
9.55
12.71
16.12
16.46
15.27
24.32
19.18
17.81
4.40
2.91
3.66
3.12
4.27
3.27
4.20
6.46
4.36
2.96
18.68
12.39
9.67
13.25
14.68
16.28
14.63
23.86
18.56
18.30
4.45
2.70
3.51
3.53
4.15
3.49
4.25
6.10
4.47
2.89
18.00
12.12
7.87
11.50
13.13
14.67
14.38
22.89
16.32
16.80
4.31
3.14
3.58
2.79
3.91
3.64
3.93
6.71
4.39
3.20
17.33
11.56
8.70
12.75
12.76
14.13
14.11
21.58
16.42
16.87
4.47
2.80
3.54
3.40
3.88
3.47
4.11
6.58
4.36
3.05
18.14
12.39
7.90
13.04
12.27
14.72
14.02
22.10
15.88
17.78
4.59
2.95
3.23
3.40
3.76
3.50
3.68
6.67
4.49
3.17
18.70
12.23
9.25
12.99
14.74
15.65
14.90
23.62
17.38
17.09
4.53
2.93
3.92
3.57
3.97
3.39
4.26
6.55
4.44
2.90
11.04
12.67
17.87
4.58
3.02
5.67
11.86
12.28
17.23
3.99
3.12
5.29
10.26
13.36
14.28
4.25
3.10
5.54
11.83
12.11
14.38
4.28
3.03
5.19
12.39
11.96
14.53
4.47
3.34
5.01
9.65
12.15
16.99
4.62
3.01
5.62
(cont’d)
The U.S. CPI 260 scale raw score means and standard deviations for the nine languages being examined are presented in
Table 3, along with those from the CPI 260 U.S. normative
sample for comparison purposes (Gough & Bradley, 2005).
Table 4 presents the standardized scale score means and standard deviations for each sample. It is risky to make inferences
from apparent differences (Gough & Bradley, 2005) across
countries or cultures like those shown in Table 3 or Table 4.
The U.S. normative sample mean for each standardized scale
is 50, and the standard deviation is 10; therefore the sample
was not included in Table 4. Tables 3 and 4 also include the
raw and standard score means for the Simplified and Traditional Chinese subsamples (i.e., those with invalidity indicators removed).
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
5
CPI 260
5. ®CPI
260 ®RAW
SCORE MEANS
RAW
AND
SCORE
STANDARD
MEANS DEVIATIONS
TABLE 3. U.S.TABLE
SCALE
STANDARDIZED
BY GENDER
BY LANGUAGE
FOR INDIAN
SAMPLE
AND CONT’D
U.S. SAMPLES
Simplified
Chinese
Traditional
Chinese
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Latin
American
Spanish
U.S. English
(normative)
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
18.05
12.68
13.87
17.13
12.63
12.59
12.75
13.91
17.85
12.58
12.64
16.52
11.78
8.78
18.44
5.86
3.66
4.13
3.59
3.47
4.02
2.79
2.93
4.28
3.95
3.82
2.82
3.57
3.63
3.89
16.50
12.15
12.33
15.69
11.68
11.33
12.00
12.78
17.30
14.05
12.93
15.31
11.06
9.23
17.93
6.10
3.66
4.39
3.51
3.57
3.76
2.94
3.07
4.38
4.47
3.96
3.11
3.51
3.69
4.25
18.46
12.78
14.19
17.49
12.91
13.32
12.68
14.55
18.80
13.04
12.90
17.58
12.66
9.32
19.33
6.01
3.79
4.15
3.66
3.49
3.78
2.81
2.65
3.89
3.71
3.61
1.96
3.18
3.34
3.19
16.78
12.23
12.62
16.24
11.84
11.84
11.89
13.49
18.28
14.70
13.18
16.81
11.92
9.62
19.00
6.52
3.81
4.59
3.55
3.75
3.70
2.99
2.82
4.05
4.25
3.84
1.94
3.29
3.48
3.82
22.76
15.96
16.53
19.04
15.48
15.70
14.82
16.24
20.45
14.03
13.79
18.17
14.85
11.57
21.00
5.98
3.98
3.74
3.36
3.18
3.40
2.98
3.10
4.13
4.55
4.57
2.25
3.59
3.72
4.00
16.80
13.15
13.72
17.83
12.55
12.08
11.60
15.65
20.44
13.96
12.10
19.21
15.12
11.19
19.34
6.53
4.52
4.44
4.09
3.91
4.16
3.68
3.90
4.40
5.04
4.71
2.13
3.50
4.13
4.70
11.93
3.56
11.19
3.44
12.60
3.27
11.62
3.14
14.29
3.44
13.43
4.72
17.42
11.60
6.24
13.08
11.90
13.31
12.41
21.77
15.04
16.33
4.24
2.88
2.80
2.91
3.80
3.65
3.49
6.03
4.28
2.91
16.26
11.12
7.26
13.43
11.80
13.24
12.49
19.90
14.56
15.83
4.15
2.82
3.34
2.95
3.75
3.72
3.80
6.22
4.46
3.03
18.26
12.10
6.31
13.04
12.26
14.16
12.87
22.72
15.80
16.89
3.93
2.70
2.73
2.99
3.80
3.24
3.26
5.91
3.97
2.52
17.07
11.61
7.16
13.42
11.98
14.16
12.69
20.77
15.33
16.33
3.92
2.64
3.23
3.09
3.74
3.38
3.66
6.35
4.28
2.85
19.69
12.86
7.12
11.73
14.77
15.34
16.17
27.04
16.77
17.50
4.15
2.82
3.04
2.97
4.13
3.51
3.44
6.19
4.36
2.93
19.02
12.28
9.44
14.40
12.69
16.07
14.74
22.33
17.54
16.21
5.06
3.44
3.69
3.58
4.65
3.65
4.12
6.54
4.60
3.19
8.36
14.24
10.46
4.19
3.14
4.63
10.29
12.35
11.72
4.72
3.77
5.30
8.87
14.21
10.92
4.08
3.06
4.28
10.91
12.45
11.83
4.64
3.69
4.85
7.41
14.10
14.59
3.71
2.94
5.46
11.96
12.48
15.35
4.35
3.64
6.00
Note: Danish N = 499, Dutch N = 469, European Spanish N = 431, French N = 490, German N = 518, Swedish N = 481, Simplified Chinese N = 286,
Traditional Chinese N = 649, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459, Latin American Spanish N = 261,
U.S. English (normative) N = 6,000. Source for the U.S. normative sample means and standard deviations is the CPI 260® Manual (Gough &
Bradley, 2005).
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
6
® STANDARDIZED
260 ®5.SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
AND STANDARD
MEANS
DEVIATIONS
TABLE 4. U.S. CPI
TABLE
BY GENDER
BYFOR
LANGUAGE
INDIAN AND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Danish
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
53.26
50.83
51.95
49.51
52.07
55.48
56.72
50.90
49.50
55.02
55.94
47.53
49.85
54.51
49.16
10.31
9.28
9.42
10.77
10.30
9.88
8.86
8.40
8.76
9.18
8.51
9.02
10.36
9.01
7.78
54.31
8.11
European
Spanish
Dutch
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
French
German
Swedish
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
53.90 9.59
47.55 9.68
50.27 9.56
49.00 9.74
50.57 9.46
55.36 9.50
53.99 9.14
48.88 8.08
49.45 8.25
57.36 8.13
56.84 8.34
46.94 8.64
50.88 10.26
50.65 8.80
49.53 8.04
52.20 9.89
50.33 9.06
50.73 10.06
48.81 9.49
50.75 9.22
53.30 9.52
55.41 9.09
49.14 8.42
49.04 9.84
51.90 8.51
53.31 8.99
44.74 12.00
44.54 10.25
48.47 9.30
50.54 9.03
50.74
46.77
48.86
46.23
47.59
50.29
53.38
46.80
47.28
55.85
53.63
41.76
43.57
46.91
47.85
10.04
9.35
9.60
10.08
9.86
10.28
9.36
8.11
9.80
8.98
8.86
10.09
10.60
8.19
8.27
51.76
45.70
48.98
46.31
49.47
52.78
50.81
46.16
45.07
55.21
54.72
47.31
46.11
46.41
48.17
9.95
8.49
9.22
9.67
10.15
10.20
8.88
8.59
9.91
9.88
9.52
10.78
11.36
8.07
8.95
54.63
51.36
51.28
51.58
52.86
55.47
54.82
48.03
47.49
51.15
50.51
44.16
46.20
51.65
47.89
10.55
9.60
9.56
10.34
10.78
10.51
9.16
8.61
8.91
9.33
8.98
10.22
10.89
9.09
8.07
51.85
51.03
48.72
7.60
48.65
7.41
52.30
8.26
8.27
7.81
51.23 8.70
53.10 8.48
50.30 9.92
45.77 7.79
57.38 9.17
51.08 8.95
51.29 10.20
53.05 9.88
53.55 9.46
55.02 9.25
49.34 8.81
50.33 7.84
50.61 9.52
47.13 8.83
54.28 8.93
50.59 9.55
49.74 10.33
52.35 9.33
52.21 9.70
56.54 9.04
47.98 8.53
49.52 9.15
45.75 9.70
47.29 7.35
50.95 8.41
46.17 9.96
49.13 9.54
50.86 10.27
47.36 9.52
51.84 10.01
46.66 8.86
47.89 8.16
47.99 9.60
45.88 8.50
50.15 8.33
44.68 9.51
48.47 9.98
48.85 10.07
47.58 9.46
52.05 9.53
48.25 9.09
50.31 8.60
45.83 8.74
46.60 8.50
49.11 8.08
46.29 9.60
48.25 8.95
49.65 10.21
46.40 9.75
54.91 9.91
49.37 8.97
49.86 8.53
49.49 10.61
46.48 8.92
54.42 8.54
48.85 9.30
50.38 10.36
51.98 10.02
49.66 9.64
52.76 9.09
47.88 10.54
50.52 8.31
54.20 9.47
49.78
49.44
53.15
46.09
52.41
48.21
49.70
48.99
48.38
51.00 10.28
48.56 9.18
48.63 8.36
44.68 10.63
49.08 8.29
52.74 9.39
9.19
8.58
8.83
9.77
8.51
9.25
9.84
8.32
8.67
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
7
® STANDARDIZED
260 ®5.SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
AND STANDARD
MEANS
DEVIATIONS
TABLE 4. U.S. CPI
TABLE
BY GENDER
BY LANGUAGE
FOR INDIAN
SAMPLE
AND CONT’D
U.S. SAMPLES
Simplified
Chinese
SD
Traditional
Chinese
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Mean
SD
49.54 9.33
47.80 8.08
46.86 9.87
44.78 8.56
47.78 9.14
48.21 9.01
51.08 7.99
42.66 7.86
42.87 9.95
50.18 8.85
51.76 8.39
31.71 14.60
38.38 10.05
45.26 8.93
47.00 9.05
52.54
49.18
51.05
49.18
50.91
52.98
52.93
47.18
46.28
48.18
51.70
42.37
42.97
45.49
49.99
9.19
8.38
9.35
8.93
8.93
9.06
7.64
6.77
8.82
7.35
7.65
9.20
9.09
8.08
6.80
49.96 9.98
47.97 8.41
47.53 10.33
46.11 8.66
48.18 9.61
49.42 8.88
50.78 8.14
44.48 7.22
45.10 9.20
51.47 8.42
52.28 8.14
38.74 9.09
40.85 9.41
46.19 8.41
49.27 8.13
45.24
7.30
48.23
6.93
46.17
46.84 8.40
48.04 8.39
41.33 7.60
46.69 7.29
48.31 8.16
42.44 10.01
44.34 8.49
49.14 9.23
44.57 9.28
50.38 9.09
44.53 8.22
46.62 8.22
44.08 9.05
47.59 7.37
48.08 8.06
42.23 10.18
44.54 9.23
46.27 9.52
43.53 9.69
48.80 9.50
48.50
49.48
41.52
46.59
49.07
44.75
45.46
50.59
46.21
52.12
7.77
7.87
7.40
7.47
8.17
8.88
7.92
9.05
8.62
7.88
46.15
48.06
43.82
47.56
48.47
44.77
45.01
47.62
45.20
50.38
41.71
54.83
41.84
46.15 10.85
49.63 10.37
43.94 8.85
42.89
54.77
42.60
9.37
8.43
7.15
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
51.92 8.96
48.97 8.08
50.33 9.29
48.29 8.77
50.21 8.89
51.23 9.65
53.12 7.60
45.54 7.50
44.13 9.71
47.28 7.82
51.15 8.11
37.39 13.21
40.45 10.22
44.16 8.79
48.09 8.30
46.83
7.54
9.64
8.63
7.73
Mean
SD
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
SD
59.12 9.14
56.21 8.80
56.32 8.41
52.95 8.21
57.51 8.15
58.68 8.15
58.76 8.09
51.51 7.92
50.02 9.37
50.14 9.00
53.57 9.68
45.12 10.55
49.22 10.27
50.93 9.01
53.53 8.51
16.80
13.15
13.72
17.83
12.55
12.08
11.60
15.65
20.44
13.96
12.10
19.21
15.12
11.19
19.34
6.53
4.52
4.44
4.09
3.91
4.16
3.68
3.90
4.40
5.04
4.71
2.13
3.50
4.13
4.70
6.66
51.83
7.29
13.43
4.72
7.76
7.67
8.75
7.73
8.03
9.27
8.89
9.71
9.28
8.92
51.32
51.68
43.72
43.32
54.48
47.99
53.47
57.21
48.34
54.03
8.22
8.19
8.25
7.43
8.88
9.60
8.35
9.47
9.46
9.18
19.02
12.28
9.44
14.40
12.69
16.07
14.74
22.33
17.54
16.21
5.06
3.44
3.69
3.58
4.65
3.65
4.12
6.54
4.60
3.19
47.58 10.68
49.93 10.14
44.13 8.10
39.53
54.45
48.73
8.52
8.07
9.11
11.96
12.48
15.35
4.35
3.64
6.00
Mean
SD
U.S. English
(normative)
Mean
Mean
SD
Latin
American
Spanish
Note: Danish N = 499, Dutch N = 469, European Spanish N = 431, French N = 490, German N = 518, Swedish N = 481, Simplified Chinese N = 286,
Traditional Chinese N = 649, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459, Latin American Spanish N = 261.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
8
® SCALE
® STANDARDIZED
U.S. 5.
CPICPI
260
260
STANDARD SCORE
RAW SCORE
MEANS
MEANS
BY GENDER
TABLE 5.
TABLE
BY GENDER
FOR EACH
FOR INDIAN
LANGUAGE
ANDSAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Danish
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Dutch
Women Men
Women
(n = 249) (n = 248)
(n = 231) (n = 238)
53.06
50.89
52.77
49.65
52.03
54.74
57.46
50.76
49.37
54.31
55.30
48.17
49.30
55.36
49.52
53.52
50.77
51.12
49.45
52.15
56.27
56.01
51.05
49.66
55.71
56.57
46.90
50.44
53.71
48.82
52.78
46.85
50.15
48.26
49.26
53.88
53.54
49.59
50.33
58.98
58.13
48.55
51.12
51.52
50.43
Men
54.99
48.23
50.39
49.73
51.84
56.80
54.43
48.20
48.59
55.78
55.60
45.37
50.64
49.81
48.65
European
Spanish
Women
Men
(n = 210) (n = 221)
51.91
50.50
51.24
49.41
50.81
52.99
55.46
49.65
49.26
51.15
53.02
45.15
44.38
48.87
50.94
52.46
50.16
50.26
48.23
50.70
53.59
55.37
48.65
48.83
52.62
53.58
44.36
44.70
48.09
50.17
French
Women
Men
(n = 247) (n = 242)
49.48
46.06
48.69
45.28
46.15
48.80
52.60
47.56
47.65
56.59
53.84
42.22
43.02
47.18
48.37
52.10
47.56
49.07
47.30
49.09
51.89
54.24
46.05
46.93
55.06
53.39
41.28
44.20
46.65
47.33
German
Women
Men
(n = 260) (n = 258)
50.25
44.60
48.78
45.22
48.32
51.21
50.06
45.42
44.97
56.05
54.86
47.77
45.12
46.03
48.06
53.28
46.80
49.18
47.41
50.63
54.37
51.56
46.91
45.18
54.36
54.58
46.85
47.10
46.78
48.27
Swedish
Women Men
(n = 243) (n = 238)
53.92
51.37
52.00
51.51
52.28
54.15
54.90
48.00
47.49
51.13
50.18
44.81
45.89
51.88
48.19
55.35
51.36
50.54
51.65
53.44
56.82
54.73
48.07
47.48
51.18
50.84
43.50
46.52
51.42
47.58
54.79 53.85
52.15 51.56
51.45 50.62
48.11 49.40
47.70 49.61
52.21 52.38
51.16
52.97
50.63
48.05
57.62
50.71
51.63
52.84
53.01
53.99
48.92
50.04
50.49
51.07
54.14
51.01
48.61
51.75
53.60
56.50
47.90
50.26
47.64
50.27
50.57
45.87
49.48
50.61
47.18
51.36
46.45
47.36
48.23
48.22
49.32
44.21
47.81
47.76
47.35
51.55
47.14
49.07
45.35
49.51
47.94
44.71
46.93
48.28
46.00
55.06
49.20
49.51
49.29
49.79
54.06
48.89
50.08
51.86
49.74
52.56
51.36
53.29
49.99
43.38
57.18
51.47
50.99
53.29
54.10
56.13
47.97 47.76
49.91 51.11
55.22 53.26
49.74
50.62
50.73
43.31
54.42
50.18
50.83
52.93
50.85
56.58
51.61 48.00
49.61 49.27
54.35 51.98
48.07
48.82
43.94
44.45
51.31
46.47
48.80
51.11
47.53
52.30
46.44 45.75
51.20 53.56
48.70 47.74
46.95
48.46
47.80
43.45
51.04
45.20
49.22
49.99
47.82
52.55
51.18 48.12
48.05 49.98
48.69 48.10
49.38
51.55
46.32
43.67
50.28
47.89
49.59
51.03
46.80
54.77
52.52 49.46
47.57 49.56
48.22 49.05
49.54
50.21
49.71
43.10
54.78
48.81
50.69
52.10
49.58
52.96
45.36 43.98
49.16 49.00
52.93 52.54
(cont’d)
Mean U.S. standard scores for men and women in each language are shown in Table 5. The means for the U.S. normative sample are also included for comparison (Gough &
Bradley, 2005). However, the standard deviations are not
included in this table because the CPI 260® Manual does not
include the standard deviations for men and women. No
inferences should be made from apparent differences between
mean scores across the samples in this table.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
9
® SCALE
® STANDARDIZED
U.S. 5.
CPICPI
260
260
STANDARD SCORE
RAW SCORE
MEANS
MEANS
BY GENDER
TABLE 5.
TABLE
BYFOR
GENDER
EACHFOR
LANGUAGE
INDIAN SAMPLE
AND U.S.CONT’D
SAMPLES
Simplified
Chinese
Women Men
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
(n = 140) (n = 146)
51.56
48.88
50.42
48.57
50.07
51.52
53.07
45.61
45.37
47.62
50.74
39.47
38.66
44.96
49.06
52.26
49.05
50.24
48.02
50.35
50.94
53.17
45.48
42.94
46.95
51.54
35.39
38.07
43.39
47.16
Traditional
Chinese
Women
Men
(n = 341) (n = 308)
49.20
47.67
46.57
44.88
47.70
47.72
51.06
42.41
43.34
49.77
51.44
32.41
38.66
45.15
46.71
49.92
47.95
47.19
44.67
47.86
48.76
51.11
42.95
42.35
50.63
52.11
30.94
38.07
45.38
47.32
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Women
Men
(n = 118) (n = 107)
51.99
48.94
50.76
49.22
50.37
52.92
52.96
46.90
47.39
48.75
51.69
43.17
43.38
46.53
50.54
53.14
49.44
51.37
49.14
51.51
53.04
52.89
47.47
45.06
47.54
51.71
41.48
42.52
44.34
49.38
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Women
Men
(n = 249) (n = 210)
49.41
47.92
47.12
46.28
48.17
48.68
50.77
44.09
45.38
50.69
51.71
39.15
40.94
46.05
48.83
50.62
48.03
48.01
45.91
48.20
50.29
50.79
44.95
44.77
52.40
52.96
38.25
40.74
46.36
49.78
Latin
American
Spanish
Women
Men
U.S. English
(normative)
Women Men
(n = 151) (n = 110) (n = 3,000) (n = 3,000)
59.91
56.53
56.38
53.92
58.46
59.14
59.37
51.91
49.83
49.63
52.54
46.65
49.28
51.62
53.87
58.04
55.78
56.23
51.61
56.20
58.06
57.91
50.97
50.28
50.84
54.99
43.00
49.14
49.98
53.05
49.48
50.51
50.29
48.73
49.92
48.68
50.62
52.10
51.02
50.89
50.36
50.52
49.46
51.09
51.38
49.48
50.51
50.29
48.73
49.92
48.68
50.62
52.10
51.02
50.89
50.36
50.52
49.46
51.09
51.38
47.27 46.40
44.76 45.78
48.48 47.96
45.38 47.11
51.66 52.06
50.30 50.30
48.09
48.42
42.50
48.41
48.24
44.02
45.37
49.30
44.89
50.44
44.05
45.89
44.01
49.53
47.84
42.46
44.87
46.08
43.35
48.91
49.64
49.78
42.97
48.34
49.34
46.12
46.47
50.58
46.66
52.39
45.56
47.09
43.58
49.75
47.92
44.77
45.13
47.22
44.65
49.96
51.80
52.04
44.25
45.47
54.91
48.01
54.16
57.63
47.95
53.59
50.30
50.00
49.67
55.05
49.98
49.92
49.90
49.82
50.28
48.87
45.63
47.67
40.21
45.04
48.37
40.93
43.36
48.99
44.27
50.33
42.93 40.55
54.32 55.33
42.09 41.59
45.06
47.44
44.16
45.44
48.35
41.98
44.17
46.49
43.73
48.67
46.57 45.69
49.00 50.33
43.85 44.05
47.24
49.16
39.92
44.65
48.78
43.25
44.34
50.60
45.73
51.83
44.15 41.49
53.99 55.62
43.40 41.72
46.85
49.20
44.11
44.95
49.13
44.77
44.88
48.09
45.85
50.88
47.81 47.31
49.12 50.88
43.87 44.43
50.66
51.20
42.99
40.36
53.89
47.96
52.53
56.63
48.87
54.64
38.76 40.58
53.96 55.13
48.90 48.50
50.30
50.00
49.67
55.05
49.98
49.92
49.90
49.82
50.28
48.87
50.80 50.80
51.37 51.37
50.32 50.32
Note: Source for the U.S. English normative sample standard score means and standard deviations is the CPI 260® Manual (Gough & Bradley,
2005).
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
10
MEAS UR EMENT PROPERT I ES
RELI AB IL ITY
internal consistency reliability is Cronbach’s alpha (Cronbach, 1951). Alphas were calculated for each language
sample.
Reliability refers to consistency of measurement. A measure is
said to be reliable when it produces a consistent, although not
necessarily identical, result. Internal consistency reliability
measures the consistency across items, or whether they measure the same thing. The most commonly used estimator of
The alphas are presented in Table 6, along with those for the
U.S. normative sample (Gough & Bradley, 2005) and a U.S.
workforce sample (Anderson, 2007) for comparison pur-
TABLE 6. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Danish
Dutch
.88
.74
.77
.74
.74
.78
.56
.64
.65
.74
.69
.41
.78
.76
.64
.73
.73
.56
.69
.47
.75
.68
.70
.86
.75
.35
.84
.56
.82
.86
.75
.76
.67
.68
.76
.55
.58
.59
.69
.68
.24
.79
.74
.65
.69
.73
.41
.66
.58
.73
.70
.70
.83
.77
.31
.79
.59
.79
European
Spanish
.86
.68
.79
.64
.64
.74
.54
.62
.72
.69
.74
.59
.77
.74
.71
.66
.72
.57
.69
.30
.68
.70
.66
.86
.74
.38
.79
.61
.81
French
German
Swedish
.87
.71
.77
.67
.71
.78
.55
.58
.70
.74
.70
.40
.76
.69
.65
.63
.71
.48
.65
.52
.69
.66
.67
.85
.73
.33
.80
.58
.79
.87
.66
.75
.65
.71
.78
.50
.63
.68
.78
.74
.52
.80
.68
.70
.62
.72
.52
.60
.54
.67
.69
.59
.86
.77
.37
.83
.64
.76
.89
.72
.78
.70
.74
.78
.54
.63
.64
.76
.71
.45
.77
.74
.63
.70
.72
.50
.71
.57
.71
.66
.68
.85
.74
.33
.85
.55
.82
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
11
TABLE 6. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Simplified
Chinese
Traditional
Chinese
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Latin
American
Spanish
U.S. English
(normative)
U.S. English
(workforce)
.82
.61
.76
.55
.61
.74
.38
.54
.68
.66
.63
.58
.72
.72
.83
.58
.75
.49
.62
.66
.41
.49
.68
.71
.65
.58
.68
.70
.84
.65
.76
.58
.64
.72
.40
.48
.63
..62
.59
.27
.66
.67
.86
.64
.79
.52
.68
.68
.47
.43
.63
.68
.65
.10
.65
.68
.86
.69
.73
.55
.63
.71
.46
.63
.74
.74
.76
.52
.80
.73
.86
.74
.77
.65
.68
.75
.60
.73
.73
.77
.77
.55
.76
.78
.85
.69
.75
.66
.67
.70
.54
.59
.58
.73
.69
.28
.69
.71
.65
.66
.51
.62
.72
.76
.61
.63
.68
.49
.51
.33
.68
.67
.52
.82
.73
.66
.65
.40
.62
.33
.64
.64
.58
.81
.71
.58
.63
.45
.51
.41
.69
.59
.48
.82
.69
.48
.60
.36
.61
.42
.64
.59
.56
.82
.70
.66
.70
.52
.58
.38
.76
.72
.57
.87
.74
.78
.78
.64
.68
.54
.77
.70
.71
.85
.75
.67
.69
.46
.72
.57
.72
.56
.70
.83
.72
.35
.80
.65
.74
.31
.83
.73
.80
.16
.79
.64
.71
.25
.83
.73
.77
.37
.73
.63
.80
.36
.80
.70
.83
.40
.78
.59
.80
Note: Danish N = 499, Dutch N = 469, European Spanish N = 431, French N = 490, German N = 518, Swedish N = 481, Simplified Chinese N = 286,
Traditional Chinese N = 649, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459, Latin American Spanish N = 261,
U.S. English (normative) N = 6,000, U.S. English (workforce) N = 5,000. Source for the U.S. normative sample is the CPI 260® Manual (Gough &
Bradley, 2005); source for the U.S. workforce sample is “CPI 260 U.S. Workforce Norms” (Anderson, 2007).
poses. The U.S. workforce sample was selected to mirror the
demographic composition of the U.S. working population
according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS, 2006).
Most of the alphas for each language sample are acceptable to
good, with some lower alphas on the Communality scale,
and are very similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual and found in the U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting
these reliabilities, the following statement from the CPI™
Manual should be kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as
assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a scale,
whereas many tests posit this as a high priority, interitem
homogeneity is not a goal on the CPI. The reason for this
statement is that 13 of the 20 folk scales are developed by
empirical methodology, which bases the selection of items
solely on their demonstrated relationships to nontest criteria”
(Gough & Bradley, 1996, p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items in a scale is acceptable and, in
fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
12
VAL ID IT Y
Validity refers to the accuracy of the inferences that may be
made based on the results of an assessment. An instrument is
said to be valid when it measures what it has been designed to
measure (Ghiselli, Campbell, & Zedeck, 1981; Murphy &
Davidshofer, 2005). Validity can be demonstrated using a
number of different approaches. Validity of each translated
assessment is shown by examining the measurement properties of the CPI 260 assessment and comparing those to a
standard, here the results for the U.S. normative sample.
In addition, evidence of validity can be shown by analyses
that relate the measure (here scales from the CPI 260 assessment) to other measures and replicating expected patterns of
relationships.
One kind of validity is construct validity, which shows that an
assessment measures a particular theoretical construct. Factor
analysis is the most common way of demonstrating construct
validity (Thompson & Daniel, 1996). When a measure
relates to other measures of similar concepts that it should be
related to, and is not related to measures of dissimilar concepts that it should not be related to, evidence of the measure’s validity is established. The former set of relationships is
typically termed convergent validity, and the latter discriminant validity. Convergent validity can be demonstrated when
a measure is related to other similar measures, observations,
or other information that measures the same or a similar concept. In contrast, discriminant can be demonstrated when a
measure fails to relate to other measures, observations, or
information that it should not be related to. Several analyses
of construct, convergent, and discriminant validity are
reported for the translations of the CPI 260 assessment.
Finally, validity can also be exhibited if an instrument results
in similar patterns or profiles of results across the languages or
cultures in which it is used. Analyses examining the pattern of
the CPI scales across hierarchical organizational levels are
reported to also demonstrate the validity of the translations.
Factor Analysis
Principal components factor analyses with varimax rotation
were conducted using the folk scales for each language sample
and a subset of commonly reported special purpose scales,
following the approach used by Gough and Bradley (2005).
Historically, factor analyses of the CPI assessment have found
that a four-factor solution provides the best fit to the factor
analysis of the CPI assessment’s scales. Therefore, the factor
analyses limited the results to a four-factor solution. Following prior research for the solution allows for comparisons of
the factor structure in the nine language samples and a comparison to the structure found in the U.S. normative sample.
The results, presented in Table 7, show similarity across the
nine language samples. The table also includes factor structure of the U.S. normative sample from the CPI 260® Manual (Gough & Bradley, 2005) for comparison purposes.
The CPI 260® Manual describes the four factors in the following way. Factor 1 has large loadings on the scales Do, Sy,
Sa, and Lp, which are measures of ascendancy, interpersonal
involvement, self-assurance, and leadership potential (Gough
& Bradley, 2005). In 1972, Megargee termed this factor
interpersonal effectiveness. The largest loadings on factor 2 are
Sc, Gi, Wo, and Ami, which are measures of self-discipline,
work ethic, wish to do the expected, and warmth toward others. Gough and Bradley (2005) suggest the term dependability
for this factor. Factor 3 has large loadings on Ai, Fx, and Ct,
which can be called originality/creativity. Factor 4 may be
termed interpersonal sensitivity, and it is marked by a large
loading on Sn and a secondary loading on Re. The CPI 260®
Manual also reports low negative loadings on this factor for
In, Wb, and Leo (Gough & Bradley, 2005). All of these patterns in the four factors hold up across the nine language
samples and two subsamples, with one small exception.
There is some divergence in these samples on the low negative loadings of factor 4. Most of the languages show positive
correlations rather than low negative loadings for In, Wb,
and Leo.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
13
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE
Factor 1
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Danish
Dutch
.89
.65
.77
.72
.84
.79
.47
.12
.13
–.39
–.02
.17
.50
.24
.20
.26
.49
.34
–.05
–.77
.52
.31
.38
.82
.09
.52
.93
.71
.76
.70
.89
.81
.57
.16
.04
–.25
.01
.03
.48
.19
.30
.26
.57
.32
.08
–.74
.53
.28
.52
.86
.11
.50
European
Spanish
.93
.80
.79
.76
.87
.75
.72
.26
.19
–.16
.14
.07
.43
.24
.41
.47
.63
.42
.02
–.62
.63
.32
.52
.82
.12
.41
French
.93
.80
.77
.81
.90
.83
.71
.09
.17
–.32
–.05
.12
.44
.21
.34
.44
.65
.43
.08
–.68
.64
.29
.59
.85
.08
.34
German
.92
.74
.75
.79
.91
.79
.60
.17
.07
–.33
–.07
.31
.47
.10
.34
.31
.60
.42
–.10
–.73
.54
.37
.49
.85
.00
.41
Swedish
.90
.68
.78
.76
.85
.82
.54
.16
.13
–.38
–.10
.15
.51
.16
.37
.34
.58
.34
–.07
–.75
.55
.28
.39
.84
.00
.46
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
14
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 1
Simplified
Chinese
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.90
.82
.87
.77
.83
.65
.73
.10
.24
–.33
.08
.06
.36
.21
.26
.40
.49
.37
.00
–.59
.58
.22
.42
.77
.12
.27
Traditional
Chinese
.92
.83
.89
.68
.83
.69
.72
.20
.16
–.26
.11
.05
.29
.12
.33
.40
.52
.33
–.07
–.66
.57
.13
.36
.82
.04
.41
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
.92
.82
.87
.80
.86
.75
.70
.09
.27
–.41
.00
.05
.41
.24
.27
.45
.52
.37
.05
–.61
.61
.23
.51
.82
.11
.33
.93
.84
.90
.73
.87
.78
.72
.22
.15
–.32
.05
.09
.31
.13
.37
.47
.59
.39
–.04
–.69
.59
.14
.45
.86
.02
.50
Latin
American
Spanish
.91
.79
.86
.73
.86
.79
.59
.23
.29
–.21
.04
.24
.46
.23
.47
.44
.57
.43
–.02
–.62
.56
.27
.49
.79
.08
.43
U.S. English
(normative)
.91
.80
.87
.77
.90
.75
.67
.30
.19
–.27
–.06
.25
.38
.29
.48
.49
.67
.49
.14
–.37
.57
.29
.59
.82
.06
.32
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
15
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 2
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Danish
Dutch
.04
.03
–.04
–.07
–.19
.21
.03
.38
.62
.80
.83
.21
.68
.60
.34
.31
.34
.40
.06
–.24
.52
.66
.04
.25
.83
.41
.08
.06
.07
.02
–.14
.23
.13
.47
.75
.81
.80
.49
.71
.62
.54
.40
.36
.35
.00
–.01
.57
.74
.01
.29
.86
.46
European
Spanish
.12
.24
.14
–.01
–.06
.33
.25
.52
.62
.89
.87
.13
.64
.75
.49
.52
.44
.48
.09
–.05
.60
.72
.18
.38
.86
.43
French
.07
.12
.10
.05
–.03
.30
.12
.40
.74
.76
.75
.37
.78
.73
.43
.48
.45
.58
.12
–.20
.52
.83
.18
.33
.90
.49
German
.10
.01
.03
.09
–.06
.40
.05
.53
.79
.79
.74
.52
.79
.67
.53
.45
.46
.47
–.10
–.15
.56
.81
.05
.36
.88
.50
Swedish
–.04
–.01
–.02
–.08
–.18
.16
.03
.34
.63
.82
.84
.19
.64
.65
.35
.33
.30
.37
.11
–.10
.51
.71
.06
.22
.86
.36
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
16
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 2
Simplified
Chinese
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.11
.13
.08
–.15
–.04
.33
.11
.34
.54
.81
.86
.13
.59
.69
.39
.43
.34
.40
.09
–.19
.60
.63
.17
.31
.77
.41
Traditional
Chinese
.12
.14
.07
–.12
–.05
.36
.08
.52
.64
.87
.87
.25
.68
.75
.55
.53
.42
.48
.10
–.15
.65
.75
.16
.34
.84
.54
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
.10
.15
.12
–.11
.00
.31
.11
.32
.61
.78
.84
.16
.69
.71
.44
.40
.33
.41
.02
–.09
.58
.73
.13
.33
.85
.29
.07
.08
.04
–.09
–.07
.28
.08
.49
.63
.84
.84
.25
.72
.77
.49
.51
.38
.42
.09
–.14
.63
.79
.08
.29
.87
.46
Latin
American
Spanish
.24
.35
.15
.01
–.05
.35
.35
.68
.75
.89
.86
.25
.72
.76
.69
.60
.59
.59
–.09
–.02
.67
.81
.13
.51
.88
.49
U.S. English
(normative)
.19
.19
.18
–.08
–.02
.29
.21
.69
.74
.84
.81
.52
.73
.68
.70
.45
.52
.55
–.14
–.05
.61
.83
.07
.46
.87
.58
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
17
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 3
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Danish
Dutch
.21
.57
.33
.52
.23
.30
.65
.36
.03
–.08
–.04
.01
.26
.58
.09
.72
.50
.52
.87
.09
.41
.39
.82
.26
.31
–.29
.12
.48
.23
.48
.15
.28
.58
.19
.10
–.05
–.05
.04
.24
.58
–.02
.70
.44
.59
.86
–.05
.33
.39
.74
.19
.30
–.26
European
Spanish
.00
.27
.01
.31
–.02
.14
.29
–.02
–.07
–.05
–.03
.01
.11
.37
–.12
.45
.17
.36
.87
.33
.15
.15
.68
.01
.17
–.40
French
–.07
.32
.04
.31
–.01
.08
.38
.04
–.01
–.09
–.09
–.06
.02
.36
–.14
.43
.19
.27
.86
.30
.12
.17
.64
–.07
.17
–.46
German
.00
.34
.06
.32
.03
.11
.41
–.01
–.02
–.08
–.06
–.17
.09
.50
–.14
.56
.27
.39
.87
.10
.20
.17
.72
.03
.21
–.29
Swedish
.17
.53
.24
.39
.19
.23
.54
.35
.05
–.01
.05
.01
.11
.60
.00
.74
.47
.52
.87
.11
.41
.32
.80
.20
.27
–.25
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
18
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 3
Simplified
Chinese
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.03
.20
.08
.21
.06
.20
.19
.07
.03
.12
–.06
–.02
.08
.34
–.08
.48
.26
.29
.90
.25
.17
.15
.75
.08
.14
.02
Traditional
Chinese
.01
.19
–.04
.25
.11
.25
.21
.00
.00
.08
–.02
–.14
.10
.43
–.19
.48
.22
.33
.87
.14
.17
.14
.78
.00
.20
–.15
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
.01
.19
.11
.21
.07
.13
.29
.02
–.07
.07
–.05
–.05
–.02
.27
–.07
.48
.27
.26
.88
.34
.13
.13
.71
.06
.07
–.03
–.03
.15
–.04
.29
.06
.08
.27
–.13
–.08
–.06
–.15
–.20
.06
.37
–.34
.35
.13
.21
.84
.19
.10
.07
.73
–.06
.16
–.30
Latin
American
Spanish
.00
.21
–.02
.31
.02
.09
.23
.01
–.17
–.11
–.13
–.19
.03
.39
–.16
.43
.21
.28
.81
.18
.17
.01
.69
–.04
.11
–.39
U.S. English
(normative)
.01
.34
.05
.29
.03
.23
.45
–.04
–.07
–.02
.01
–.31
.11
.51
–.08
.61
.27
.37
.85
.00
.30
.17
.67
.01
.23
–.26
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
19
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 4
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Danish
Dutch
.22
.23
.27
.07
.24
.17
.23
.66
.44
.16
.15
.62
.15
.24
.75
.31
.44
.25
–.09
.21
.30
.34
.04
.31
.18
.15
.18
.27
.18
–.04
.12
.00
.18
.68
.05
.14
.19
.14
–.16
.11
.61
.30
.39
.25
–.16
.40
.19
.15
.04
.21
.05
–.04
European
Spanish
.11
.05
.15
.25
.21
.27
–.02
.60
.53
.11
–.07
.88
.39
.19
.55
.32
.36
.35
–.12
.09
.06
.37
.15
.29
.21
.25
French
.15
.25
.13
–.15
.05
.01
.20
.77
.13
.32
.33
.28
–.09
.20
.68
.28
.35
.17
–.11
.32
.23
.10
.04
.23
.07
.05
German
.19
.40
.16
–.15
.13
.00
.29
.64
.13
.25
.33
–.15
–.08
.21
.61
.36
.37
.14
–.15
.18
.35
.06
.02
.23
.11
.03
Swedish
.24
.20
.24
.11
.18
.19
.16
.67
.44
.13
.04
.69
.25
.15
.67
.21
.37
.25
–.12
.26
.23
.32
.09
.33
.17
.10
(cont’d)
Factor Congruence
The comparison of factor structures across samples has long
been used in psychological research to determine whether the
factor structure of an assessment is the same in two or more
different groups (Chan, Ho, Leung, Chan, & Yung, 1999).
Factor structure similarity of personality inventories has been
studied by many researchers (Barrett, Petrides, Eysenck, &
Eysenck, 1998; De Bruin, Nel, & Comrey, 1997; Noller,
Law, & Comrey, 1988; Rodrigues & Comrey, 1974; Stumpf,
1993). Similarity of factors is often evaluated by using the
factor congruence coefficient (Burt, 1948; Reise, Waller, &
Comrey, 2000; Tucker, 1951; Wrigley & Neuhaus, 1955). To
examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of each
language separately compared with the U.S. English sample,
the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient was
used (Comrey, 1988).* The U.S. sample used for this analysis
was a commercial sample from the CPI 260® Manual
(Gough & Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity
analysis are shown in Table 8. The table can be read in a manner similar to the way correlation matrices are read, where the
diagonal elements (in bold) show the degree of congruence
between corresponding factors and the off-diagonal elements
show degree of similarity between the remaining factors in
the analysis.
*This method was programmed by Andrew Comrey, who kindly permitted us
to use his program and who advised us on its proper application.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
20
TABLE 7. KAISER NORMAL VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSES OF CPI 260 ® SCALES BY LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Factor 4
Simplified
Chinese
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Traditional
Chinese
.23
.12
.24
.29
.25
.44
–.09
.74
.62
.25
.15
.88
.53
.35
.73
.46
.60
.49
–.12
.03
.19
.56
.23
.45
.40
.46
.14
.10
.20
.44
.20
.21
–.07
.55
.48
.06
–.09
.82
.40
.12
.54
.19
.45
.33
–.21
.19
.03
.43
.04
.30
.22
.20
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
.23
.12
.24
.29
.25
.44
–.09
.74
.62
.25
.15
.88
.53
.35
.73
.46
.60
.49
–.12
.03
.19
.56
.23
.45
.40
.46
.14
.10
.20
.44
.20
.21
–.07
.55
.48
.06
–.09
.82
.40
.12
.54
.19
.45
.33
–.21
.19
.03
.43
.04
.30
.22
.20
Latin
American
Spanish
.06
.05
–.02
.19
.24
.07
.05
.39
.22
.01
–.15
.76
.11
.07
.19
.04
.16
.02
–.22
.45
–.05
.17
.11
.11
.08
–.13
U.S. English
(normative)
–.15
.08
–.04
–.13
–.06
–.31
.05
.43
.13
–.03
–.14
.17
–.23
.08
.28
.05
.03
–.01
–.04
.80
–.07
–.08
–.04
–.11
–.04
–.26
Note: Danish N = 499, Dutch N = 469, European Spanish N = 431, French N = 490, German N = 518, Swedish N = 481, Simplified Chinese N = 286,
Traditional Chinese N = 649, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459, Latin American Spanish N = 261,
U.S. English (normative) N = 6,000.
The average coefficients for each factor are as follows: factor 1
= .98, factor 2 = .99, factor 3 = .90, and factor 4 = .77. Coefficients of .90 or higher are typically accepted as showing congruence between two factors (Guadagnoli & Velicer, 1991).
Others have suggested the minimum range for considering
two factors to be equivalent is .70–.90 (Hall & Kaye, 1977).
Therefore, it can be concluded that the factorial structure of
the U.S. CPI 260 scales are very similar to those of the other
language samples examined. Factors 1 and 2 are nearly identical between the U.S. sample and each of the other samples.
Factor 3 is also very similar between the U.S. sample and
other language samples. Finally, factor 4 is very similar
between the U.S. sample and the Danish, Dutch, European
Spanish, French, Swedish, Traditional Chinese, and Latin
American Spanish samples and Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese subsamples. However, the factor similarity
between the U.S. and German samples (.66), and the U.S.
and Simplified Chinese samples (.66) on factor 4 is not as
strong. A portion of this factor congruence analysis was
presented at a conference in 2010 (Schaubhut, Morris, &
Thompson, 2010).
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
21
TABLE 8. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS IN THE U.S. ENGLISH
AND INTERNATIONAL SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
Danish: Factor 1
Danish: Factor 2
Danish: Factor 3
Danish: Factor 4
Dutch: Factor 1
Dutch: Factor 2
Dutch: Factor 3
Dutch: Factor 4
European Spanish: Factor 1
European Spanish: Factor 2
European Spanish: Factor 3
European Spanish: Factor 4
French: Factor 1
French: Factor 2
French: Factor 3
French: Factor 4
German: Factor 1
German: Factor 2
German: Factor 3
German: Factor 4
Swedish: Factor 1
Swedish: Factor 2
Swedish: Factor 3
Swedish: Factor 4
Simplified Chinese: Factor 1
Simplified Chinese: Factor 2
Simplified Chinese: Factor 3
Simplified Chinese: Factor 4
Traditional Chinese: Factor 1
Traditional Chinese: Factor 2
Traditional Chinese: Factor 3
Traditional Chinese: Factor 4
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 1
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 2
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 3
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 4
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 1
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 2
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 3
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 4
Latin American Spanish: Factor 1
Latin American Spanish: Factor 2
Latin American Spanish: Factor 3
Latin American Spanish: Factor 4
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.98
.50
.73
.84
.12
.83
.98
.51
.54
.84
.24
.83
.99
.17
.67
.95
.04
.74
.99
.21
.64
.97
.13
.85
.98
.33
.64
.94
.21
.66
.98
.51
.68
.86
.10
.84
.99
.38
.80
.84
.06
.66
.99
.35
.62
.88
.03
.73
.99
.28
.73
.89
.07
.73
.99
.11
.54
.92
.08
.80
.98
.14
.29
.96
.09
.78
.97
.26
.71
.56
.98
.31
.67
.42
.98
.39
.20
.48
.99
.39
.35
.34
.98
.36
.48
.46
.98
.22
.65
.55
.99
.35
.44
.56
.98
.36
.42
.51
.99
.36
.42
.52
.98
.32
.30
.45
.98
.45
.37
.26
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
22
Correlations with Other Measures
Convergent validity and discriminant validity are often
examined by looking at the pattern of relationships between
measures on different instruments. An initial examination of
the two was conducted for the adapted CPI 260 assessments
by examining correlations between CPI 260 folk scales and
adjectives checked by respondents on the Adjective Check List
(ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). A second analysis of convergent and discriminant validity examined correlations
between the CPI 260 folk and special purpose scales with
measures of the Big Five personality approach, scored from
the ACL. Finally, analyses of specific CPI 260 scales with
demographic items were reported, providing additional validity evidence for the translated or adapted versions of the CPI
260 assessment.
Adjective Check List
First, a portion of respondents from each sample also completed translated versions of the Adjective Check List. The
ACL consists of 300 different adjectives, such as intelligent,
alert, clear-thinking, poised, and noisy, encompassing a wide
variety of behaviors. An additional 69 research adjectives
were also included. Respondents were asked to select the ones
they believed were self-descriptive, and the results provided
descriptions of them (Gough & Heilbrun, 1983). Respondents with too many or too few adjectives checked were
omitted prior to analysis. According to Gough and Heilbrun
(1983), results for any respondent with fewer than 20 adjectives or more than 250 adjectives checked should be very cautiously interpreted; those with fewer than 10 and more than
270 checked are almost always invalid. The more conservative approach was taken here, and respondents with fewer
than 20 adjectives or more than 250 adjectives checked were
removed from the sample. The Simplified Chinese and Traditional Chinese subsamples were not included in this analysis
due to small sample sizes.
Selected correlations of adjectives from the ACL with CPI
260 scales are shown in Table 9 for each language. The correlations are similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual
for a sample of U.S. college students (Gough & Bradley,
2005). However, the manual reports ACL descriptions given
by panels of observers rather than self-report, as is shown
here. These correlations are also consistent with what is
expected given the content of each of the CPI 260 scales.
For example, Dominance measures prosocial dominance,
strength of will, and perseverance in pursuing goals. High
scores on Dominance were associated with the adjectives
ambitious, enterprising, and outgoing, while low scores were
associated with inhibited, withdrawn, and retiring. Also,
Responsibility measures awareness of societal rules and willingness to abide when appropriate. The adjectives conscientious and rational were related to high scores on Responsibility, whereas distrustful and rattlebrained were associated with
low scores. High scores on Leadership, which identifies individuals with good leadership skills, were related to the adjectives ambitious and enterprising, whereas low scores were
related to the adjectives timid and awkward.
While the general pattern of correlations between the ACL
and CPI 260 assessments holds up across each of the nine
languages, there is some deviation in the direction of correlations between certain adjectives and CPI 260 scales. For
example, for the Simplified and Traditional Chinese samples,
the correlations for calm and patient with Self-control are
slightly negative rather than positive. The languages with the
largest number of deviations are Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, European Spanish, and Latin American
Spanish, which had the most. There may be cultural differences in the expression or understanding of adjectival selfratings. This, however, should not be a concern, because a
majority of the other analyses contained in this technical brief
demonstrate appropriate psychometric functioning of all CPI
260 translations. The uniqueness of the Latin American
Spanish sample used for this ACL analysis affected the results
of this analysis but none of the other analyses.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
23
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
European
Spanish
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.19
.22
.25
.16
.28
–.04
–.23
–.30
.05
–.10
.30
.33
.31
.18
.29
–.12
–.41
–.25
–.43
–.27
.26
.29
.35
.43
.31
–.40
–.18
–.23
–.47
–.30
.22
.35
.36
.43
.37
–.10
–.22
–.35
–.06
–.32
.32
.28
.29
.33
.16
–.38
–.11
–.30
–.37
–.46
.26
.29
.53
.37
.39
–.27
.03
–.34
–.25
–.38
–.01
.00
.16
.04
.08
.17
.08
.06
.03
.01
.21
.21
.33
.24
.24
–.15
–.22
–.23
–.15
–.15
.24
.12
.25
.07
.23
–.11
–.16
–.25
–.01
–.02
.30
.24
.27
.17
.19
–.13
–.21
–.18
–.35
–.22
.26
.34
.32
.35
.30
–.23
–.17
–.20
–.39
–.20
.26
.29
.40
.32
.28
–.15
–.33
–.26
–.45
–.22
.15
.14
.24
.33
.11
–.24
–.26
–.37
–.21
–.43
.22
.19
.26
.28
.30
–.01
–.45
–.38
–.25
–.40
–.06
–.01
.08
.07
.06
–.11
.03
.10
.02
.00
.20
.26
.26
.19
.40
–.24
–.24
–.34
–.25
–.35
.29
.25
.19
.20
.29
–.16
–.17
–.27
–.23
–.25
.31
.21
.20
.34
.22
–.12
–.23
–.24
.05
–.09
.25
.26
.22
.22
.23
–.23
–.28
–.23
–.38
–.25
.35
.36
.27
.40
.32
–.21
–.19
–.25
–.39
–.32
.28
.31
.32
.38
.35
–.27
–.23
–.34
–.04
–.30
.22
.23
.34
.27
.11
–.24
–.14
–.34
–.32
–.34
.19
.22
.53
.46
.44
–.06
–.26
–.32
–.26
–.39
.07
.06
.11
.03
.06
.02
.12
.07
.03
.04
.24
.18
.22
.21
.25
–.35
–.18
–.18
–.31
–.33
.18
.13
.13
.16
.18
–.12
–.22
–.19
–.22
–.21
.24
.22
.10
.22
.18
–.07
–.13
–.15
–.18
–.02
.20
.15
.14
.22
.19
–.21
–.17
–.27
–.19
–.20
.32
.19
.35
.23
.25
–.26
–.21
–.17
–.21
–.26
.27
.24
.36
.29
.28
–.23
–.09
–.18
–.29
–.28
.26
.21
.38
.05
.22
–.36
–.21
–.08
–.28
–.35
.30
.23
.32
.11
.39
–.05
–.26
–.12
–.13
–.26
–.07
.07
–.01
.03
–.02
.03
.10
.07
.00
.06
Danish
Dutch
.26
.28
.33
.25
.32
–.22
–.41
–.34
–.27
–.35
.26
.27
.28
.26
.31
–.31
–.29
–.26
–.21
–.22
.26
.30
.30
.25
.31
–.18
–.25
–.29
–.20
–.28
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
Capacity for Status (Cs)
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
Sociability (Sy)
active
enterprising
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
24
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
Danish
Dutch
.23
.20
.24
.38
.32
–.26
–.17
–.23
–.14
–.27
.28
.30
.21
.35
.29
–.19
–.15
–.18
–.21
–.23
.29
.26
.21
.26
.24
–.35
–.17
–.41
–.35
–.34
European
Spanish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.19
.07
.26
.34
.26
–.07
–.11
.07
–.05
–.07
.31
.24
.29
.37
.23
–.23
–.16
–.38
–.14
–.24
.29
.41
.30
.46
.30
–.34
–.30
–.41
–.22
–.32
.16
.12
.27
.34
.33
–.40
–.22
–.05
–.03
–.28
.20
.16
.21
.18
.10
–.32
–.40
–.37
–.07
–.33
.09
.36
.11
.33
.29
–.14
–.16
–.32
–.20
–.41
–.07
.09
.03
.13
.04
.10
–.15
.00
–.06
.02
.37
.23
.22
.22
.14
–.18
–.22
–.29
–.20
–.20
.27
.12
.26
.18
.14
–.20
–.04
–.06
–.23
–.10
.28
.28
.17
.23
.18
–.17
–.25
–.19
–.34
–.21
.16
.15
.21
.20
.21
–.21
–.28
–.29
–.45
–.24
.36
.31
.14
.34
.19
–.18
–.18
–.37
–.13
–.25
.42
.15
.21
.25
–.03
–.20
–.10
–.27
–.42
–.32
.43
.15
.16
.37
.31
–.14
–.07
–.23
–.24
–.38
–.03
–.01
.07
.10
.04
–.05
.07
–.09
–.03
.00
.20
.27
.32
.20
.21
–.22
–.23
–.16
–.24
–.22
.19
.14
.20
.18
.19
–.13
–.20
–.17
–.16
–.16
.21
.18
.25
.15
.24
–.19
–.11
–.09
–.10
–.09
.22
.26
.30
.18
.23
–.16
–.19
–.17
–.17
–.15
.15
.22
.25
.29
.30
–.19
–.20
–.29
–.13
–.23
.30
.22
.40
.32
.31
–.11
–.34
–.13
–.21
–.18
.26
.11
.19
.22
.31
–.13
–.28
–.17
–.34
–.35
.17
.11
.22
.29
.37
–.17
–.21
–.14
–.20
–.37
–.02
–.12
.12
.05
.02
–.04
–.05
–.01
.09
.04
.14
.21
.17
.20
.13
–.12
–.26
–.15
–.14
–.17
.20
.23
.13
.22
.08
–.13
–.12
–.14
–.21
–.14
.08
.01
.08
.09
.14
–.16
–.22
–.09
–.15
–.04
.30
.16
.15
.16
.20
–.11
–.10
–.17
–.15
–.15
.13
.22
.18
.23
.12
–.14
–.19
–.11
–.16
–.21
.14
.23
.27
.15
.15
–.19
–.04
–.08
–.20
–.20
–.04
.15
–.02
.19
.26
–.01
–.01
–.08
–.14
–.19
.21
–.15
.14
.03
.07
–.16
–.09
–.31
–.03
–.05
.08
.16
.05
.08
–.02
.01
.08
–.01
.07
–.08
Swedish
Self-acceptance (Sa)
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
Independence (In)
confidant
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
Responsibility (Re)
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
25
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
Danish
Dutch
.13
.04
.10
.11
.01
–.25
–.30
–.19
–.12
–.23
.04
.11
.09
.06
.05
–.12
–.13
–.17
–.15
–.16
.30
.20
.13
.14
.24
–.21
–.29
–.24
–.18
–.19
European
Spanish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.04
.13
.08
.00
.15
–.27
–.22
–.15
–.07
–.15
.18
.07
.11
.08
.22
–.27
–.16
–.17
–.19
–.12
.14
.18
.20
.19
.16
–.28
–.30
–.15
–.18
–.14
.09
.20
.08
.16
.08
–.31
–.18
–.10
–.29
–.19
.25
.04
.03
.00
.07
–.25
–.09
–.17
.02
–.13
.17
.00
.01
.05
.07
–.18
–.26
–.28
–.26
–.18
.05
.05
.03
.13
.08
–.05
–.03
.08
.14
.03
.11
.16
.20
.13
.09
–.17
–.09
–.23
–.23
–.20
.12
.07
.10
–.01
.05
–.24
–.26
–.22
–.13
–.03
.14
.17
.11
.07
.11
–.19
–.19
–.24
–.18
–.24
.27
.09
.24
.10
.13
–.16
–.23
–.19
–.27
–.17
.25
.06
.09
.04
.09
–.21
–.23
–.23
–.35
–.32
–.01
.23
–.02
.15
.19
–.08
–.26
–.13
.03
.02
–.09
.05
–.01
.10
.13
–.29
–.20
–.41
–.39
–.18
.09
.05
.14
.12
.01
.03
–.07
.13
.03
–.03
.08
.08
.03
.17
.11
–.22
–.14
–.20
–.20
–.25
.05
.11
.12
.13
.07
–.27
–.20
–.21
–.17
–.19
.00
.17
.00
.15
.17
–.21
–.09
–.14
–.14
–.13
.26
.08
.14
.12
.12
–.15
–.20
–.20
–.14
–.19
.19
.23
.08
.12
.11
–.25
–.26
–.18
–.16
–.12
.13
.02
.01
.04
.03
–.15
–.18
–.19
–.17
–.21
.16
.19
.09
.13
.06
–.11
–.09
–.16
–.19
–.05
.15
.06
.11
–.13
–.08
–.17
–.24
–.38
–.19
–.33
.04
.21
.23
.09
.15
.07
.06
.07
.09
.05
.24
.14
.11
.12
.19
–.15
–.11
–.16
–.06
–.10
.08
.09
.14
.16
.08
–.16
–.09
–.15
–.24
–.03
.08
.13
.18
.08
.06
.04
–.10
.04
.15
.00
.17
.11
.13
.09
.22
–.21
–.06
–.03
–.15
–.01
.15
.15
.09
.15
.08
–.14
–.12
–.09
–.12
–.08
.28
.21
.15
.06
.18
–.16
–.09
–.11
–.03
–.03
.16
.09
.13
.10
.18
–.10
–.17
–.24
–.24
–.18
.14
.09
.25
.04
.28
–.17
.01
–.10
–.23
–.06
–.03
.03
.07
.05
.04
.10
.06
.06
.06
.01
Swedish
Social Conformity (So)
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
Good Impression (Gi)
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
Communality (Cm)
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
complaining
dissatisfied
self-pitying
spineless
sour
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
26
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
Danish
Dutch
.22
.15
.24
.13
.15
–.36
–.40
–.24
–.36
–.24
.18
.19
.22
.21
.20
–.24
–.28
–.21
–.25
–.19
.12
.28
.10
.16
.12
–.31
–.15
–.20
–.30
–.21
European
Spanish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.17
.16
.18
.19
.07
–.20
–.27
–.11
–.10
–.28
.24
.21
.28
.15
.13
–.16
–.31
–.22
–.18
–.22
.23
.13
.23
.23
.17
–.23
–.39
–.24
–.33
–.31
.15
.27
.20
.28
.13
–.21
–.29
–.09
–.32
–.31
.07
.28
.24
.37
.33
–.23
–.17
–.23
–.32
–.30
.19
.42
.10
.30
.06
–.19
–.21
–.23
–.26
–.22
–.06
–.12
.04
.07
.01
–.03
–.12
.08
–.04
–.04
.13
.22
.04
.10
.12
–.12
–.18
–.16
–.19
–.18
.08
–.03
.16
–.04
.10
–.19
–.11
–.17
–.15
–.10
.12
.14
.10
.15
.22
–.12
–.14
–.18
–.15
–.19
.09
.12
.10
.12
.12
–.11
–.17
–.20
–.28
–.21
.14
.16
.10
.21
.01
–.07
–.12
–.14
–.12
–.11
–.01
–.07
.07
.05
.16
.07
–.17
–.01
.01
–.17
–.08
.12
.05
–.10
.12
–.41
–.34
–.30
–.28
–.33
.09
.04
.12
.13
.06
.09
–.06
–.05
–.05
.01
.19
.09
.20
.23
.19
–.18
–.30
–.16
–.23
–.30
.23
.15
.22
.20
.17
–.11
–.23
–.17
–.17
–.13
.08
.00
.25
.17
.24
–.10
–.14
–.16
–.18
–.02
.22
.08
.22
.18
.16
–.18
–.10
–.15
–.19
–.15
.12
.20
.15
.23
.19
–.14
–.18
–.19
–.30
–.17
.22
.22
.28
.24
.21
–.07
–.24
–.11
–.14
–.18
.39
.19
.28
.09
–.20
.02
.02
–.08
–.08
–.11
.11
.18
.20
.13
.11
.03
–.10
–.15
–.42
–.20
.10
.13
.20
.23
.23
.07
.15
–.09
–.02
.05
.32
.21
.22
.25
.20
–.29
–.22
–.26
–.20
–.17
.36
.16
.26
.22
.22
–.14
–.07
–.18
–.14
–.19
.17
.05
.16
.11
.13
–.05
–.14
–.15
–.10
–.20
.17
.17
.16
.24
.17
–.19
–.15
–.14
–.17
–.17
.11
.10
.17
.22
.20
–.17
–.18
–.25
–.15
–.15
.23
.15
.22
.37
.11
-.02
–.12
–.09
–.08
–.28
–.01
.07
.04
.12
.09
–.21
–.19
–.02
–.24
–.03
.20
.14
.18
.05
.19
–.24
–.28
–.17
–.23
–.13
–.03
.01
.12
.13
.03
.08
–.01
–.03
.05
.10
Swedish
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
Tolerance (To)
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
27
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
Danish
Dutch
.23
.20
.19
.24
.32
–.13
–.23
–.29
–.22
–.22
.22
.22
.16
.39
.29
–.11
–.12
–.17
–.18
–.30
.12
.22
.11
.25
.23
–.31
–.22
–.26
–.22
–.13
European
Spanish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.20
.20
.17
.15
.19
–.13
–.16
–.21
–.17
–.16
.26
.25
.26
.19
.26
–.21
–.21
–.15
–.21
–.30
.22
.19
.21
.23
.35
–.24
–.31
–.19
–.26
–.22
.20
.30
.29
.29
.37
–.19
–.15
–.04
–.11
–.32
.24
.19
.16
–.08
.13
–.10
–.20
–.19
–.23
–.14
.11
.23
.22
.14
.12
–.41
–.16
–.13
–.32
–.27
.06
.07
.10
.22
.19
–.10
–.02
–.01
–.01
.03
.21
.15
.23
.36
.20
–.11
–.17
–.12
–.16
–.27
.16
.19
.16
.13
.14
–.06
–.19
–.20
–.11
–.12
.24
.21
.15
.14
.08
–.27
–.23
–.20
–.17
–.23
.14
.21
.13
.18
.18
–.32
–.24
–.18
–.18
–.15
.03
.18
.03
.17
.08
–.26
–.15
–.13
–.11
–.24
.06
.07
.14
–.05
.09
–.36
–.18
–.12
–.16
–.02
.12
.13
.07
.17
.13
–.28
.00
–.05
–.21
–.10
.10
.01
.05
.14
.04
.01
–.08
.03
.06
.04
.10
.06
.07
.11
.13
–.02
–.10
–.04
–.07
–.04
.06
.02
.08
.13
.16
–.03
–.22
–.12
–.14
–.05
.04
.18
–.02
–.07
.12
–.11
–.01
–.22
.13
–.13
.11
.21
.11
.01
.19
–.04
–.05
–.14
–.10
–.09
.17
.11
.03
.03
.24
–.08
–.12
–.12
–.01
–.13
.02
.02
–.02
.21
.05
–.05
–.01
–.13
–.10
–.18
.22
.12
.04
–.12
–.06
–.09
.00
.01
–.03
–.05
.13
.12
.11
.02
.09
–.18
–.07
–.18
–.07
–.04
–.04
–.14
–.12
–.03
–.01
–.06
–.02
–.14
.10
.01
.30
.25
.12
.17
.32
–.18
–.10
–.10
–.22
–.12
.21
.21
.32
.25
.18
–.26
–.11
–.17
–.31
–.12
.11
.09
.14
.09
.05
–.21
–.01
–.03
–.14
–.20
.34
.16
.16
.11
.16
–.27
–.16
–.22
–.23
–.17
.41
.25
.12
.37
.25
–.27
–.15
–.32
–.35
–.09
.36
.15
.26
.15
.32
–.19
–.10
–.15
–.27
–.15
.21
.02
.23
.01
–.04
–.24
.10
–.22
–.24
–.34
.23
.28
.04
.19
.27
–.22
–.07
–.16
–.06
–.11
.09
.07
.01
–.15
–.06
.01
–.07
.00
.09
–.06
Swedish
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
Insightfulness (Is)
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
28
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
Danish
Dutch
.18
.23
.14
.20
.26
–.29
–.24
–.31
–.20
–.31
.20
.16
.24
.23
.22
–.17
–.18
–.18
–.18
–.19
.10
.26
.11
.23
.09
–.28
–.24
–.31
–.20
–.30
European
Spanish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.11
.07
.04
.08
.25
–.13
–.13
.02
–.08
–.10
.18
.19
.24
.25
.29
–.23
–.21
–.16
–.36
–.21
.20
.19
.17
.28
.34
–.29
–.15
–.12
–.33
–.20
.11
.20
.27
.17
.22
–.15
–.29
–.24
–.13
–.16
.27
.05
.28
.15
.11
–.21
–.20
–.31
–.29
–.27
.02
.14
.23
–.07
.20
–.12
–.10
–.29
–.19
–.30
.08
.07
.15
.25
.20
–.03
.00
.04
–.03
.01
.18
.08
.13
.18
.12
–.25
–.16
–.22
–.16
–.17
.05
.04
.16
.22
.20
–.17
–.12
–.22
–.08
–.07
.24
.17
.13
.16
.12
–.19
–.15
–.16
–.16
–.11
.22
.07
.16
.12
.11
–.35
–.29
–.32
–.25
–.18
.08
.14
.15
.10
.14
–.32
–.15
–.21
–.15
–.19
.13
.05
.19
–.04
–.18
–.15
–.16
–.21
–.12
–.19
.24
.16
.17
.09
–.17
–.26
–.26
–.23
–.30
–.21
–.02
.14
.05
.12
.16
–.02
–.03
.16
.01
.03
.26
.15
.11
.24
.17
–.22
–.22
–.21
–.10
–.14
.27
.18
.22
.22
.13
–.22
–.27
–.12
–.18
–.15
.10
.05
.19
.20
.09
–.01
–.05
–.18
–.09
–.08
.08
.18
.14
.13
.17
–.22
–.09
–.14
–.15
–.17
.15
.14
.12
.27
.11
–.25
–.22
–.20
–.12
–.10
.17
.11
.05
.27
.13
–.21
–.21
–.15
–.21
–.10
–.11
–.07
.04
–.02
.07
–.19
–.14
–.22
–.10
–.08
.12
–.08
.10
.15
.02
–.16
.00
–.13
–.17
–.15
–.01
–.10
–.02
.03
–.12
–.07
–.11
.00
–.08
.01
.20
.33
.18
.30
.42
–.31
–.23
–.35
–.28
–.38
.19
.24
.28
.26
.34
–.27
–.31
–.22
–.22
–.18
.10
.20
.04
.19
.41
–.16
–.06
–.23
–.04
–.14
.27
.35
.19
.30
.36
–.23
–.13
–.21
–.42
–.26
.25
.27
.28
.31
.45
–.42
–.43
–.18
–.48
–.26
.23
.36
.23
.37
.31
–.23
–.13
–.34
–.16
–.33
.16
.14
.22
.26
.15
–.31
–.34
–.29
–.36
–.36
.18
.27
.32
.44
.34
–.01
–.31
–.29
–.24
–.37
.03
.01
.10
.15
.16
–.08
.16
.08
.04
.04
Swedish
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
Creative Temperament (Ct)
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
Leadership (Lp)
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
29
TABLE 9. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH KEY ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
and ACL Adjectives
Danish
Dutch
.26
.12
.13
.13
.08
–.15
–.28
–.12
–.17
–.23
.31
.18
.10
.16
.12
–.09
–.21
–.17
–.16
–.23
.17
.21
.19
.21
.09
–.14
–.09
–.24
–.09
–.11
.14
.18
.09
.10
.11
–.19
–.16
–.18
–.17
–.05
European
Spanish
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.01
.02
–.03
.03
.18
–.01
–.23
–.04
.01
–.06
.11
.09
.13
.08
.18
–.12
–.24
–.20
–.16
–.25
.25
.21
.12
.20
.11
–.21
–.38
–.27
–.21
–.15
.16
.11
.01
.18
.01
–.05
–.28
–.15
–.30
–.30
.04
.08
.17
.07
.07
–.06
–.15
–.21
–.09
–.30
.15
.06
.11
.10
.04
–.24
–.27
–.07
–.19
–.29
.17
.15
.11
.06
.07
–.03
–.10
.05
.01
.04
.10
.10
.17
.05
.01
–.29
–.15
–.11
–.12
.04
.05
.09
.11
.15
.14
–.19
–.16
–.21
–.20
–.11
.19
.13
.15
.11
.14
–.22
–.13
–.18
–.12
–.12
.12
.13
.15
.09
.12
–.18
–.10
–.10
–.03
–.13
–.04
.09
.22
–.28
.01
–.04
–.20
–.16
–.08
–.09
.03
.02
.03
–.08
–.07
–.43
–.27
–.21
–.28
–.07
.15
.09
.12
.11
.11
.00
.15
–.02
–.14
.16
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
Note: Danish n = 301, Dutch n = 283, European Spanish n = 213, French n = 295, German n = 340, Swedish n = 261, Simplified Chinese n = 79,
Traditional Chinese n = 101, Latin American Spanish n = 181.
Five-Factor Model Dimensions from the ACL
Researchers have also used the ACL instrument to score the
Five-Factor Model of personality (FormyDuval, Williams,
Patterson, & Fogle, 1995; John, 1989). John’s (1989)
method was used here to score the ACL into the five factors,
which were then correlated with CPI 260 scales. The results
are presented, by language, in Tables 10–14. The pattern of
correlations is consistent across the nine languages. Additionally, the five factors correlate with the CPI 260 scales in
expected ways, and previous research has found similar correlations between the five factors and the CPI assessment.
A Hakstian and Farrell study (2001) showed correlations
between Openness and several CPI scales, such as Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Self-acceptance,
Empathy, Achievement via Independence, and Creative Temperament. Another study found positive correlations between
Extraversion and Sociability and Creative Temperament;
Agreeableness and Socialization; Conscientiousness and Amicability, Socialization, and Well-being; and Openness and
Well-being (Johnson, 2000). Finally, McCrae, Costa, &
Piedmont (1993) found positive correlations between Extraversion and CPI scales Dominance, Sociability, Selfacceptance and a negative correlation with vector 1; positive
correlations between Agreeableness and Dominance and Selfcontrol, and a negative correlation with Independence; positive correlations between Conscientiousness and Self-control,
Good Impression, and Achievement via Conformance; positive correlations between Openness and Capacity for Status,
Social Presence, Empathy, and Independence; and negative
correlations between Neuroticism negative correlated with
Independence, Self-control, Good Impression, and Wellbeing.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
30
TABLE 10. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH EXTRAVERSION
(AS MEASURED BY THE ACL) FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Danish
Dutch
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.63
.56
.65
.56
.61
.52
.43
.17
.07
–.32
–.08
.11
.36
.21
.19
.56
.47
.52
.40
.54
.44
.36
.10
–.04
–.22
–.07
.04
.17
.13
.11
.24
European
Spanish
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.57
.44
.53
.40
.46
.36
.42
.13
.14
–.18
.04
.04
.23
.12
.27
.60
.46
.51
.46
.49
.48
.39
.11
.03
–.19
.00
.11
.19
.02
.18
.66
.55
.59
.49
.60
.43
.45
.06
.04
–.25
–.03
.04
.24
.05
.17
.64
.49
.60
.50
.53
.51
.40
.13
.04
–.31
–.09
.13
.26
.04
.21
.32
.29
.27
.25
.25
.24
.25
.05
.10
–.06
.08
.04
.16
.08
.13
.62
.51
.63
.51
.51
.50
.46
–.12
.02
–.38
–.14
.13
.20
–.11
.12
.06
.02
.06
–.01
.08
.07
.01
.08
.11
.11
.16
.05
.08
.08
.17
.14
.13
.19
.10
.17
.16
.06
.08
.37
.26
.08
–.41
.34
.24
.35
.59
.07
.21
.31
.14
.10
–.34
.31
.07
.35
.48
–.02
.22
.29
.28
–.07
–.32
.28
.12
.27
.42
–.02
.22
.34
.20
.01
–.32
.31
.04
.31
.54
–.09
.19
.34
.18
–.05
–.45
.35
.14
.23
.54
–.04
.23
.31
.21
–.04
–.33
.32
.07
.29
.55
–.08
.17
.18
.15
.04
–.17
.22
.11
.19
.27
.07
.05
.20
.17
–.02
–.31
.23
–.07
.32
.49
–.15
.10
.18
.05
–.10
–.04
.09
.05
.12
.11
.24
–.06
–.58
.03
.11
–.48
.04
.12
–.53
.17
.00
–.49
.07
.09
–.55
.10
.03
–.55
.09
.00
–.22
.10
.13
–.58
.06
–.10
.09
.17
.18
Note: Danish n = 301, Dutch n = 283, European Spanish n = 213, French n = 295, German n = 340, Swedish n = 261, Simplified Chinese n = 79,
Traditional Chinese n = 101, Latin American Spanish n = 181.
In the current analyses, Extraversion was associated with high
scores on several scales, including Dominance, Capacity for
Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership, and with low
scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Agreeableness
was associated with high scores on Sociability and Empathy
and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness was associated with high scores on Dominance, Independence,
Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with
low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Openness
was associated with high scores on several CPI 260 scales,
including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social
Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with low scores on Selfcontrol, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally, Neuroticism was
associated with high scores on Sensitivity and with low scores
on several scales, including Dominance, Social Presence,
Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial Potential,
Work Orientation, and vector 3.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
31
TABLE 11. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH AGREEABLENESS
(AS MEASURED BY THE ACL) FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Danish
Dutch
European
Spanish
French
German
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
.18
.20
.22
.11
.13
.07
.31
.13
.05
.07
.12
.13
.15
.27
.14
.00
.01
.12
.08
.00
–.06
.06
.03
.10
.14
.12
.13
.10
.08
.07
.20
.18
.20
.13
.11
.14
.28
.19
.19
.07
.21
.19
.19
.14
.22
.22
.28
.27
.19
.15
.14
.37
.30
.16
.11
.22
.23
.24
.22
.26
.04
.07
.19
.10
.07
–.06
.10
–.01
.01
.06
.11
.14
.04
.00
.12
.19
.24
.33
.24
.18
.09
.25
.26
.21
.09
.08
.24
.19
.19
.28
.16
.12
.16
.15
.14
.15
.10
.08
.14
.03
.12
.13
.20
.09
.19
.23
.19
.22
.27
.07
.16
.38
.08
.07
.02
.12
.19
.22
.08
.07
.13
.14
.13
.07
.12
.06
.11
.16
.20
.16
.23
.12
.07
.18
.22
.12
.03
.06
.20
–.04
.14
.13
.04
.18
.13
.08
.12
.00
.12
.19
.12
.20
.19
.14
.03
.08
.03
.12
.03
.07
–.02
.06
.15
.01
.11
.11
.03
–.07
.16
.23
.13
.20
.13
.03
.28
.22
.09
–.03
.26
.27
.18
.28
.18
.06
.03
–.06
.00
.05
.00
.03
.00
.07
.09
.04
.19
.14
.00
.15
.23
.20
.12
.26
.23
.06
.17
.18
.01
–.03
.15
.15
.10
.19
.15
.08
.05
.08
.12
.03
.09
.11
.15
.20
.09
–.03
.21
.15
.01
.10
.19
.22
–.01
.14
.18
.12
–.11
.03
.12
.11
–.01
.08
–.12
.08
.14
–.12
.10
.21
.00
–.02
.04
–.11
.24
.11
–.04
.10
.12
–.13
–.05
.12
.01
.13
.22
Note: Danish n = 301, Dutch n = 283, European Spanish n = 213, French n = 295, German n = 340, Swedish n = 261, Simplified Chinese n = 79,
Traditional Chinese n = 101, Latin American Spanish n = 181.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
32
TABLE 12. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
(AS MEASURED BY THE ACL) FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
Dutch
European
Spanish
French
German
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
CPI 260® Scale
Danish
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.18
.09
.10
–.04
.09
.14
.15
.22
.22
.20
.28
.20
.23
.14
.33
.23
.12
.23
.08
.15
.17
.10
.21
.17
.20
.21
.17
.24
.15
.38
.27
.21
.26
.15
.21
.20
.22
.15
.17
.05
.16
.15
.20
.08
.29
.35
.28
.24
.13
.25
.28
.25
.27
.18
.12
.21
.22
.23
.16
.37
.24
.09
.17
.04
.20
.23
.01
.20
.24
.23
.24
.25
.27
.06
.33
.17
.09
.19
.11
.11
.13
.07
.22
.25
.17
.07
.22
.24
.06
.35
.14
.08
.14
.08
.15
.16
.06
.10
.13
.07
.14
.14
.21
.11
.18
.24
.12
.23
.14
.13
.23
.21
.17
.09
–.01
.22
.27
.24
.04
.40
.13
.11
.16
.02
.11
.06
.08
.14
.16
.14
.26
.13
.05
.11
.23
.16
.12
.05
.23
.10
.07
.13
.17
.10
.17
.17
–.20
–.10
.22
.22
–.11
.23
.19
.23
.26
.20
–.22
.00
.28
.21
–.07
.28
.17
.25
.19
.11
–.30
–.22
.19
.19
–.02
.28
.13
.22
.38
.20
–.21
–.18
.34
.23
.06
.40
.13
.23
.19
.12
–.39
–.14
.27
.24
–.13
.35
.20
.23
.15
.06
–.22
–.02
.20
.18
–.10
.21
.11
.13
.15
.14
.01
–.06
.16
.16
.08
.17
.15
.08
.17
.17
–.23
–.13
.21
.14
.03
.32
–.01
.14
.20
.03
–.01
–.02
.22
.21
–.12
.15
.11
.20
–.08
.31
.09
–.07
.33
.12
–.23
.27
.02
–.19
.27
.12
–.05
.35
.03
–.09
.36
.02
–.01
.11
.13
–.18
.26
.13
–.05
.16
.20
Note: Danish n = 301, Dutch n = 283, European Spanish n = 213, French n = 295, German n = 340, Swedish n = 261, Simplified Chinese n = 79,
Traditional Chinese n = 101, Latin American Spanish n = 181.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
33
TABLE 13. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH OPENNESS
(AS MEASURED BY THE ACL) FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Danish
Dutch
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.42
.43
.39
.38
.41
.38
.42
.21
.02
–.19
–.06
.10
.19
.16
.26
.39
.38
.37
.30
.37
.33
.29
.20
.02
–.06
–.05
.06
.13
.10
.20
.29
European
Spanish
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
.37
.35
.26
.26
.34
.25
.36
.10
.04
–.12
–.02
.09
.13
.03
.24
.40
.37
.32
.33
.37
.34
.34
.14
.01
–.13
.03
.17
.12
.03
.21
.50
.45
.41
.35
.49
.39
.40
.19
.11
–.05
.01
.11
.27
.08
.26
.43
.46
.48
.41
.40
.39
.40
.26
.12
–.21
–.17
.17
.16
.10
.30
.23
.19
.22
.17
.21
.20
.19
.11
.12
–.01
.11
.11
.19
.10
.18
.45
.36
.49
.44
.40
.40
.43
–.06
–.01
–.28
–.07
.11
.14
–.07
.17
.12
.10
.13
.07
.14
.11
.11
.19
.23
.12
.24
.23
.14
.13
.29
.18
.15
.21
.25
.29
.18
.22
.12
.36
.27
.09
–.24
.21
.20
.28
.39
.01
.10
.36
.33
.08
–.16
.23
.14
.26
.39
.00
.16
.24
.23
–.08
–.22
.18
.08
.21
.30
–.04
.07
.31
.18
–.04
–.18
.23
.14
.21
.35
–.05
.08
.41
.24
–.03
–.29
.31
.18
.26
.49
.07
.11
.38
.20
.05
–.14
.28
.12
.25
.36
–.04
.07
.20
.18
.04
–.08
.19
.16
.14
.22
.11
.08
.25
.24
.06
–.25
.14
–.04
.24
.38
–.15
.06
.21
.11
–.08
.00
.21
.30
–.05
.15
.22
.20
–.43
.04
.12
–.31
.07
.08
–.38
.16
.02
–.35
.10
.03
–.36
.17
.09
–.41
.17
.06
–.12
.10
.13
–.45
.05
.04
.00
.14
.17
Note: Danish n = 301, Dutch n = 283, European Spanish n = 213, French n = 295, German n = 340, Swedish n = 261, Simplified Chinese n = 79,
Traditional Chinese n = 101, Latin American Spanish n = 181.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
34
TABLE 14. CORRELATIONS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES WITH NEUROTICISM
(AS MEASURED BY THE ACL) FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Danish
Dutch
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
–.28
–.23
–.19
–.25
–.19
–.41
–.16
–.22
–.41
–.20
–.35
–.23
–.53
–.31
–.29
–.24
–.22
–.20
–.31
–.21
–.42
–.23
–.10
–.15
–.14
–.22
–.10
–.40
–.23
–.10
–.26
European
Spanish
Swedish
Simplified Traditional
Chinese
Chinese
Latin
American
Spanish
French
German
–.14
–.04
–.11
–.05
–.12
–.17
–.13
–.20
–.22
–.32
–.28
.01
–.23
–.22
–.18
–.30
–.27
–.31
–.24
–.31
–.36
–.25
–.06
–.37
–.20
–.32
–.06
–.46
–.32
–.21
–.25
–.20
–.19
–.28
–.18
–.43
–.26
–.25
–.40
–.34
–.37
–.11
–.53
–.29
–.28
–.22
–.12
–.19
–.22
–.18
–.32
–.14
–.22
–.36
–.26
–.26
–.25
–.47
–.29
–.26
–.14
–.08
–.10
–.18
–.18
–.17
–.11
–.08
–.18
–.09
–.12
–.15
–.17
–.06
–.10
–.20
–.27
–.19
–.17
–.23
–.43
–.24
–.21
–.41
–.28
–.40
–.05
–.43
–.45
–.30
.11
.01
.09
.04
.14
.01
.03
.07
.02
–.05
–.03
.13
.03
.05
.09
–.21
–.17
–.35
–.28
–.21
–.09
–.41
.01
–.37
–.36
–.06
.37
–.38
–.44
–.17
–.37
–.40
–.24
–.29
–.23
–.14
.31
–.27
–.36
–.24
–.33
–.30
–.18
–.24
–.14
.03
.11
–.24
–.19
–.10
–.28
–.29
–.21
–.33
–.35
–.05
.37
–.38
–.34
–.20
–.40
–.42
–.24
–.40
–.29
.03
.33
–.39
–.49
–.21
–.37
–.50
–.22
–.24
–.32
–.18
.32
–.31
–.42
–.21
–.35
–.38
–.18
–.12
–.15
.00
.07
–.14
–.12
–.07
–.19
–.18
–.13
–.41
–.22
–.09
.30
–.41
–.42
–.30
–.31
–.44
–.35
.03
–.02
–.19
–.05
.06
–.02
.00
.06
–.05
.10
.08
–.13
–.33
.07
–.02
–.27
–.04
–.11
–.20
.10
–.16
–.30
–.04
–.27
–.35
–.03
.00
–.31
.05
–.07
–.11
–.11
–.16
–.50
–.08
.04
.00
Note: Danish n = 301, Dutch n = 283, European Spanish n = 213, French n = 295, German n = 340, Swedish n = 261, implified Chinese n = 79,
Traditional Chinese n = 101, Latin American Spanish n = 181.
Organizational Level
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than do lower-level organizational members. Specifically, higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive,
determination, and a willingness to make difficult decisions”
(Do, In, Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers
(Gough & Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). The samples obtained
did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level;
however, the respondents for each sample were divided into
lower-level groups (supervisor and below—includes entrylevel, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and
higher-level groups (management and above—includes management, executives, and top executives), and the average CPI
260 scale score was generated. These results are provided in
Table 15. The anticipated pattern of elevated scores was
found among the higher-level organizational group for each
sample. This replication of the pattern typically found in the
United States provides additional validity evidence for use of
the nine translations of the CPI 260 assessment.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
35
TABLE 15. U.S. CPI 260 ® SCALE STANDARD SCORE MEANS BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Danish
Dutch
European Spanish
Organizational Level
Organizational Level
Organizational Level
Supervisor
and below
(n = 341)
Management
and above
(n = 156)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 393)
Management
and above
(n = 74)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 350)
Management
and above
(n = 79)
52.29
50.08
51.28
49.03
51.33
54.36
55.89
50.23
49.23
55.11
55.63
47.17
49.67
54.52
48.37
53.55
50.45
52.40
50.33
46.07
56.89
50.94
50.95
52.13
53.72
54.86
48.76
50.07
53.96
55.43
52.46
53.47
50.63
53.66
57.92
58.71
52.45
50.05
54.70
56.53
48.41
50.23
54.57
50.90
56.07
53.04
54.67
50.42
45.19
58.58
51.42
52.13
55.07
53.20
55.36
45.89
51.50
54.84
52.87
46.60
49.57
48.40
49.60
54.50
53.14
48.64
49.35
57.71
56.83
46.90
50.40
50.22
49.26
51.39
48.81
49.90
50.17
47.86
53.54
50.28
48.83
51.45
51.99
56.49
50.90
49.46
52.77
59.38
52.54
54.01
52.29
55.86
59.89
58.44
50.24
50.01
55.35
56.81
47.68
53.44
52.88
50.95
54.33
52.21
52.57
52.84
43.12
58.25
52.10
54.51
57.15
53.37
56.70
43.56
49.50
55.10
51.14
49.47
49.99
48.32
49.97
52.37
54.52
48.47
48.53
51.43
52.79
44.07
43.82
47.92
49.64
50.40
47.08
48.93
45.79
47.11
50.09
45.44
48.47
49.77
46.86
51.38
46.36
51.82
47.55
56.33
53.61
53.39
50.41
53.45
56.83
58.46
51.38
50.44
53.74
55.26
46.28
47.05
50.55
53.78
53.44
51.54
51.69
45.17
45.71
54.31
48.84
51.46
55.07
49.13
52.83
44.39
54.11
50.77
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
36
TABLE 15. U.S. CPI 260 ® SCALE STANDARD SCORE MEANS BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
French
German
Swedish
Organizational Level
Organizational Level
Organizational Level
Supervisor
and below
(n = 358)
Management
and above
(n = 128)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 423)
Management
and above
(n = 91)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 429)
Management
and above
(n = 51)
49.68
45.55
48.23
45.89
46.68
49.26
52.62
45.75
46.39
55.76
53.48
41.25
42.94
46.12
46.84
47.65
45.37
47.06
47.88
46.20
48.89
44.08
47.63
47.65
47.17
51.35
50.61
48.37
47.75
53.98
50.43
50.89
47.48
50.35
53.50
55.81
49.86
49.92
56.25
54.13
43.48
45.70
49.26
50.97
51.97
50.55
50.55
48.53
44.96
53.99
46.66
51.22
52.56
48.98
54.14
47.29
50.51
50.33
51.66
44.75
48.50
45.65
48.53
51.96
49.99
45.66
45.09
55.46
54.87
47.57
45.53
46.22
47.72
48.12
47.56
49.72
45.82
47.16
48.44
45.95
47.59
48.65
46.37
54.96
52.21
48.09
48.39
57.37
50.47
51.67
49.66
54.33
57.09
54.82
48.76
45.26
54.06
54.28
46.23
48.87
47.23
50.66
51.25
51.88
53.21
45.65
43.64
52.44
47.79
51.43
54.89
46.35
55.09
44.99
51.25
49.78
53.90
50.68
50.79
51.01
52.33
54.72
54.28
47.66
47.34
51.24
50.46
44.18
45.78
51.29
47.66
51.79
48.77
49.38
49.29
47.01
53.92
48.66
49.90
51.35
49.58
52.74
45.36
49.03
52.49
60.78
56.91
55.31
56.30
57.28
61.76
59.41
51.05
48.96
50.27
50.70
43.87
49.71
54.57
49.74
56.36
54.31
53.64
50.93
41.89
58.59
50.45
54.35
57.24
50.19
52.96
38.91
49.70
54.62
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
37
TABLE 15. U.S. CPI 260 ® SCALE STANDARD SCORE MEANS BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Simplified Chinese
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Traditional Chinese
Organizational Level
Simplified Chinese
(subsample)
Organizational Level
Supervisor
and below
(n = 213)
Management
and above
(n = 73)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 491)
Management
and above
(n = 157)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 173)
Management
and above
(n = 52)
50.79
48.14
49.36
47.48
49.30
50.57
52.39
45.43
44.08
47.67
50.91
37.79
40.08
44.26
47.74
46.87
46.70
47.98
41.68
47.00
47.60
42.30
44.25
48.35
44.58
50.49
43.17
54.09
41.90
55.19
51.36
53.16
50.65
52.87
53.13
55.26
45.88
44.27
46.12
51.85
36.23
41.51
43.87
49.13
46.71
47.25
48.19
40.31
45.78
50.37
42.86
44.61
51.47
44.55
50.07
37.46
57.01
41.64
48.55
47.08
45.96
44.42
46.99
47.60
50.36
42.22
42.73
50.17
51.51
31.75
38.07
45.16
46.52
44.93
44.02
46.13
44.41
48.28
47.39
42.12
44.30
45.28
43.64
48.43
47.13
48.86
43.81
52.70
50.09
49.73
45.89
50.22
50.17
53.37
43.97
43.33
50.21
52.56
31.54
39.38
45.53
48.50
46.24
46.11
48.15
43.06
45.32
50.28
42.51
45.28
49.39
43.16
50.02
43.07
52.06
44.36
51.45
48.15
50.07
48.33
49.98
52.01
52.24
46.78
45.96
48.39
51.43
42.51
42.35
45.18
49.40
47.88
48.00
49.10
41.60
46.89
48.23
44.22
44.97
49.60
45.96
51.95
43.87
54.40
42.50
56.16
52.60
54.31
52.01
54.01
56.18
55.22
48.48
47.34
47.49
52.60
41.89
45.04
46.52
51.94
49.41
50.15
50.75
41.25
45.59
51.87
46.54
47.08
53.88
47.08
52.71
39.61
55.98
42.93
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
38
TABLE 15. U.S. CPI 260 ® SCALE STANDARD SCORE MEANS BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
FOR EACH LANGUAGE SAMPLE CONT’D
Traditional Chinese
(subsample)
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Latin American Spanish
Organizational Level
Supervisor
and below
(n = 349)
Management
and above
(n = 109)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 147)
Management
and above
(n = 111)
48.70
47.08
46.30
45.67
47.11
48.56
49.86
44.04
44.97
51.57
51.93
38.68
40.53
46.11
48.73
45.70
45.55
47.49
44.13
48.28
47.70
44.63
44.65
46.40
45.21
49.87
48.81
49.02
43.97
54.07
50.86
51.48
47.50
51.60
52.25
53.73
45.80
45.59
51.19
53.43
38.86
41.94
46.41
51.00
47.69
48.03
49.85
42.87
45.10
50.98
45.13
46.15
51.53
45.17
52.13
43.64
52.84
44.62
57.36
54.60
55.21
52.51
56.25
56.93
57.40
50.09
48.91
49.18
52.70
44.52
47.79
50.10
52.23
50.57
49.89
50.33
43.63
43.93
52.83
46.81
51.99
55.34
47.20
53.28
40.38
53.67
47.20
61.61
58.57
58.05
53.65
59.29
61.07
60.69
53.32
51.64
51.40
54.81
46.02
51.31
52.11
55.38
53.71
53.35
53.56
43.95
42.45
56.79
49.78
55.49
59.86
49.92
55.01
38.20
55.49
50.87
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
39
C ON C LU SI ON
The adequacy of nine translations of the CPI 260 assessment—Danish, Dutch, European Spanish, French, German,
Swedish, Simplified Chinese, Traditional Chinese, and Latin
American Spanish—were examined. Using samples of
employed adults, this study shows that the CPI 260 assessment as adapted into these languages shows good measurement properties in terms of the reliability and factor structure
of the translated instrument. In addition, initial validity evi-
dence suggests that the translations of the CPI 260 assessment function in each of the nine languages in a manner similar to that found in the original language (U.S. English).
While additional research should be completed using a variety of samples, the results presented here suggest that the CPI
260 translations can be used with native language speakers in
each of these countries.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
40
R EF ER EN CES
Ahmad, I. (1986). Initial psychometric validation of the Urdu
version of California Psychological Inventory™. Pakistan
Journal of Psychological Research, 1, 3–16.
Ahmad, I., Haque, & Anila (1994). Validation of
Femininity/Masculinity scale of California Psychological
Inventory™ in Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Psychological
Research, 9, 27–34.
Albu, M., & Pitariu, H. D. (1999). Evaluarea anxietajii cu ajutorul inventarului Psihologic California (CPI) [Assessment
of anxiety with the California Psychological Inventory™].
Studii de Psihologie, 4, 19-32.
Alfano, L., & Traina, F. (1972). Caratteristiche di personalità di
studenti universitaria analizzate attraverso l’applicazione
del CPI™ [Personality characteristics of university students
analyzed by means of the CPI™]. Bollettino di Psicologia
Applicata, 109–111, 103–118.
Anderson, M. G. (2007). CPI 260® U.S. workforce norms.
Unpublished manuscript. http://discovery.skillsone.com/
Documents/CPI%20260%20US%20Workforce%20Norm%
20Development.pdf
Armentrout, J. A. (1977). Comparison of standard and shortform scores of Canadian adults on the California Psychological Inventory™. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 45, 1088.
Banissoni, M. (1967). Rigidità percettiva e dogmatismo [Perceptual rigidity and dogmatism]. Rivista di Psicologia, 67,
226–236.
Barrett, P. T., Petrides, K. V., Eysenck, S. B. G., & Eysenck, H. J.
(1998). The Eysenck Personality Questionnaire: An examination of the factorial similarity of P, E, N, and L across 34
countries. Personality and Individual Differences, 25(5), 805–
819.
Blane, H. T., & Yamamoto, K. (1970). Sexual role identity
among Japanese and Japanese-American high school students. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 345–354.
Brengelmann, J. C. (1959). Differences in questionnaire
responses between English and German nationals. Acta Psychologica, 16, 339–355.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2006). Current Population Survey.
Retrieved March 12, 2007, from www.bls.gov/cps/home.htm.
Burt, C. L. (1948). The factorial study of temperamental traits.
British Journal of Psychology, 1, 178–203.
Casas, N., Segura, M. J., Camacho, M., & Mojarro, M. D.
(1998). Rasgos de personalidad en la election professional
[Personality traits and career selection]. Anales de Psiquiatria, 14, 193–196.
Chan, W., Ho, R. M., Leung, K., Chan, D. K. S., & Yung, Y. F.
(1999). An alternative method for evaluating congruence
coefficients with Procrustes rotation: A bootstrap procedure. Psychological Methods, 4(4), 378–402.
Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor-analytic methods of scale development in personality and clinical psychology. Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 56(5), 754–761.
Cook, M., Young, A., Taylor, D., O’Shea, A., Chitashvili, M.,
Lepeska, V., Choumentauskas, G., Ventskovsky, O., Hermochova, S., & Uhler, P. (1998). Personality profiles of managers in former Soviet countries. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 13, 567–579.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal
structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334.
De Bruin, G. P., Nel, Z. J., & Comrey, A. L. (1997). Factor
analysis of Afrikaans translation of the Comrey Personality
Scales. Psychological Reports, 81, 867–876.
Devine, R. J. (2005). CPI 260® client feedback report guide for
interpretation. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
FormyDuval, D. L., Williams, J. E., Patterson, D. J., & Fogle,
E. E. (1995). A “big five” scoring system for the item pool of
the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality Assessment,
65, 59–76.
Ghiselli, E. E., Campbell, J. P, & Zedeck, S. (1981). Measurement theory for the behavioral sciences. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman.
Gough, H. G. (1957). Manual for the California Psychological
Inventory™. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory™
administrator’s guide. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (1996/2002). CPI™ manual (3rd
ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Gough, H. G., & Bradley, P. (2005). CPI 260® manual. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check
List manual. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Gough, H. G., & Seisdedos, N. (1992). CPI™: Inventario Psicologico de California. Madrid: TEA Ediciones, S. A. (In
Spanish.)
Guadagnoli, E., & Velicer, W. F. (1991). A comparison of
matching indices. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 26,
323–343.
Hakstian, A. R., & Farrell, S. (2001). An openness scale for the
California Psychological Inventory™. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 76(1), 107–134.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
41
Hall, V. C., & Kaye, D. B. (1977). Patterns of early cognitive
development among boys in four subcultural groups. Journal of Educational Psychology, 69(1), 66–87.
International Test Commission (2000). www.intestcom.org/
test_adaptation.htm.
John, O. P. (1989). Towards a taxonomy of personality descriptors. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 261–271).
New York: Springer-Verlag.
Johnson, J. A. (2000). Predicting observers’ ratings of the big
five from the CPI, HPI, and NEO PI-R: A comparative validity study. European Journal of Personality, 14, 1–19.
Kottas, A., & Markowska, B. (1966). Inwentarz psychologiczny
H. G. Gough’a. Warsawa: Opracowanie Monograficzne, Pracownia Psychometryczna PAN. (In Polish.)
Manoogian, S. (2002/2005). CPI 260® coaching report for leaders user’s guide. Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Manoogian, S. (2006). CPI 260® coaching report for leaders
advanced guide for interpretation. Mountain View, CA: CPP,
Inc.
McAllister, L. (1996). A practical guide to CPI™ interpretation
(3rd ed.). Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., & Piedmont, R. L. (1993). Folk
concepts, natural language, and psychological constructs:
The California Psychological Inventory™ and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 61(1), 1–26.
Megargee, E. I. (1972). The California Psychological Inventory™
handbook. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass, Inc.
Meyer, P., & Davis, S. (1992). The CPI™ applications guide.
Mountain View, CA: CPP, Inc.
Murphy, K. R., & Davidshofer, C. O. (2005). Psychological testing (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Noller, P., Law, H., & Comrey, A. L. (1988). Factor analysis of
the Comrey Personality Scales in an Australian sample.
Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(3), 397–411.
Olah, A. (1985). Kaliforniai Pszichologiai Kerdoiv (CPI™) Tesztkonyve. Budapest: Munkaugyi Kutatointez. (In Hungarian.)
OPP, Ltd. (2005). Technical supplement for the UK version of the
CPI 260® instrument. Oxford, United Kingdom: OPP, Ltd.
Pitariu, H. (1995). CPI™ Manual Inventarul Psihological California. Cluj-Napoca: Universitatea Babes-Bolyai. (In Romanian.)
Reise, S. P., Waller, N. G., & Comrey, A. L. (2000). Factor
analysis and scale revision. Psychological Assessment, 12(3),
289–297.
Rodrigues, A., & Comrey, A. L. (1974). Personality structure in
Brazil and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology,
92(1), 19–26.
Schaubhut, N. A., Morris, M. L., & Thompson, R. C. (2010).
Evidence of factorial similarity across cultures using the CPI
260® assessment. Poster presented at the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology Annual Conference,
Atlanta, GA.
Stumpf, H. (1993). The factor structure of the Personality
Research Form: A cross-national evaluation. Journal of Personality, 61(1), 27–48.
Tarabrina, N., & Grafinina, N. (1998). Handbook for the Russian language edition of the CPI™. Moscow: Institute of Psychology, Russian Academy of Science. (In Russian.)
Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical
overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56(2), 197–208.
Tucker, L. R. (1951). A method for synthesis of factor analysis
studies (Personnel Research Section Report No. 984). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army.
Weinert, A. B. (1998). Deutscher CPI™: Manual (Revidierte Version 462). Hamburg: Universitat der Bundeswehr Hamburg.
(In German.)
Wrigley, C. F., & Neuhaus, J. O. (1955). The matching of two
sets of factors. American Psychologist, 10, 418–419.
Yang, J., & Gong, Y. (1993). The revising of the California Psychological Inventory™ in China. Chinese Journal of Clinical
Psychology, 1, 11–15.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
42
APPEN D IX A: DANI SH SAM PL E
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the Danish language. The sample described here was used to create the standardization formulas for Danish and is reflected in commercial reports.
Note that this results in means of 50 and standard deviations
of 10 for the sample and therefore are not reported here. Raw
scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the analyses that
follow.
Data for the Danish sample were collected through a thirdparty market research company hired to recruit participants
to complete the CPI 260 assessment in Danish as well as
demographic and validity items. The targeted sample was
selected to reflect the working population within the Danish
culture. Employed adults and adults seeking full-time
employment are the primary users of the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected,
and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to
represent employed adults in the target culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they had to be employed
part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated
that their country of origin or country of residence is one in
which Danish is spoken. Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more) were removed from the sample. In
addition, the sample has an approximately equal number of
TABLE A-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE DANISH SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
5
4
2
1.0
0.8
0.4
women and men. The data were collected in two waves. The
first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260
assessment as well as the demographic and validity items. The
second wave comprised a random subset of participants from
the first wave who then completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents whose invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) were within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table A-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table A-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the Danish sample. The table includes the
number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level,
whether they are satisfied with their job, and their selfreported industry of employment. The table also provides
their average age and average number of years working in
their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the Danish sample are presented in Table A-3.
The standard score means and standard deviations are also
shown separately for each gender.
Note: N = 499.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
43
TABLE A-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DANISH SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
248
249
50
50
433
66
87
13
59
203
79
91
54
11
2
487
12
41
16
18
11
2
<1
98
7
0
15
57
14
29
18
28
88
36
34
26
146
1
0
3
11
3
6
4
6
18
7
7
5
29
Mean
SD
45.6
14.7
11.0
11.7
Note: N = 499. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the Danish sample are shown in Table A-4. Most of
the alphas for this sample are acceptable to good and are very
similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual for the
U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these reliabilities, the
following statement from the CPI™ Manual should be kept
in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many tests posit this as
a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not a goal on the
CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of the 20 folk
scales are developed by empirical methodology, which bases
the selection of items solely on their demonstrated relation-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
44
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE A-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD
BY GENDER
DEVIATIONS
FOR INDIAN
FORAND
THE U.S.
DANISH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
18.93
13.53
14.59
17.63
13.36
14.36
14.07
16.00
20.22
16.49
14.90
18.68
15.07
13.05
18.95
15.46
19.64
13.34
9.55
12.71
16.12
16.46
15.27
24.32
19.18
17.81
11.04
12.67
17.87
6.74
4.20
4.19
4.41
4.02
4.12
3.26
3.28
3.86
4.64
4.02
1.92
3.62
3.72
3.65
3.83
4.40
2.91
3.66
3.12
4.27
3.27
4.20
6.46
4.36
2.96
4.58
3.02
5.67
53.26
50.83
51.95
49.51
52.07
55.48
56.72
50.90
49.50
55.02
55.94
47.53
49.85
54.51
49.16
54.31
51.23
53.10
50.30
45.77
57.38
51.08
51.29
53.05
53.55
55.02
47.88
50.52
54.20
10.31
9.28
9.42
10.77
10.30
9.88
8.86
8.40
8.76
9.18
8.51
9.02
10.36
9.01
7.78
8.11
8.70
8.48
9.92
7.79
9.17
8.95
10.20
9.88
9.46
9.25
10.54
8.31
9.47
53.06
50.89
52.77
49.65
52.03
54.74
57.46
50.76
49.37
54.31
55.30
48.17
49.30
55.36
49.52
54.79
51.16
52.97
50.63
48.05
57.62
50.71
51.63
52.84
53.01
53.99
47.97
49.91
55.22
10.05
9.54
9.62
11.36
10.59
10.24
8.68
8.03
8.36
8.85
8.07
8.00
10.06
8.85
7.79
8.43
8.61
8.42
9.64
7.57
8.81
8.93
10.16
9.90
8.89
8.73
10.38
8.15
8.89
53.52
50.77
51.12
49.45
52.15
56.27
56.01
51.05
49.66
55.71
56.57
46.90
50.44
53.71
48.82
53.85
51.36
53.29
49.99
43.38
57.18
51.47
50.99
53.29
54.10
56.13
47.76
51.11
53.26
10.57
9.07
9.19
10.15
10.05
9.48
9.01
8.79
9.17
9.49
8.90
9.96
10.67
9.11
7.79
7.73
8.76
8.53
10.23
7.23
9.50
8.97
10.21
9.89
9.98
9.47
10.76
8.46
9.91
Note: N = 499.
ships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley, 1996, p. 57).
Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items in a
scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four
factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor analysis was
conducted with a four-factor solution. The results are presented in Table A-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the Danish sample using the folk scales.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
45
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE A-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE DANISH SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.88
.74
.77
.74
.74
.78
.56
.64
.65
.74
.69
.41
.78
.76
.64
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.73
.73
.56
.69
.47
.75
.68
.70
.86
.75
.35
.84
.56
.82
Note: N = 499.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE A-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
® SCALES
COMPONENTS FACTOR
BY GENDER
ANALYSIS
FOROFINDIAN
CPI 260
AND
U.S. SAMPLES
FOR THE DANISH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.89
.65
.78
.72
.84
.79
.47
.12
.13
–.39
–.02
.17
.50
.24
.20
.26
.49
.34
–.05
–.77
.52
.31
.38
.82
.09
.52
Factor 2
.04
.03
–.04
–.07
–.19
.21
.03
.38
.62
.80
.83
.21
.68
.60
.34
.31
.34
.40
.06
–.24
.52
.66
.04
.25
.83
.41
Factor 3
.21
.57
.33
.52
.23
.30
.65
.36
.03
–.08
–.04
.01
.26
.58
.09
.72
.50
.52
.87
.09
.41
.39
.82
.26
.31
–.29
Factor 4
.22
.23
.27
.07
.24
.17
.23
.66
.44
.16
.15
.62
.15
.24
.75
.31
.44
.25
–.09
.21
.30
.34
.04
.31
.18
.15
Note: N = 499.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
46
TABLE A-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE DANISH AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
Danish: Factor 1
Danish: Factor 2
Danish: Factor 3
Danish: Factor 4
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.97
.26
.71
.56
.98
.50
.73
.84
.12
.83
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
Danish sample compared to that of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient
was used. The U.S. sample used for this analysis was the U.S.
normative sample used in the CPI 260® Manual (Gough &
Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity analysis are
shown in Table A-6. The coefficients of congruence between
corresponding factors (in bold) show that factors 1 and 2
are nearly identical, while factors 3 and 4 have high levels of
similarity.
Respondents from the Danish sample also completed the
ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI
260 scales were correlated with the ACL adjectives. Selected
correlations between these two assessments are shown in
Table A-7.
TABLE A-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN
FOR THE
ANDDANISH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
.26
.28
.33
.25
.32
–.22
–.41
–.34
–.27
–.35
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.26
.30
.30
.25
.31
–.18
–.25
–.29
–.20
–.28
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.20
.26
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.26
.19
.40
–.24
–.24
–.34
–.25
–.35
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.24
.18
.22
.21
.25
–.35
–.18
–.18
–.31
–.33
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.23
.20
.24
.38
.32
–.26
–.17
–.23
–.14
–.27
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.29
.26
.21
.26
.24
–.35
–.17
–.41
–.35
–.34
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
47
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE A-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE DANISH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
.20
.27
.32
.20
.21
–.22
–.23
–.16
–.24
–.22
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.32
.21
.22
.25
.20
–.29
–.22
–.26
–.20
–.17
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
.21
.17
.20
.13
–.12
–.26
–.15
–.14
–.17
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.13
.04
.10
.11
.01
–.25
–.30
–.19
–.12
–.23
Communality (Cm)
.08
.08
.03
.17
.11
–.22
–.14
–.20
–.20
–.25
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
dissatisfied
complaining
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.24
.14
.11
.12
.19
–.15
–.11
–.16
–.06
–.10
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.12
.28
.10
.16
.12
–.31
–.15
–.20
–.30
–.21
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.14
Tolerance (To)
.22
.15
.24
.13
.15
–.36
–.40
–.24
–.36
–.24
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
Good Impression (Gi)
.30
.20
.13
.14
.24
–.21
–.29
–.24
–.18
–.19
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
Empathy (Em)
confident
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.19
.09
.20
.23
.19
–.18
–.30
–.16
–.23
–.30
Insightfulness (Is)
.23
.20
.19
.24
.32
–.13
–.23
–.29
–.22
–.22
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.12
.22
.11
.25
.23
–.31
–.22
–.26
–.22
–.13
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
48
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE A-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE DANISH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
.10
.06
.07
.11
.13
–.02
–.10
–.04
–.07
–.04
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.30
.25
.12
.17
.32
–.18
–.10
–.10
–.22
–.12
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.10
.26
.11
.23
.09
–.28
–.24
–.31
–.20
–.30
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.18
.23
.14
.20
.26
–.29
–.24
–.31
–.20
–.31
Leadership (Lp)
.26
.15
.11
.24
.17
–.22
–.22
–.21
–.10
–.14
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.20
.33
.18
.30
.42
–.31
–.23
–.35
–.28
–.38
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.26
.12
.13
.13
.08
–.15
–.28
–.12
–.17
–.23
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.17
.21
.19
.21
.09
–.14
–.09
–.24
–.09
–.11
Note: n = 301.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the Danish sample’s
responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in
Table A-8. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI 260 scales
in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is associated
with high scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership,
and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1.
Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability
and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance, Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and
vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several
CPI 260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status,
Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with
low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally,
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
49
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAWWITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE A-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED
BY GENDER
THROUGH
FOR
THEINDIAN
ACL) FOR
ANDTHE
U.S.DANISH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.63
.56
.65
.56
.61
.52
.43
.17
.07
–.32
–.08
.11
.36
.21
.19
.18
.20
.22
.11
.13
.07
.31
.13
.05
.07
.12
.13
.15
.27
.14
.18
.09
.10
–.04
.09
.14
.15
.22
.22
.20
.28
.20
.23
.14
.33
.42
.43
.39
.38
.41
.38
.42
.21
.02
–.19
–.06
.10
.19
.16
.26
–.28
–.23
–.19
–.25
–.19
–.41
–.16
–.22
–.41
–.20
–.35
–.23
–.53
–.31
–.29
.24
.12
.16
.29
–.26
.37
.26
.08
–.41
.34
.24
.35
.59
.07
.13
.08
.12
.00
.12
.19
.12
.20
.19
.17
.17
–.20
–.10
.22
.22
–.11
.23
.19
.36
.27
.09
–.24
.21
.20
.28
.39
.01
–.37
–.36
–.06
.37
–.38
–.44
–.17
–.37
–.40
.21
–.58
.03
.11
.14
–.11
.03
.12
.23
–.08
.31
.09
.10
–.43
.04
.12
–.24
.08
–.13
–.33
Note: n = 301.
Neuroticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and
with low scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Social Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
Danish sample who provided their current organizational
level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The sample
obtained did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level; however, the respondents for each sample were
divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and below—
includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and above—
includes management, executives, and top executives). These
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
50
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE A-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THEINDIAN
DANISHAND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 341)
Management and above
(n = 156)
52.29
50.08
51.28
49.03
51.33
54.36
55.89
50.23
49.23
55.11
55.63
47.17
49.67
54.52
48.37
53.55
50.45
52.40
50.33
46.07
56.89
50.94
50.95
52.13
53.72
54.86
48.76
50.07
53.96
55.43
52.46
53.47
50.63
53.66
57.92
58.71
52.45
50.05
54.70
56.53
48.41
50.23
54.57
50.90
56.07
53.04
54.67
50.42
45.19
58.58
51.42
52.13
55.07
53.20
55.36
45.89
51.50
54.84
results are provided in Table A-9. The anticipated pattern of
elevated scores was found among the higher-level organizational group for the Danish sample. This replication of the
pattern typically found in the United States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the CPI 260
assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 499
individuals, nationally representative of the general Danish
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 50% were women and 50% were men; 87% were currently employed full-time and 13% part-time, with 47%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
51
APPEN D IX B : DUTCH SAM PLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the Dutch language. The sample described here was used to create the standardization formulas for Dutch and is reflected in commercial reports. Note
that this results in means of 50 and standard deviations of 10
for the sample and therefore are not reported here. Raw
scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the analyses that
follow.
Data for the Dutch sample were collected through a thirdparty market research company hired to recruit participants
to complete the CPI 260 assessment in Dutch as well as
demographic and validity items. The targeted sample was
selected to reflect the working population within the Dutch
culture. Employed adults and adults seeking full-time
employment are the primary users of the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected,
and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to
represent employed adults in the target culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they had to be employed
part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated
that their country of origin or country of residence is one in
which Dutch is spoken. Respondents with too many omitted
items (13 or more) were removed from the sample. In addition, the sample has an approximately equal number of
TABLE B-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE DUTCH SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
8
5
3
1.7
1.1
0.6
women and men. The data were collected in two waves. The
first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260
assessment as well as the demographic and validity items. The
second wave comprised a random subset of participants from
the first wave who then completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table B-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table B-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the Dutch sample. The table includes the
number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level,
whether they are satisfied with their job, and their selfreported industry of employment. The table also provides
their average age and average number of years working in
their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the Dutch sample are presented in Table B-3.
The standard score means and standard deviations are also
shown separately for each gender.
Note: N = 469.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
52
TABLE B-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE DUTCH SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
238
231
51
49
306
163
65
35
20
337
36
48
17
9
2
436
4
72
8
10
4
2
<1
94
1
0
12
23
17
33
24
42
121
24
16
14
144
<1
0
3
5
4
7
4
9
26
5
3
3
31
Mean
SD
45.0
13.0
11.1
11.0
Note: N = 469. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the Dutch sample are shown in Table B-4. Most of
the alphas for this sample are acceptable to good and are very
similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual for the
U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these reliabilities, the
following statement from the CPI™ Manual should be kept
in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many tests posit this as
a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not a goal on the
CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of the 20 folk
scales are developed by empirical methodology, which bases
the selection of items solely on their demonstrated relation-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
53
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE B-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD
BY GENDER
DEVIATIONS
FOR INDIAN
FORAND
THE U.S.
DUTCH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
19.35
12.04
13.84
17.42
12.77
14.31
13.07
15.21
20.20
17.68
15.33
18.56
15.43
11.46
19.12
14.30
18.68
12.39
9.67
13.25
14.68
16.46
16.28
23.86
18.56
18.30
11.86
12.28
17.23
6.27
4.38
4.25
3.99
3.70
3.96
3.36
3.15
3.63
4.11
3.94
1.84
3.59
3.64
3.77
3.90
4.45
2.70
3.51
3.53
4.15
3.27
3.49
6.10
4.47
2.89
3.99
3.12
5.29
53.90
47.55
50.27
49.00
50.57
55.36
53.99
48.88
49.45
57.36
56.84
46.94
50.88
50.65
49.53
51.85
49.34
50.33
50.61
47.13
54.28
51.08
50.59
52.35
52.21
56.54
49.78
49.44
53.15
9.59
9.68
9.56
9.74
9.46
9.50
9.14
8.08
8.25
8.13
8.34
8.64
10.26
8.80
8.04
8.27
8.81
7.84
9.52
8.83
8.93
8.95
9.55
9.33
9.70
9.04
9.19
8.58
8.83
52.78
46.85
50.15
48.26
49.26
53.88
53.54
49.59
50.33
58.98
58.13
48.55
51.12
51.52
50.43
52.15
48.92
50.04
50.49
51.07
54.14
50.71
51.01
51.75
53.60
56.50
51.61
49.61
54.35
9.82
9.26
10.26
10.00
9.66
9.59
8.83
7.68
8.25
7.49
7.26
7.15
9.77
8.02
7.48
8.04
8.53
7.12
8.96
8.26
8.90
8.93
9.25
9.49
9.19
9.05
9.12
8.42
7.44
54.99
48.23
50.39
49.73
51.84
56.80
54.43
48.20
48.59
55.78
55.60
45.37
50.64
49.81
48.65
51.56
49.74
50.62
50.73
43.31
54.42
51.47
50.18
52.93
50.85
56.58
48.00
49.27
51.98
8.89
9.80
9.23
9.18
9.01
8.52
9.40
8.84
7.61
8.30
8.52
8.29
9.00
8.62
8.53
8.07
8.63
7.91
10.14
7.38
8.39
8.97
8.42
8.41
9.36
7.80
8.92
8.79
8.95
Note: N = 469.
ships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley, 1996, p. 57).
Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items in a
scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four
factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor analysis was
conducted with a four-factor solution. The results are presented in Table B-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the Dutch sample using the folk scales.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
54
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE B-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE DUTCH SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.86
.75
.76
.67
.68
.76
.55
.58
.59
.69
.68
.24
.79
.74
.65
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.69
.73
.41
.66
.58
.73
.70
.70
.83
.77
.31
.79
.59
.79
Note: N = 469.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE B-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
® SCALES
COMPONENTS FACTOR
BY GENDER
ANALYSIS
FOROF
INDIAN
CPI 260
AND
U.S. SAMPLES
FOR THE DUTCH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.93
.71
.82
.70
.89
.81
.57
.16
.04
–.25
.01
.03
.48
.19
.30
.26
.57
.32
.08
–.74
.53
.28
.52
.86
.11
.50
Factor 2
.08
.06
.07
.02
–.14
.23
.13
.47
.75
.81
.80
.49
.71
.62
.54
.40
.36
.35
.00
–.01
.57
.74
.01
.29
.86
.46
Factor 3
.12
.48
.23
.48
.15
.28
.58
.19
.10
–.05
–.05
.04
.24
.58
–.02
.70
.44
.59
.86
–.05
.33
.39
.74
.19
.30
–.26
Factor 4
.18
.27
.18
–.04
.12
.00
.18
.68
.05
.14
.19
.14
–.16
.11
.61
.30
.39
.25
–.16
.40
.19
.15
.04
.21
.05
–.04
Note: N = 469.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
55
TABLE B-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE DUTCH AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.98
.31
.67
.42
.98
.51
.54
.84
.24
.83
Dutch: Factor 1
Dutch: Factor 2
Dutch: Factor 3
Dutch: Factor 4
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
Dutch sample compared to that of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient
was used. The U.S. sample used for this analysis was the U.S.
normative sample used in the CPI 260® Manual. (Gough &
Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity analysis are
shown in Table B-6. The coefficients of congruence between
corresponding factors (in bold) show that factors 1 and 2 are
nearly identical, while factors 3 and 4 have high levels of
similarity.
Respondents from the Dutch sample also completed the
ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI
260 scales were correlated with the ACL adjectives. Selected
correlations between these two assessments are shown in
Table B-7.
TABLE B-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN
FOR THE
ANDDUTCH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
.26
.27
.28
.26
.31
–.31
–.29
–.26
–.21
–.22
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.21
.21
.33
.24
.24
–.15
–.22
–.23
–.15
–.15
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.29
.25
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.19
.20
.29
–.16
–.17
–.27
–.23
–.25
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.18
.13
.13
.16
.18
–.12
–.22
–.19
–.22
–.21
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.28
.30
.21
.35
.29
–.19
–.15
–.18
–.21
–.23
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.37
.23
.22
.22
.14
–.18
–.22
–.29
–.20
–.20
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
56
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE B-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE DUTCH
AND U.S.
SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
.14
.20
.18
.19
–.13
–.20
–.17
–.16
–.16
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.36
.16
.26
.22
.22
–.14
–.07
–.18
–.14
–.19
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.04
.11
.09
.06
.05
–.12
–.13
–.17
–.15
–.16
Communality (Cm)
.05
.11
.12
.13
.07
–.27
–.20
–.21
–.17
–.19
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
dissatisfied
complaining
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.08
.09
.14
.16
.08
–.16
–.09
–.15
–.24
–.03
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.13
.22
.04
.10
.12
–.12
–.18
–.16
–.19
–.18
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.20
.23
.13
.22
.08
–.13
–.12
–.14
–.21
–.14
Tolerance (To)
.18
.19
.22
.21
.20
–.24
–.28
–.21
–.25
–.19
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
.11
.16
.20
.13
.09
–.17
–.09
–.23
–.23
–.20
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
.19
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
2CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.23
.15
.22
.20
.17
–.11
–.23
–.17
–.17
–.13
Insightfulness (Is)
.22
.22
.16
.39
.29
–.11
–.12
–.17
–.18
–.30
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.21
.15
.23
.36
.20
–.11
–.17
–.12
–.16
–.27
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
57
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE B-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE DUTCH
AND U.S.
SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
.06
.02
.08
.13
.16
–.03
–.22
–.12
–.14
–.05
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.21
.21
.32
.25
.18
–.26
–.11
–.17
–.31
–.12
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.18
.08
.13
.18
.12
–.25
–.16
–.22
–.16
–.17
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.20
.16
.24
.23
.22
–.17
–.18
–.18
–.18
–.19
Leadership (Lp)
.27
.18
.22
.22
.13
–.22
–.27
–.12
–.18
–.15
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.19
.24
.28
.26
.34
–.27
–.31
–.22
–.22
–.18
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.31
.18
.10
.16
.12
–.09
–.21
–.17
–.16
–.23
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.14
.18
.09
.10
.11
–.19
–.16
–.18
–.17
–.05
Note: n = 283.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the Dutch sample’s
responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in
Table B-8. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI 260 scales
in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is associated
with high scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership,
and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1.
Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability
and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance, Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and
vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several
CPI 260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status,
Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with
low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally,
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
58
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAWWITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE B-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED
BY GENDER
THROUGH
FOR
THE
INDIAN
ACL) FOR
ANDTHE
U.S.DUTCH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.56
.47
.52
.40
.54
.44
.36
.10
–.04
–.22
–.07
.04
.17
.13
.11
.00
.01
.12
.08
.00
–.06
.06
.03
.10
.14
.12
.13
.10
.08
.07
.23
.12
.23
.08
.15
.17
.10
.21
.17
.20
.21
.17
.24
.15
.38
.39
.38
.37
.30
.37
.33
.29
.20
.02
–.06
–.05
.06
.13
.10
.20
–.24
–.22
–.20
–.31
–.21
–.42
–.23
–.10
–.15
–.14
–.22
–.10
–.40
–.23
–.10
.14
.03
.12
.18
–.21
.31
.14
.10
–.34
.31
.07
.35
.48
–.02
.22
.03
.08
.03
.12
.03
.07
–.02
.06
.15
.01
.26
.20
–.22
.00
.28
.21
–.07
.28
.17
.25
.36
.33
.08
–.16
.23
.14
.26
.39
.00
.16
–.29
–.23
–.14
.31
–.27
–.36
–.24
–.33
–.30
–.18
–.48
.04
.12
.11
–.01
.08
–.07
.33
.12
–.31
.07
.08
.07
–.02
–.27
Note: n = 283.
Neuroticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and
with low scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Social Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower level-organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
Dutch sample who provided their current organizational
level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The sample
obtained did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level; however, the respondents for each sample were
divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and below—
includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and above—
includes management, executives, and top executives). These
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
59
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE B-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
BY GENDER
FOR
FOR
THEINDIAN
DUTCHAND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 393)
Management and above
(n = 74)
52.87
46.60
49.57
48.40
49.60
54.50
53.14
48.64
49.35
57.71
56.83
46.90
50.40
50.22
49.26
51.39
48.81
49.90
50.17
47.86
53.54
50.28
48.83
51.45
51.99
56.49
50.90
49.46
52.77
59.38
52.54
54.01
52.29
55.86
59.89
58.44
50.24
50.01
55.35
56.81
47.68
53.44
52.88
50.95
54.33
52.21
52.57
52.84
43.12
58.25
52.10
54.51
57.15
53.37
56.70
43.56
49.50
55.10
results are provided in Table B-9. The anticipated pattern of
elevated scores was found among the higher-level organizational group for the Dutch sample. This replication of the
pattern typically found in the United States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the CPI 260
assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 469
individuals, nationally representative of the general Dutch
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 49% were women and 51% were men; 65% were currently employed full-time and 35% part-time, with 24%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
60
APPEN D IX C : EUROPEAN S PANI S H S AM PLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the European Spanish language. The sample described here was used to create the standardization formulas for European Spanish and is reflected in
commercial reports. Note that this results in means of 50 and
standard deviations of 10 for the sample and therefore are not
reported here. Raw scores and U.S. standard scores are noted
in the analyses that follow.
Data for the European Spanish sample were collected through
a third-party market research company hired to recruit participants to complete the CPI 260 assessment in European
Spanish as well as demographic and validity items. The targeted sample was selected to reflect the working population
within the European Spanish culture. Employed adults and
adults seeking full-time employment are the primary users of
the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected, and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to represent employed adults in the target
culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they
had to be employed part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old,
and have indicated that their country of origin or country of
residence is one in which European Spanish is spoken.
Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more) were
removed from the sample. In addition, the sample has an
TABLE C-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE EUROPEAN SPANISH SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
13
18
13
2.9
4.0
2.9
Note: N = 431.
approximately equal number of women and men. The data
were collected in two waves. The first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260 assessment as well as the
demographic and validity items. The second wave comprised
a random subset of participants from the first wave who then
completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table C-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table C-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the European Spanish sample. The table
includes the number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level, whether they are satisfied with their job, and their
self-reported industry of employment. The table also provides their average age and average number of years working
in their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the European Spanish sample are presented in
Table C-3. The standard score means and standard deviations
are also shown separately for each gender.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
61
TABLE C-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE EUROPEAN SPANISH SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
221
210
51
49
375
56
87
13
33
190
127
38
24
17
2
372
8
44
30
9
6
4
<1
87
3
2
29
15
15
33
19
67
16
27
36
22
145
1
<1
7
3
3
8
4
16
4
6
8
5
34
Mean
SD
38.8
12.9
9.6
10.4
Note: N = 431. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the European Spanish sample are shown in Table
C-4. Most of the alphas for this sample are acceptable to good
and are very similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual for the U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these reliabilities, the following statement from the CPI™ Manual
should be kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by
the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many
tests posit this as a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not
a goal on the CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of
the 20 folk scales are developed by empirical methodology,
which bases the selection of items solely on their demon-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
62
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE C-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD
BYDEVIATIONS
GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE EUROPEAN
AND U.S. SAMPLES
SPANISH SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
18.24
13.30
14.05
17.34
12.84
13.45
13.59
15.31
20.02
14.92
13.66
18.09
13.21
10.56
19.60
13.91
18.00
12.12
7.87
11.50
13.13
14.67
14.38
22.89
16.32
16.80
10.26
13.36
14.28
6.46
4.10
4.47
3.89
3.60
3.97
3.34
3.29
4.33
4.30
4.24
2.56
3.58
3.84
4.24
3.69
4.31
3.14
3.58
2.79
3.91
3.64
3.93
6.71
4.39
3.20
4.25
3.10
5.54
52.20
50.33
50.73
48.81
50.75
53.30
55.41
49.14
49.04
51.90
53.31
44.74
44.54
48.47
50.54
51.03
47.98
49.52
45.75
47.29
50.95
46.17
49.13
50.86
47.36
51.84
46.09
52.41
48.21
9.89
9.06
10.06
9.49
9.22
9.52
9.09
8.42
9.84
8.51
8.99
12.00
10.25
9.30
9.03
7.81
8.53
9.15
9.70
7.35
8.41
9.96
9.54
10.27
9.52
10.01
9.77
8.51
9.25
51.91
50.50
51.24
49.41
50.81
52.99
55.46
49.65
49.26
51.15
53.02
45.15
44.38
48.87
50.94
51.45
47.90
50.26
47.64
50.27
50.57
45.87
49.48
50.61
47.18
51.36
46.44
51.20
48.70
9.56
8.70
9.39
9.18
8.60
9.53
8.57
7.91
9.72
8.23
8.64
11.15
10.05
8.92
8.37
7.30
8.04
8.93
9.51
6.80
7.91
9.52
9.48
9.88
9.39
9.69
9.50
8.31
9.00
52.46
50.16
50.26
48.23
50.70
53.59
55.37
48.65
48.83
52.62
53.58
44.36
44.70
48.09
50.17
50.62
48.07
48.82
43.94
44.45
51.31
46.47
48.80
51.11
47.53
52.30
45.75
53.56
47.74
10.12
9.37
10.62
9.73
9.71
9.49
9.54
8.92
9.92
8.71
9.26
12.94
10.43
9.56
9.59
8.26
8.96
9.28
9.50
7.15
8.85
10.28
9.59
10.61
9.59
10.26
9.98
8.52
9.42
Note: N = 431.
strated relationships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley,
1996, p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among
the items in a scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected”
(p. 59).
folk scales. Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor
analysis was conducted with a four-factor solution. The
results are presented in Table C-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the European Spanish sample using the
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
63
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE C-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE EUROPEAN SPANISH SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.86
.68
.79
.64
.64
.74
.54
.62
.72
.69
.74
.59
.77
.74
.71
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.66
.72
.57
.69
.30
.68
.70
.66
.86
.74
.38
.79
.61
.81
Note: N = 431.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE C-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
® SCALES
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS
BY GENDER
OF FOR
CPI 260
INDIAN
AND FOR
U.S. SAMPLES
THE EUROPEAN SPANISH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.93
.80
.88
.76
.87
.75
.72
.26
.19
–.16
.14
.07
.43
.24
.41
.47
.63
.42
.02
–.62
.63
.32
.52
.82
.12
.41
Factor 2
.12
.24
.14
–.01
–.06
.33
.25
.52
.62
.89
.87
.13
.64
.75
.49
.52
.44
.48
.09
–.05
.60
.72
.18
.38
.86
.43
Factor 3
.00
.27
.01
.31
–.02
.14
.29
–.02
–.07
–.05
–.03
.01
.11
.37
–.12
.45
.17
.36
.87
.33
.15
.15
.68
.01
.17
–.40
Factor 4
.11
.05
.15
.25
.21
.27
–.02
.60
.53
.11
–.07
.88
.39
.19
.55
.32
.36
.35
–.12
.09
.06
.37
.15
.29
.21
.25
Note: N = 431.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
64
TABLE C-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE EUROPEAN SPANISH AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
European Spanish: Factor 1
European Spanish: Factor 2
European Spanish: Factor 3
European Spanish: Factor 4
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.98
.39
.20
.48
.99
.17
.67
.95
.04
.74
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
European Spanish sample compared to that of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity
coefficient was used. The U.S. sample used for this analysis
was the U.S. normative sample used in the CPI 260® Manual
(Gough & Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity
analysis are shown in Table C-6. The coefficients of congruence between corresponding factors (in bold) show that fac-
tors 1, 2, and 3 are nearly identical, while factor 4 has a high
level of similarity.
Respondents from the European Spanish sample also completed the ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI 260 scales were correlated with the ACL adjectives.
Selected correlations between these two assessments are
shown in Table C-7.
TABLE C-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FORINDIAN
THE EUROPEAN
AND U.S. SPANISH
SAMPLESSAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
.19
.22
.25
.16
.28
–.04
–.23
–.30
.04
–.10
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.24
.12
.25
.07
.23
–.11
–.16
–.25
–.01
–.02
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.31
.21
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.20
.34
.22
–.12
–.23
–.24
.05
–.09
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.24
.22
.10
.22
.18
–.07
–.13
–.15
–.18
–.02
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.19
.07
.26
.34
.26
–.07
–.11
.07
–.05
–.07
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.27
.12
.26
.18
.14
–.20
–.04
–.06
–.23
–.10
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
65
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE C-7.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THEINDIAN
EUROPEAN
AND SPANISH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.17
.05
.16
.11
.13
–.05
–.14
–.15
–.10
–.20
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.04
.13
.08
.00
.15
–.27
–.22
–.15
–.07
–.15
Communality (Cm)
.00
.17
.00
.15
.17
–.21
–.09
–.14
–.14
–.13
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
dissatisfied
complaining
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.08
.13
.18
.08
.06
.04
–.10
.04
.15
.00
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.08
–.03
.16
–.04
.10
–.19
–.11
–.17
–.15
–.10
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.08
.00
.25
.17
.24
–.10
–.14
–.16
–.18
–.02
Insightfulness (Is)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.08
.01
.08
.09
.14
–.16
–.22
–.09
–.15
–.04
Tolerance (To)
.17
.16
.18
.19
.07
–.20
–.27
–.11
–.10
–.28
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
.12
.07
.10
–.01
.05
–.24
–.26
–.22
–.13
–.03
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
.21
.18
.25
.15
.24
–.19
–.11
–.09
–.10
–.09
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.20
.20
.17
.15
.19
–.13
–.16
–.21
–.17
–.16
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.16
.19
.16
.13
.14
–.06
–.19
–.20
–.11
–.12
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
66
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE C-7.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THEINDIAN
EUROPEAN
AND SPANISH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
.04
.18
–.02
–.07
.12
–.11
–.01
–.22
.13
–.13
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.11
.09
.14
.09
.05
–.21
–.01
–.03
–.14
–.20
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.11
.07
.04
.08
.25
–.13
–.13
.02
–.08
–.10
Leadership (Lp)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.05
.04
.16
.22
.20
–.17
–.12
–.22
–.08
–.07
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.10
.05
.19
.20
.09
–.01
–.05
–.18
–.09
–.08
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.10
.20
.04
.19
.41
–.16
–.06
–.23
–.04
–.14
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.01
.02
–.03
.03
.18
–.01
–.23
–.04
.01
–.06
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.10
.10
.17
.05
.01
–.29
–.15
–.11
–.12
.04
Note: n = 213.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the European Spanish
sample’s responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then
correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in Table C-8. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI
260 scales in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is
associated with high scores on several scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership, and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vec-
tor 1. Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance,
Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several CPI
260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with low
scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally, Neu-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
67
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAWWITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE C-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED THROUGH
BY GENDER
THE FOR
ACL) INDIAN
FOR THEAND
EUROPEAN
U.S. SAMPLES
SPANISH SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.57
.56
.53
.40
.46
.36
.42
.13
.14
–.18
.04
.04
.23
.12
.27
.20
.20
.20
.13
.11
.14
.28
.19
.19
.07
.21
.19
.19
.14
.22
.27
.09
.26
.15
.21
.20
.22
.15
.17
.05
.16
.15
.20
.08
.29
.37
.43
.26
.26
.34
.25
.36
.10
.04
–.12
–.02
.09
.13
.03
.24
–.14
–.04
–.11
–.05
–.12
–.17
–.13
–.20
–.22
–.32
–.28
.01
–.23
–.22
–.18
.13
.06
.05
.15
–.17
.29
.28
–.07
–.32
.28
.12
.27
.42
–.02
.22
.11
.11
.03
–.07
.16
.23
.13
.20
.13
.03
.19
.11
–.30
–.22
.19
.19
–.02
.28
.13
.22
.24
.23
–.08
–.22
.18
.08
.21
.30
–.04
.07
–.24
–.14
.03
.11
–.24
–.19
–.10
–.28
–.29
–.21
–.53
.17
.00
–.12
.08
.14
–.23
.27
.02
–.38
.16
.02
–.04
–.11
–.20
Note: n = 213.
roticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and with
low scores on several scales, including Dominance, Social
Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial
Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
European Spanish sample who provided their current organizational level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The sample obtained did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level; however, the respondents for each sample were
divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and below—
includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and above—
includes management, executives, and top executives). These
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
68
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE C-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
BY FOR
GENDER
THE EUROPEAN
FOR INDIANSPANISH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 350)
Management and above
(n = 79)
51.14
49.47
49.99
48.32
49.97
52.37
54.52
48.47
48.53
51.43
52.79
44.07
43.82
47.92
49.64
50.40
47.08
48.93
45.79
47.11
50.09
45.44
48.47
49.77
46.86
51.38
46.36
51.82
47.55
56.33
53.61
53.39
50.41
53.45
56.83
58.46
51.38
50.44
53.74
55.26
46.28
47.05
50.55
53.78
53.44
51.54
51.69
45.17
45.71
54.31
48.84
51.46
55.07
49.13
52.83
44.39
54.11
50.77
results are provided in Table C-9. The anticipated pattern of
elevated scores was found among the higher-level organizational group for the European Spanish sample. This replication of the pattern typically found in the United States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the
CPI 260 assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 431
individuals, nationally representative of the general European
Spanish population, for people of working age (over 18). In
the sample, 49% were women and 51% were men; 87% were
currently employed full-time and 13% part-time, with 49%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
69
APPEN D IX D : FR ENCH SAM PLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the French language. The sample described here was used to create the standardization formulas for French and is reflected in commercial reports. Note
that this results in means of 50 and standard deviations of 10
for the sample and therefore are not reported here. Raw
scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the analyses that
follow.
Data for the French sample were collected through a thirdparty market research company hired to recruit participants
to complete the CPI 260 assessment in French as well as
demographic and validity items. The targeted sample was
selected to reflect the working population within the French
culture. Employed adults and adults seeking full-time
employment are the primary users of the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected,
and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to
represent employed adults in the target culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they had to be employed
part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated
that their country of origin or country of residence is one in
which French is spoken. Respondents with too many omitted
items (13 or more) were removed from the sample. In addition, the sample has an approximately equal number of
TABLE D-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE FRENCH SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
5
18
8
1.0
3.7
1.6
women and men. The data were collected in two waves. The
first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260
assessment as well as the demographic and validity items. The
second wave comprised a random subset of participants from
the first wave who then completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table D-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table D-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the French sample. The table includes the
number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level,
whether they are satisfied with their job, and their selfreported industry of employment. The table also provides
their average age and average number of years working in
their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the French sample are presented in Table D-3.
The standard score means and standard deviations are also
shown separately for each gender.
Note: N = 490.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
70
TABLE D-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE FRENCH SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
242
247
49
50
433
57
88
12
78
246
34
80
31
17
4
414
16
50
7
16
6
3
1
85
8
1
15
45
18
54
30
35
64
22
12
13
194
1.6
<1
3
9
4
11
6
7
12
4
2
3
38
Mean
SD
40.7
12.8
11.4
11.0
Note: N = 490. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient
alphas) for the French sample are shown in Table D-4. Most
of the alphas for this sample are acceptable to good and are
very similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual for
the U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these reliabilities,
the following statement from the CPI™ Manual should be
kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many tests posit
this as a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not a goal on
the CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of the 20
folk scales are developed by empirical methodology, which
bases the selection of items solely on their demonstrated rela-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
71
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE D-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD
BY GENDER
DEVIATIONS
FOR INDIAN
FORAND
THE U.S.
FRENCH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
17.29
11.69
13.21
16.29
11.61
12.20
12.84
14.40
19.24
16.91
13.81
17.45
12.87
9.91
18.33
12.83
17.33
11.56
8.70
12.75
12.76
14.13
14.11
21.58
16.42
16.87
11.83
12.11
14.38
6.56
4.23
4.26
4.13
3.85
4.28
3.44
3.17
4.32
4.54
4.18
2.15
3.71
3.39
3.88
3.59
4.47
2.80
3.54
3.40
3.88
3.47
4.11
6.58
4.36
3.05
4.28
3.03
5.19
50.74
46.77
48.86
46.23
47.59
50.29
53.38
46.80
47.28
55.85
53.63
41.76
43.57
46.91
47.85
48.72
46.66
47.89
47.99
45.88
50.15
44.68
48.47
48.85
47.58
52.05
49.70
48.99
48.38
10.04
9.35
9.60
10.08
9.86
10.28
9.36
8.11
9.80
8.98
8.86
10.09
10.60
8.19
8.27
7.60
8.86
8.16
9.60
8.50
8.33
9.51
9.98
10.07
9.46
9.53
9.84
8.32
8.67
49.48
46.06
48.69
45.28
46.15
48.80
52.60
47.56
47.65
56.59
53.84
42.22
43.02
47.18
48.37
48.11
46.45
47.36
48.23
48.22
49.32
44.21
47.81
47.76
47.35
51.55
51.18
48.05
48.69
9.72
9.10
9.58
9.95
9.44
10.29
9.02
7.27
9.33
8.71
8.65
9.35
10.65
7.93
7.70
7.48
8.45
8.05
9.52
8.00
8.07
9.29
9.79
9.93
9.16
9.73
9.35
7.97
8.62
52.10
47.56
49.07
47.30
49.09
51.89
54.24
46.05
46.93
55.06
53.39
41.28
44.20
46.65
47.33
49.40
46.95
48.46
47.80
43.45
51.04
45.20
49.22
49.99
47.82
52.55
48.12
49.98
48.10
10.17
9.51
9.64
10.04
10.10
9.99
9.62
8.85
10.28
9.21
9.09
10.80
10.53
8.48
8.80
7.66
9.22
8.25
9.68
8.31
8.51
9.74
10.12
10.10
9.78
9.34
10.06
8.58
8.72
Note: N = 490.
tionships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley, 1996,
p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items
in a scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four
factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor analysis was
conducted with a four-factor solution. The results are presented in Table D-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the French sample using the folk scales.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
72
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE D-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE FRENCH SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.87
.71
.77
.67
.71
.78
.56
.58
.70
.74
.70
.40
.76
.69
.65
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.63
.71
.48
.65
.52
.69
.66
.67
.85
.73
.33
.80
.58
.79
Note: N = 490.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE D-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
® SCALES
COMPONENTS FACTOR
BY GENDER
ANALYSIS
FOROFINDIAN
CPI 260
AND
U.S. SAMPLES
FOR THE FRENCH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.93
.80
.88
.81
.90
.83
.71
.09
.17
–.32
–.05
.12
.44
.21
.34
.44
.65
.43
.08
–.68
.64
.29
.59
.85
.08
.34
Factor 2
.07
.12
.10
.05
–.03
.30
.12
.40
.74
.76
.75
.37
.78
.73
.43
.48
.45
.58
.12
–.20
.52
.83
.18
.33
.90
.49
Factor 3
–.07
.32
.04
.31
–.01
.08
.38
.04
–.01
–.09
–.09
–.06
.02
.36
–.14
.43
.19
.27
.86
.30
.12
.17
.64
–.07
.17
–.46
Factor 4
.15
.25
.13
–.15
.05
.01
.20
.77
.13
.32
.33
.28
–.09
.20
.68
.28
.35
.17
–.11
.32
.23
.10
.04
.23
.07
.05
Note: N = 490.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
73
TABLE D-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE FRENCH AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.99
.39
.35
.34
.99
.21
.64
.97
.13
.85
French: Factor 1
French: Factor 2
French: Factor 3
French: Factor 4
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
French sample compared to that of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient
was used. The U.S. sample used for this analysis was the U.S.
normative sample used in the CPI 260® Manual (Gough &
Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity analysis are
shown in Table D-6. The coefficients of congruence between
corresponding factors (in bold) show that factors 1 and 2 are
nearly identical, while factors 3 and 4 have high levels of
similarity.
Respondents from the French sample also completed the
ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI
260 scales were correlated with the ACL adjectives. Selected
correlations between these two assessments are shown in
Table D-7.
TABLE D-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN
FOR THE
ANDFRENCH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
.30
.33
.31
.18
.29
–.12
–.41
–.25
–.43
–.27
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.30
.24
.27
.17
.19
–.13
–.21
–.18
–.35
–.22
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.25
.26
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.22
.22
.23
–.23
–.28
–.23
–.38
–.25
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.20
.15
.14
.22
.19
–.21
–.17
–.27
–.19
–.20
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.31
.24
.29
.37
.23
–.23
–.16
–.38
–.14
–.24
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.28
.28
.17
.23
.18
–.17
–.25
–.19
–.34
–.21
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
74
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE D-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE FRENCH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.17
.17
.16
.24
.17
–.19
–.15
–.14
–.17
–.17
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.18
.07
.11
.08
.22
–.27
–.16
–.17
–.19
–.12
Communality (Cm)
.26
.08
.14
.12
.12
–.15
–.20
–.20
–.14
–.19
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
dissatisfied
complaining
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.17
.11
.13
.09
.22
–.21
–.06
–.03
–.15
–.01
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.12
.14
.10
.15
.22
–.12
–.14
–.18
–.15
–.19
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.30
.16
.15
.16
.20
–.11
–.10
–.17
–.15
–.15
Tolerance (To)
.24
.21
.28
.15
.13
–.16
–.31
–.22
–.18
–.22
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
.14
.17
.11
.07
.11
–.19
–.19
–.24
–.18
–.24
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
.22
.26
.30
.18
.23
–.16
–.19
–.17
–.17
–.15
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.22
.08
.22
.18
.16
–.18
–.10
–.15
–.19
–.15
Insightfulness (Is)
.26
.25
.26
.19
.26
–.21
–.21
–.15
–.21
–.30
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.24
.21
.15
.14
.08
–.27
–.23
–.20
–.17
–.23
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
75
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE D-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FORFOR
INDIAN
THE FRENCH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
.11
.21
.11
.01
.19
–.04
–.05
–.14
–.10
–.09
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.34
.16
.16
.11
.16
–.27
–.16
–.22
–.23
–.17
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.24
.17
.13
.16
.12
–.19
–.15
–.16
–.16
–.11
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.18
.19
.24
.25
.29
–.23
–.21
–.16
–.36
–.21
Leadership (Lp)
.08
.18
.14
.13
.17
–.22
–.09
–.14
–.15
–.17
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.27
.35
.19
.30
.36
–.23
–.13
–.21
–.42
–.26
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.11
.09
.13
.08
.18
–.12
–.24
–.20
–.16
–.25
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.05
.09
.11
.15
.14
–.19
–.16
–.21
–.20
–.11
Note: n = 295.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the French sample’s
responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in
Table D-8. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI 260 scales
in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is associated
with high scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership,
and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1.
Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability
and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance, Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and
vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several
CPI 260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status,
Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with
low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally,
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
76
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE D-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED
BY GENDER
THROUGH
FOR
THEINDIAN
ACL) FOR
ANDTHE
U.S.FRENCH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.60
.46
.51
.46
.49
.48
.39
.11
.03
–.19
.00
.11
.19
.02
.18
.22
.28
.27
.19
.15
.14
.37
.30
.16
.11
.22
.23
.24
.22
.26
.35
.28
.24
.13
.25
.28
.25
.27
.18
.12
.21
.22
.23
.16
.37
.40
.37
.32
.33
.37
.34
.34
.14
.01
–.13
.03
.17
.12
.03
.21
–.30
–.27
–.31
–.24
–.31
–.36
–.25
–.06
–.37
–.20
–.32
–.06
–.46
–.32
–.21
.19
.20
.23
.21
–.35
.34
.20
.01
–.32
.31
.04
.31
.54
–.09
.19
.28
.22
.09
–.03
.26
.27
.18
.28
.18
.06
.38
.20
–.21
–.18
.34
.23
.06
.40
.13
.23
.31
.18
–.04
–.18
.23
.14
.21
.35
–.05
.08
–.33
–.35
–.05
.37
–.38
–.34
–.20
–.40
–.42
–.24
–.49
.07
.09
–.12
.10
.21
–.19
.27
.12
–.35
.10
.03
.10
–.16
–.30
Note: n = 295.
Neuroticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and
with low scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Social Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
French sample who provided their current organizational
level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The sample
obtained did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level; however, the respondents for each sample were
divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and below—
includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and above—
includes management, executives, and top executives). These
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
77
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE D-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THEINDIAN
FRENCHAND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 358)
Management and above
(n = 128)
49.68
45.55
48.23
45.89
46.68
49.26
52.62
45.75
46.39
55.76
53.48
41.25
42.94
46.12
46.84
47.65
45.37
47.06
47.88
46.20
48.89
44.08
47.63
47.65
47.17
51.35
50.61
48.37
47.75
53.98
50.43
50.89
47.48
50.35
53.50
55.81
49.86
49.92
56.25
54.13
43.48
45.70
49.26
50.97
51.97
50.55
50.55
48.53
44.96
53.99
46.66
51.22
52.56
48.98
54.14
47.29
50.51
50.33
results are provided in Table D-9. The anticipated pattern of
elevated scores was found among the higher-level organizational group for the French sample. This replication of the
pattern typically found in the United States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the CPI 260
assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 490
individuals, nationally representative of the general French
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 50% were women and 49% were men; 88% were currently employed full-time and 12% part-time, with 32%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
78
APPEN D IX E: GERMAN SAMPLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the German language. The
sample described here was used to create the standardization
formulas for German and is reflected in commercial reports.
Note that this results in means of 50 and standard deviations
of 10 for the sample and therefore are not reported here. Raw
scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the analyses that
follow.
Data for the German sample were collected through a thirdparty market research company hired to recruit participants
to complete the CPI 260 assessment in German as well as
demographic and validity items. The targeted sample was
selected to reflect the working population within the German
culture. Employed adults and adults seeking full-time
employment are the primary users of the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected,
and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to
represent employed adults in the target culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they had to be employed
part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated
that their country of origin or country of residence is one in
which German is spoken. Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more) were removed from the sample. In
addition, the sample has an approximately equal number of
TABLE E-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE GERMAN SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
9
13
6
1.7
2.5
1.2
women and men. The data were collected in two waves. The
first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260
assessment as well as the demographic and validity items. The
second wave comprised a random subset of participants from
the first wave who then completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table E-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002.
Table E-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the German sample. The table includes the
number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level,
whether they are satisfied with their job, and their selfreported industry of employment. The table also provides
their average age and average number of years working in
their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the German sample are presented in Table E-3.
The standard score means and standard deviations are also
shown separately for each gender.
Note: N = 518.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
79
TABLE E-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE GERMAN SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
258
260
50
50
412
106
80
20
43
311
69
40
19
32
4
465
8
60
13
8
4
6
1
91
2
0
19
55
17
47
32
25
56
22
22
24
195
<1
0
4
11
3
9
6
5
11
4
4
5
38
Mean
SD
43.2
11.8
10.9
10.1
Note: N = 518. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the German sample are shown in Table E-4. Most
of the alphas for this sample are acceptable to good and are
very similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual for
the U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these reliabilities,
the following statement from the CPI™ Manual should be
kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many tests posit
this as a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not a goal on
the CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of the 20
folk scales are developed by empirical methodology, which
bases the selection of items solely on their demonstrated rela-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
80
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE E-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD
BY GENDER
DEVIATIONS
FOR INDIAN
FOR AND
THE GERMAN
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
17.95
11.20
13.27
16.32
12.34
13.24
11.90
14.15
18.27
16.59
14.33
18.64
13.76
9.70
18.48
12.79
18.14
12.39
7.90
13.04
12.27
14.72
14.02
22.10
15.88
17.78
12.39
11.96
14.53
6.50
3.84
4.10
3.96
3.96
4.25
3.26
3.35
4.37
4.99
4.49
2.30
3.97
3.34
4.20
3.49
4.59
2.95
3.23
3.40
3.76
3.50
3.68
6.67
4.49
3.17
4.47
3.34
5.01
51.76
45.70
48.98
46.31
49.47
52.78
50.81
46.16
45.07
55.21
54.72
47.31
46.11
46.41
48.17
48.65
48.25
50.31
45.83
46.60
49.11
46.29
48.25
49.65
46.40
54.91
51.00
48.56
48.63
9.95
8.49
9.22
9.67
10.15
10.20
8.88
8.59
9.91
9.88
9.52
10.78
11.36
8.07
8.95
7.41
9.09
8.60
8.74
8.50
8.08
9.60
8.95
10.21
9.75
9.91
10.28
9.18
8.36
50.25
44.60
48.78
45.22
48.32
51.21
50.06
45.42
44.97
56.05
54.86
47.77
45.12
46.03
48.06
47.70
47.14
49.07
45.35
49.51
47.94
44.71
46.93
48.28
46.00
55.06
52.52
47.57
48.22
10.18
9.03
9.72
10.27
10.57
10.30
9.07
8.34
10.03
10.06
9.59
9.62
11.28
8.20
8.97
7.35
9.52
8.49
8.23
8.15
8.21
9.54
8.83
10.37
9.71
9.44
10.31
8.87
8.61
53.28
46.80
49.18
47.41
50.63
54.37
51.56
46.91
45.18
54.36
54.58
46.85
47.10
46.78
48.27
49.61
49.38
51.55
46.32
43.67
50.28
47.89
49.59
51.03
46.80
54.77
49.46
49.56
49.05
9.50
7.78
8.70
8.91
9.59
9.88
8.63
8.79
9.81
9.64
9.48
11.83
11.37
7.94
8.95
7.36
8.50
8.54
9.22
7.82
7.78
9.41
8.90
9.87
9.79
10.37
10.04
9.38
8.09
Note: N = 518.
tionships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley, 1996, p.
57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items in
a scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four
factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor analysis was
conducted with a four-factor solution. The results are presented in Table E-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the German sample using the folk scales.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
81
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE E-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE GERMAN SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.87
.66
.75
.65
.71
.78
.50
.63
.68
.78
.74
.52
.80
.68
.70
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.62
.72
.52
.60
.54
.67
.69
.59
.86
.77
.37
.83
.64
.76
Note: N = 518.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE E-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
® SCALES
COMPONENTS FACTOR
BY GENDER
ANALYSIS
FOR
OFINDIAN
CPI 260AND
U.S. SAMPLES
FOR THE GERMAN SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.92
.74
.85
.79
.91
.79
.60
.17
.07
–.33
–.07
.31
.47
.10
.34
.31
.60
.42
–.10
–.73
.54
.37
.49
.85
.00
.41
Factor 2
.10
.01
.03
.09
–.06
.40
.05
.53
.79
.79
.74
.52
.79
.67
.53
.45
.46
.47
–.10
–.15
.56
.81
.05
.36
.88
.50
Factor 3
.00
.34
.06
.32
.03
.11
.41
–.01
–.02
–.08
–.06
–.17
.09
.50
–.14
.56
.27
.39
.87
.10
.20
.17
.72
.03
.21
–.29
Factor 4
.19
.40
.16
–.15
.13
.00
.29
.64
.13
.25
.33
–.15
–.08
.21
.61
.36
.37
.14
–.15
.18
.35
.06
.02
.23
.11
.03
Note: N = 518.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
82
TABLE E-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE GERMAN AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.98
.36
.48
.46
.98
.33
.64
.94
.21
.66
German: Factor 1
German: Factor 2
German: Factor 3
German: Factor 4
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
German sample compared to that of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient
was used. The U.S. sample used for this analysis was the U.S.
normative sample used in the CPI 260® Manual (Gough &
Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity analysis are
shown in Table E-6. The coefficients of congruence between
corresponding factors (in bold) show that factors 1 and 2 are
nearly identical, while factor 3 has a high level of similarity
and factor 4 is less similar.
Respondents from the German sample also completed the
ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI
260 scales were correlated with the ACL adjectives. Selected
correlations between these two assessments are shown in
Table E-7.
TABLE E-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN
FOR THE
AND
GERMAN
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
.26
.29
.35
.43
.31
–.40
–.18
–.23
–.47
–.30
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.26
.34
.32
.35
.30
–.23
–.17
–.20
–.39
–.20
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.35
.36
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.27
.40
.32
–.21
–.19
–.25
–.39
–.32
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.32
.19
.35
.23
.25
–.26
–.21
–.17
–.21
–.26
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.29
.41
.30
.46
.30
–.34
–.30
–.41
–.22
–.32
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.16
.15
.21
.20
.21
–.21
–.28
–.29
–.45
–.24
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
83
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE E-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR
INDIAN
THE GERMAN
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
.15
.22
.25
.29
.30
–.19
–.20
–.29
–.13
–.23
.27
.09
.24
.10
.13
–.16
–.23
–.19
–.27
–.17
.23
.13
.23
.23
.17
–.23
–.39
–.24
–.33
–.31
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.11
.10
.17
.22
.20
–.17
–.18
–.25
–.15
–.15
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.14
.18
.20
.19
.16
–.28
–.30
–.15
–.18
–.14
Communality (Cm)
.19
.23
.08
.12
.11
–.25
–.26
–.18
–.16
–.12
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
dissatisfied
complaining
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.15
.15
.09
.15
.08
–.14
–.12
–.09
–.12
–.08
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.09
.12
.10
.12
.12
–.11
–.17
–.20
–.28
–.21
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.13
.22
.18
.23
.12
–.14
–.19
–.11
–.16
–.21
Tolerance (To)
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
r
Responsibility (Re)
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.12
.20
.15
.23
.19
–.14
–.18
–.19
–.30
–.17
Insightfulness (Is)
.22
.19
.21
.23
.35
–.24
–.31
–.19
–.26
–.22
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.14
.21
.13
.18
.18
–.32
–.24
–.18
–.18
–.15
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
84
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE E-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR
INDIAN
THE GERMAN
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
.17
.11
.03
.03
.24
–.08
–.12
–.12
–.01
–.13
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.41
.25
.12
.37
.25
–.27
–.15
–.32
–.35
–.09
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.22
.07
.16
.12
.11
–.35
–.29
–.32
–.25
–.18
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.20
.19
.17
.28
.34
–.29
–.15
–.12
–.33
–.20
Leadership (Lp)
.15
.14
.12
.27
.11
–.25
–.22
–.20
–.12
–.10
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.25
.27
.28
.31
.45
–.42
–.43
–.18
–.48
–.26
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.25
.21
.12
.20
.11
–.21
–.38
–.27
–.21
–.15
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.19
.13
.15
.11
.14
–.22
–.13
–.18
–.12
–.12
Note: n = 340.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the German sample’s
responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in
Table E-8. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI 260 scales
in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is associated
with high scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership,
and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1.
Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability
and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance, Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and
vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several
CPI 260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status,
Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with
low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally,
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
85
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAWWITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE E-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED
BY THROUGH
GENDER FOR
THEINDIAN
ACL) FOR
AND
THE
U.S.
GERMAN
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.66
.55
.59
.49
.60
.43
.45
.06
.04
–.25
–.03
.04
.24
.05
.17
.04
.07
.19
.10
.07
–.06
.10
–.01
.01
.06
.11
.14
.04
.00
.12
.24
.09
.17
.04
.20
.23
.01
.20
.24
.23
.24
.25
.27
.06
.33
.50
.45
.41
.35
.49
.39
.40
.19
.11
–.05
.01
.11
.27
.08
.26
–.25
–.20
–.19
–.28
–.18
–.43
–.26
–.25
–.40
–.34
–.37
–.11
–.53
–.29
–.28
.10
–.04
.10
.25
–.28
.34
.18
–.05
–.45
.35
.14
.23
.54
–.04
.23
.03
–.06
.00
.05
.00
.03
.00
.07
.09
.04
.19
.12
–.39
–.14
.27
.24
–.13
.35
.20
.23
.41
.24
–.03
–.29
.31
.18
.26
.49
.07
.11
–.40
–.29
.03
.33
–.39
–.49
–.21
–.37
–.50
–.22
–.55
.10
.03
.00
–.02
.04
–.05
.35
.03
–.36
.17
.09
–.04
–.27
–.35
Note: n = 340.
Neuroticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and
with low scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Social Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the German sample who provided their current organizational level,
mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The sample obtained
did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level;
however, the respondents for each sample were divided into
lower-level groups (supervisor and below—includes entrylevel, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and
higher-level groups (management and above—includes management, executives, and top executives). These results are
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
86
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE E-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THE INDIAN
GERMAN
AND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 423)
Management and above
(n = 91)
51.66
44.75
48.50
45.65
48.53
51.96
49.99
45.66
45.09
55.46
54.87
47.57
45.53
46.22
47.72
48.12
47.56
49.72
45.82
47.16
48.44
45.95
47.59
48.65
46.37
54.96
52.21
48.09
48.39
57.37
50.47
51.67
49.66
54.33
57.09
54.82
48.76
45.26
54.06
54.28
46.23
48.87
47.23
50.66
51.25
51.88
53.21
45.65
43.64
52.44
47.79
51.43
54.89
46.35
55.09
44.99
51.25
49.78
Note: N = 518. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
provided in Table E-9. The anticipated pattern of elevated
scores was found among the higher-level organizational
group for the German sample. This replication of the pattern
typically found in the United States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the CPI 260 assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 518
individuals, nationally representative of the general German
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 50% were women and 50% were men; 80% were currently employed full-time and 20% part-time, with 31%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
87
APPEN D IX F : SWEDI SH SAMPLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the Swedish language. The
sample described here was used to create the standardization
formulas for Swedish and is reflected in commercial reports.
Note that this results in means of 50 and standard deviations
of 10 for the sample and therefore are not reported here. Raw
scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the analyses that
follow.
Data for the Swedish sample were collected through a thirdparty market research company hired to recruit participants
to complete the CPI 260 assessment in Swedish as well as
demographic and validity items. The targeted sample was
selected to reflect the working population within the Swedish
culture. Employed adults and adults seeking full-time
employment are the primary users of the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected,
and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to
represent employed adults in the target culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they had to be employed
part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated
that their country of origin or country of residence is one in
which Swedish is spoken. Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more) were removed from the sample. In
addition, the sample has an approximately equal number of
TABLE F-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE SWEDISH SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
1
12
6
0.2
2.5
1.2
women and men. The data were collected in two waves. The
first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260
assessment as well as the demographic and validity items. The
second wave comprised a random subset of participants from
the first wave who then completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table F-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table F-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the Swedish sample. The table includes the
number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level,
whether they are satisfied with their job, and their selfreported industry of employment. The table also provides
their average age and average number of years working in
their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the Swedish sample are presented in Table F-3.
The standard score means and standard deviations are also
shown separately for each gender.
Note: N = 481.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
88
TABLE F-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SWEDISH SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
238
243
49
51
377
104
78
22
23
291
115
33
8
10
1
5
5
60
24
7
2
2
<1
1
0
17
52
9
25
14
52
76
19
26
35
149
5
0
4
11
2
5
3
11
16
4
5
7
31
1
Mean
SD
43.1
12.5
10.6
10.8
Note: N = 481. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the Swedish sample are shown in Table F-4. Most of
the alphas for this sample are acceptable to good and are very
similar to those reported in the CPI 260® Manual for the
U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these reliabilities, the
following statement from the CPI™ Manual should be kept
in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many tests posit this as
a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not a goal on the
CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of the 20 folk
scales are developed by empirical methodology, which bases
the selection of items solely on their demonstrated relation-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
89
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE F-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD
BY GENDER
DEVIATIONS
FOR INDIAN
FOR AND
THE SWEDISH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
19.83
13.77
14.29
18.48
13.67
14.36
13.37
14.88
19.33
14.54
12.34
17.96
13.79
11.87
18.35
14.51
18.70
12.23
9.25
12.99
14.74
15.65
14.90
23.62
17.38
17.09
9.65
12.15
16.99
6.89
4.34
4.25
4.24
4.21
4.38
3.37
3.36
3.93
4.71
4.24
2.18
3.81
3.76
3.79
3.90
4.53
2.93
3.92
3.57
3.97
3.39
4.26
6.55
4.44
2.90
4.62
3.01
5.62
54.63
51.36
51.28
51.58
52.86
55.47
54.82
48.03
47.49
51.15
50.51
44.16
46.20
51.65
47.89
52.30
49.37
49.86
49.49
46.48
54.42
48.85
50.38
51.98
49.66
52.76
44.68
49.08
52.74
10.55
9.60
9.56
10.34
10.78
10.51
9.16
8.61
8.91
9.33
8.98
10.22
10.89
9.09
8.07
8.26
8.97
8.53
10.61
8.92
8.54
9.30
10.36
10.02
9.64
9.09
10.63
8.29
9.39
53.92
51.37
52.00
51.51
52.28
54.15
54.90
48.00
47.49
51.13
50.18
44.81
45.89
51.88
48.19
52.21
49.20
49.51
49.29
49.79
54.06
48.89
50.08
51.86
49.74
52.56
45.36
49.16
52.93
10.46
10.13
9.82
10.88
10.88
10.60
9.11
8.78
8.87
9.20
8.80
8.43
10.68
9.12
7.53
8.77
8.77
8.42
10.38
8.03
8.67
9.20
10.57
9.80
9.36
9.15
10.72
7.86
9.29
55.35
51.36
50.54
51.65
53.44
56.82
54.73
48.07
47.48
51.18
50.84
43.50
46.52
51.42
47.58
52.38
49.54
50.21
49.71
43.10
54.78
48.81
50.69
52.10
49.58
52.96
43.98
49.00
52.54
10.61
9.04
9.25
9.77
10.66
10.28
9.23
8.46
8.97
9.47
9.17
11.75
11.12
9.07
8.59
7.73
9.19
8.65
10.86
8.51
8.41
9.41
10.16
10.27
9.94
9.04
10.51
8.72
9.51
Note: N = 481.
ships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley, 1996,
p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items
in a scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four
factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor analysis was
conducted with a four-factor solution. The results are presented in Table F-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the Swedish sample using the folk scales.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
90
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE F-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE SWEDISH SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.89
.72
.78
.70
.74
.78
.54
.63
.64
.76
.71
.45
.77
.74
.63
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.70
.72
.50
.71
.57
.71
.66
.68
.85
.74
.33
.85
.55
.82
Note: N = 481.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE F-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
® SCALES
COMPONENTS FACTOR
BY GENDER
ANALYSIS
FOR
OFINDIAN
CPI 260AND
U.S. SAMPLES
FOR THE SWEDISH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.90
.68
.81
.76
.85
.82
.54
.16
.13
–.38
–.10
.15
.51
.16
.37
.34
.58
.34
–.07
–.75
.55
.28
.39
.84
.00
.46
Factor 2
–.04
–.01
–.02
–.08
–.18
.16
.03
.34
.63
.82
.84
.19
.64
.65
.35
.33
.30
.37
.11
–.10
.51
.71
.06
.22
.86
.36
Factor 3
.17
.53
.24
.39
.19
.23
.54
.35
.05
–.01
.05
.01
.11
.60
.00
.74
.47
.52
.87
.11
.41
.32
.80
.20
.27
–.25
Factor 4
.24
.20
.24
.11
.18
.19
.16
.67
.44
.13
.04
.69
.25
.15
.67
.21
.37
.25
–.12
.26
.23
.32
.09
.33
.17
.10
Note: N = 481.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
91
TABLE F-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE SWEDISH AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.98
.22
.65
.55
.98
.51
.68
.86
.10
.84
Swedish: Factor 1
Swedish: Factor 2
Swedish: Factor 3
Swedish: Factor 4
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
Swedish sample compared to that of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient
was used. The U.S. sample used for this analysis was the U.S.
normative sample used in the CPI 260® Manual (Gough &
Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor similarity analysis are
shown in Table F-6. The coefficients of congruence between
corresponding factors (in bold) show that factors 1 and 2 are
nearly identical, while factors 3 and 4 have high levels of
similarity.
Respondents from the Swedish sample also completed the
ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI
260 scales were correlated with the ACL. Selected correlations between these two assessments are shown in Table F-7.
TABLE F-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN
FOR THE
AND
SWEDISH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
Initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
.22
.35
.36
.43
.37
–.10
–.22
–.35
–.06
–.32
enterprising
imaginative
Interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.26
.29
.40
.32
.28
–.15
–.33
–.26
–.45
–.22
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.28
.31
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.32
.38
.35
–.27
–.23
–.34
–.04
–.30
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.27
.24
.36
.29
.28
–.23
–.09
–.18
–.29
–.28
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.16
.12
.27
.34
.33
–.40
–.22
–.05
–.03
–.28
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.36
.31
.14
.34
.19
–.18
–.18
–.37
–.13
–.25
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
92
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE F-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR
INDIAN
THE SWEDISH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.23
.15
.22
.37
.11
–.02
–.12
–.09
–.08
–.28
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.09
.20
.08
.16
.08
–.31
–.18
–.10
–.29
–.19
Communality (Cm)
.13
.02
.01
.04
.03
–.15
–.18
–.19
–.17
–.21
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
complaining
dissatisfied
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.28
.21
.15
.06
.18
–.16
–.09
–.11
–.03
–.03
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.14
.16
.10
.21
.01
–.07
–.12
–.14
–.12
–.11
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.22
.22
.28
.24
.21
–.07
–.24
–.11
–.14
–.18
Insightfulness (Is)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.14
.23
.27
.15
.15
–.19
–.04
–.08
–.20
–.20
Tolerance (To)
.15
.27
.20
.28
.13
–.21
–.29
–.09
–.32
–.31
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
.25
.06
.09
.04
.09
–.21
–.23
–.23
–.35
–.32
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
.30
.22
.40
.32
.31
–.11
–.34
–.13
–.21
–.18
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.20
.30
.29
.29
.37
–.19
–.15
–.04
–.11
–.32
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.03
.18
.03
.17
.08
–.26
–.15
–.13
–.11
–.24
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
93
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE F-7.
TABLE
CONT’D
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR
INDIAN
THE SWEDISH
AND U.S.SAMPLE
SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
.02
.02
–.02
.21
.05
–.05
–.01
–.13
–.10
–.18
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.36
.15
.26
.15
.32
–.19
–.10
–.15
–.27
–.15
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.08
.14
.15
.10
.14
–.32
–.15
–.21
–.15
–.19
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.11
.20
.27
.17
.22
–.15
–.29
–.24
–.13
–.16
Leadership (Lp)
.17
.11
.05
.27
.13
–.21
–.21
–.15
–.21
–.10
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.23
.36
.23
.37
.31
–.23
–.13
–.34
–.16
–.33
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.16
.11
.01
.18
.01
–.05
–.28
–.15
–.30
–.30
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.12
.13
.15
.09
.12
–.18
–.10
–.10
–.03
–.13
Note: n = 261.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the Swedish sample’s
responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in
Table D-8. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI 260 scales
in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is associated
with high scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership,
and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1.
Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability
and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance, Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and
vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several
CPI 260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status,
Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with
low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally,
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
94
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAWWITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE F-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED
BY THROUGH
GENDER FOR
THEINDIAN
ACL) FOR
AND
THE
U.S.
SWEDISH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.64
.49
.60
.50
.53
.51
.40
.13
.04
–.31
–.09
.13
.26
.04
.21
.19
.24
.33
.24
.18
.09
.25
.26
.21
.09
.08
.24
.19
.19
.28
.17
.09
.19
.11
.11
.13
.07
.22
.25
.17
.07
.22
.24
.06
.35
.43
.46
.48
.41
.40
.39
.40
.26
.12
–.21
–.17
.17
.16
.10
.30
–.22
–.12
–.19
–.22
–.18
–.32
–.14
–.22
–.36
–.26
–.26
–.25
–.47
–.29
–.26
.17
.14
.07
.29
–.21
.31
.21
–.04
–.33
.32
.07
.29
.55
–.08
.17
.19
.14
.00
.15
.23
.20
.12
.26
.23
.06
.15
.06
–.22
–.02
.20
.18
–.10
.21
.11
.13
.38
.20
.05
–.14
.28
.12
.25
.36
–.04
.07
–.24
–.32
–.18
.32
–.31
–.42
–.21
–.35
–.38
–.18
–.55
.09
.00
–.11
.24
.11
–.09
.36
.02
–.41
.17
.06
–.03
.00
–.31
Note: n = 261.
Neuroticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and
with low scores on several scales, including Dominance,
Social Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
Swedish sample who provided their current organizational
level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The sample
obtained did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level; however, the respondents for each sample were
divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and below—
includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and above—
includes management, executives, and top executives). These
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
95
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE F-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
BY GENDER
FOR FOR
THE INDIAN
SWEDISH
AND
SAMPLE
U.S. SAMPLES
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 429)
Management and above
(n = 51)
53.90
50.68
50.79
51.01
52.33
54.72
54.28
47.66
47.34
51.24
50.46
44.18
45.78
51.29
47.66
51.79
48.77
49.38
49.29
47.01
53.92
48.66
49.90
51.35
49.58
52.74
45.36
49.03
52.49
60.78
56.91
55.31
56.30
57.28
61.76
59.41
51.05
48.96
50.27
50.70
43.87
49.71
54.57
49.74
56.36
54.31
53.64
50.93
41.89
58.59
50.45
54.35
57.24
50.19
52.96
38.91
49.70
54.62
Note: N = 481. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
results are provided in Table F-9. The anticipated pattern of
elevated scores was found among the higher-level organizational group for the Swedish sample. This replication of the
pattern typically found in the United States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the CPI 260
assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 481
individuals, nationally representative of the general Swedish
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 51% were women and 49% were men; 78% were currently employed full-time and 22% part-time, with 35%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
96
APPEN D IX G : SI MPLI FI ED CH I NES E S AM PLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in Simplified Chinese. The sample described here was used to create the standardization formulas for Simplified Chinese and is reflected in commercial
reports. Note that this results in means of 50 and standard
deviations of 10 for the sample and therefore are not reported
here. Raw scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the
analyses that follow.
Data for the Simplified Chinese sample were collected
through a third-party market research company hired to
recruit participants to complete the CPI 260 assessment in
Simplified Chinese as well as demographic and validity items.
The targeted sample was selected to reflect the working population within the Chinese culture. Employed adults and
adults seeking full-time employment are the primary users of
the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected, and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to represent employed adults in the target
culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they
had to be employed part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old,
and have indicated that their country of origin or country of
residence is one in which Simplified Chinese is used. Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more) were
removed from the sample. In addition, the sample has an
approximately equal number of women and men. The data
TABLE G-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
5
43
14
%
1.7
15.0
4.9
were collected in two waves. The first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260 assessment as well as the
demographic and validity items. The second wave comprised
a random subset of participants from the first wave who then
completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents whose invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) were within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table G-1. As the fake
bad and random indicators in this sample were outside normal ranges, most of the analyses in this appendix were conducted for both the Simplified Chinese sample and a subsample that does not include any cases flagged with an invalidity
indicator. The rate of each invalidity indicator is shown in the
CPI™ Manual for numerous male and female samples, some
of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The
rate of fake good cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 8.5% for a
sample of police officer applicants, and for men ranges from
0% for several samples to 7.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants. The rate of fake bad cases for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric
patients, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples to
4.9% for a sample of psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of
random cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 3.8% for a sample of high school students, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table G-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the Simplified Chinese sample and subsample. The table includes the number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time),
organizational level, whether they are satisfied with their job,
and their self-reported industry of employment. The table
also provides their average age and average number of years
working in their current occupation.
Note: N = 286.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
97
TABLE G-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE SAMPLE
AND SUBSAMPLE
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Simplified
Chinese
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
n
%
146
140
51
49
107
118
48
52
268
18
94
6
210
15
93
7
20
110
83
42
25
6
0
235
7
38
29
15
9
2
0
82
15
92
66
29
20
3
0
185
7
41
29
13
9
1
0
82
3
0
17
56
16
17
16
28
6
22
22
22
59
1
0
6
20
6
6
6
10
2
8
8
8
21
2
0
11
42
12
14
13
24
5
20
14
21
46
1
0
5
19
5
6
6
11
2
9
6
9
20
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
29.5
6.3
7.1
6.1
29.9
6.3
7.2
6.0
Note: Simplified Chinese N = 286, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the Simplified Chinese sample are presented in
Table G-3 and for the subsample in Table G-4. The standard
score means and standard deviations are also shown separately for each gender.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
98
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE G-3.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARDBYDEVIATIONS
GENDER FOR
FOR
INDIAN
THE SIMPLIFIED
AND U.S. SAMPLES
CHINESE SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
18.05
12.68
13.87
17.13
12.63
12.59
12.75
13.91
17.85
12.58
12.64
16.52
11.78
8.78
18.44
11.93
17.42
11.60
6.24
13.08
11.90
13.31
12.41
21.77
15.04
16.33
8.36
14.24
10.46
5.86
3.66
4.13
3.59
3.47
4.02
2.79
2.93
4.28
3.95
3.82
2.82
3.57
3.63
3.89
3.56
4.24
2.88
2.80
2.91
3.80
3.65
3.49
6.03
4.28
2.91
4.19
3.14
4.63
51.92
48.97
50.33
48.29
50.21
51.23
53.12
45.54
44.13
47.28
51.15
37.39
40.45
44.16
48.09
46.83
46.84
48.04
41.33
46.69
48.31
42.44
44.34
49.14
44.57
50.38
41.71
54.83
41.84
8.96
8.08
9.29
8.77
8.89
9.65
7.60
7.50
9.71
7.82
8.11
13.21
10.22
8.79
8.30
7.54
8.40
8.39
7.60
7.29
8.16
10.01
8.49
9.23
9.28
9.09
9.64
8.63
7.73
51.56
48.88
50.42
48.57
50.07
51.52
53.07
45.61
45.37
47.62
50.74
39.47
41.14
44.96
49.06
47.27
48.09
48.42
42.50
48.41
48.24
44.02
45.37
49.30
44.89
50.44
42.93
54.32
42.09
9.43
8.25
9.41
8.93
9.57
9.45
7.69
7.00
9.54
8.28
8.55
12.55
9.97
8.62
7.31
7.31
8.46
8.63
7.76
6.98
8.19
9.70
8.63
9.06
9.18
9.64
9.92
8.81
8.06
52.26
49.05
50.24
48.02
50.35
50.94
53.17
45.48
42.94
46.95
51.54
35.39
39.78
43.39
47.16
46.40
45.63
47.67
40.21
45.04
48.37
40.93
43.36
48.99
44.27
50.33
40.55
55.33
41.59
8.51
7.95
9.20
8.64
8.22
9.86
7.55
7.96
9.76
7.36
7.66
13.55
10.44
8.91
9.07
7.76
8.18
8.17
7.30
7.21
8.16
10.10
8.26
9.41
9.41
8.56
9.25
8.46
7.42
Note: N = 286.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the Simplified Chinese sample and subsample are
shown in Table G-5. Most of the alphas for these samples are
acceptable to good and are very similar to those reported in
the CPI 260® Manual for the U.S. workforce sample. In
interpreting these reliabilities, the following statement from
the CPI™ Manual should be kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a
scale, whereas many tests posit this as a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not a goal on the CPI. The reason for
this statement is that 13 of the 20 folk scales are developed by
empirical methodology, which bases the selection of items
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
99
® STANDARDIZED
CPI5.260
CPI® 260
RAW AND STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE G-4.
TABLE
SCALE
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR INDIAN
THE SIMPLIFIED
AND U.S. CHINESE
SAMPLESSUBSAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
18.46
12.78
14.19
17.49
12.91
13.32
12.68
14.55
18.80
13.04
12.90
17.58
12.66
9.32
19.33
12.60
18.26
12.10
6.31
13.04
12.26
14.16
12.87
22.72
15.80
16.89
8.87
14.21
10.92
6.01
3.79
4.15
3.66
3.49
3.78
2.81
2.65
3.89
3.71
3.61
1.96
3.18
3.34
3.19
3.27
3.93
2.70
2.73
2.99
3.80
3.24
3.26
5.91
3.97
2.52
4.08
3.06
4.28
52.54
49.18
51.05
49.18
50.91
52.98
52.93
47.18
46.28
48.18
51.70
42.37
42.97
45.49
49.99
48.23
48.50
49.48
41.52
46.59
49.07
44.75
45.46
50.59
46.21
52.12
42.89
54.77
42.60
9.19
8.38
9.35
8.93
8.93
9.06
7.64
6.77
8.82
7.35
7.65
9.20
9.09
8.08
6.80
6.93
7.77
7.87
7.40
7.47
8.17
8.88
7.92
9.05
8.62
7.88
9.37
8.43
7.15
51.99
48.94
50.76
49.22
50.37
52.92
52.96
46.90
47.39
48.75
51.69
43.17
43.38
46.53
50.54
48.48
49.64
49.78
42.97
48.34
49.34
46.12
46.47
50.58
46.66
52.39
44.15
53.99
43.40
9.70
8.53
9.71
9.18
9.60
8.93
7.84
6.32
8.48
7.74
8.26
9.05
8.64
7.97
5.92
6.81
7.66
7.93
7.37
7.28
8.14
8.09
8.06
8.82
8.16
8.43
9.74
8.70
7.53
53.14
49.44
51.37
49.14
51.51
53.04
52.89
47.47
45.06
47.54
51.71
41.48
42.52
44.34
49.38
47.96
47.24
49.16
39.92
44.65
48.78
43.25
44.34
50.60
45.73
51.83
41.49
55.62
41.72
8.60
8.24
8.96
8.69
8.13
9.24
7.46
7.26
9.06
6.86
6.96
9.33
9.58
8.09
7.65
7.08
7.74
7.82
7.12
7.22
8.24
9.49
7.65
9.33
9.12
7.24
8.79
8.07
6.62
Note: n = 225.
solely on their demonstrated relationships to nontest criteria”
(Gough & Bradley, 1996, p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items in a scale is acceptable and, in
fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the Simplified Chinese samples using the
folk scales. Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
100
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE G-5. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Simplified
Chinese
Simplified
Chinese
(subsample)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha
.82
.61
.76
.55
.61
.74
.38
.54
.68
.66
.63
.58
.72
.72
.65
.63
.68
.49
.51
.33
.68
.67
.52
.82
.73
.35
.80
.65
.74
.84
.65
.76
.58
.64
.72
.40
.48
.63
.62
.59
.27
.66
.67
.51
.58
.63
.45
.51
.41
.69
.59
.48
.82
.69
.16
.79
.64
.71
Note: Simplified Chinese N = 286, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225.
analysis was conducted with a four-factor solution. The
results are presented in Table G-6.
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
Simplified Chinese sample and subsample compared to that
of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955)
factor similarity coefficient was used. The U.S. sample used
for this analysis was the U.S. normative sample used in the
CPI 260® Manual (Gough & Bradley, 2005). The results of
the factor similarity analysis are shown in Table G-7. The
coefficients of congruence between corresponding factors (in
bold) show that for both samples, factors 1 and 2 are nearly
identical, while factor 3 has a high level of similarity and factor 4 is slightly less similar.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
101
VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM
TABLE G-6. KAISER NORMAL
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES FOR THE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
SIMPLIFIED CHINESE SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE
Simplified Chinese
(subsample)
Simplified Chinese
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.90
.82
.87
.77
.83
.65
.73
.10
.24
–.33
.08
.06
.36
.21
.26
.11
.13
.08
–.15
–.04
.33
.11
.34
.54
.81
.86
.13
.59
.69
.39
.03
.20
.08
.21
.06
.20
.19
.07
.03
.12
–.06
–.02
.08
.34
–.08
.23
.12
.24
.29
.25
.44
–.09
.74
.62
.25
.15
.88
.53
.35
.73
.92
.82
.87
.80
.86
.75
.70
.09
.27
–.41
.00
.05
.41
.24
.27
.10
.15
.12
–.11
.00
.31
.11
.32
.61
.78
.84
.16
.69
.71
.44
.01
.19
.11
.21
.07
.13
.29
.02
–.07
.07
–.05
–.05
–.02
.27
–.07
.17
.13
.18
.17
.15
.25
–.04
.71
.43
.12
.09
.83
.33
.27
.64
.40
.43
.48
.46
.45
.40
.48
.39
.49
.37
.00
–.59
.58
.22
.42
.77
.12
.27
.34
.40
.09
–.19
.60
.63
.17
.31
.77
.41
.26
.29
.90
.25
.17
.15
.75
.08
.14
.02
.60
.49
–.12
.03
.19
.56
.23
.45
.40
.46
.52
.37
.05
–.61
.61
.23
.51
.82
.11
.33
.33
.41
.02
–.09
.58
.73
.13
.33
.85
.29
.27
.26
.88
.34
.13
.13
.71
.06
.07
–.03
.54
.44
–.15
.04
.12
.37
.14
.33
.22
.30
Note: Simplified Chinese N = 286, Simplified Chinese (subsample) n = 225.
Respondents from the Simplified Chinese sample also completed the ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI 260 scales were correlated with the ACL adjectives.
Selected correlations between these two assessments are
shown in Table G-8. The Simplified Chinese subsample was
too small to include in this analysis.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
102
TABLE G-7. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS IN THE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE
SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE AND THE U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLE
U.S. English
Factor 1
U.S. English
Factor 2
U.S. English
Factor 3
U.S. English
Factor 4
Simplified Chinese: Factor 1
Simplified Chinese: Factor 2
Simplified Chinese: Factor 3
Simplified Chinese: Factor 4
.99
.35
.44
.56
.99
.38
.80
.84
.06
.66
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 1
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 2
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 3
Simplified Chinese (subsample): Factor 4
.99
.36
.42
.52
.99
.28
.73
.89
.07
.73
Sample: Factor
TABLE G-8.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR INDIAN
THE SIMPLIFIED
AND U.S. CHINESE
SAMPLESSAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.15
.14
.24
.33
.11
–.24
–.26
–.37
–.21
–.43
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.22
.23
.34
.27
.11
–.24
–.14
–.34
–.32
–.34
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.26
.21
.38
.05
.22
–.36
–.21
–.08
–.28
–.35
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
.32
.28
.29
.33
.16
–.38
–.11
–.30
–.37
–.46
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.20
.16
.21
.18
.10
–.32
–.40
–.37
–.07
–.33
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.42
.15
.21
.25
–.03
–.20
–.10
–.27
–.42
–.32
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
103
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE G-8.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THEINDIAN
SIMPLIFIED
AND CHINESE
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
–.01
.07
.04
.12
.09
–.21
–.19
–.02
–.24
–.03
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.25
.04
.03
.00
.07
–.25
–.09
–.17
.02
–.13
Communality (Cm)
.16
.19
.09
.13
.06
–.11
–.09
–.16
–.19
–.05
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
complaining
dissatisfied
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.16
.09
.13
.10
.18
–.10
–.17
–.24
–.24
–.18
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
–.01
–.07
.07
.05
.16
.07
–.17
–.01
.01
–.17
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.39
.19
.28
.09
–.20
.02
.02
–.08
–.08
–.11
Insightfulness (Is)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
–.04
.15
–.02
.19
.26
–.01
–.01
–.08
–.14
–.19
Tolerance (To)
.07
.28
.24
.37
.33
–.23
–.17
–.23
–.32
–.30
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
–.01
.23
–.02
.15
.19
–.08
–.26
–.13
.03
–.02
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
.26
.11
.19
.22
.31
–.13
–.28
–.17
–.34
–.35
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.24
.19
.16
–.08
.13
–.10
–.20
–.19
–.23
–.14
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.06
.07
.14
–.05
.09
–.36
–.18
–.12
–.16
–.02
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
104
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE G-8.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FORFOR
THEINDIAN
SIMPLIFIED
AND CHINESE
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
.22
.12
.04
–.12
–.06
–.09
.00
.01
–.03
–.05
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.21
.02
.23
.01
–.04
–.24
.10
–.22
–.24
–.34
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.13
.05
.19
–.04
–.18
–.15
–.16
–.21
–.12
–.19
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.27
.05
.28
.15
.11
–.21
–.20
–.31
–.29
–.27
Leadership (Lp)
–.11
–.07
.04
–.02
.07
–.19
–.14
–.22
–.10
–.08
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.16
.14
.22
.26
.15
–.31
–.34
–.29
–.36
–.36
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.04
.08
.17
.07
.07
–.06
–.15
–.21
–.09
–.30
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
–.04
.09
.22
–.28
.01
–.04
–.20
–.16
–.08
–.09
Note: n = 79.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the Simplified Chinese
sample’s responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were then
correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are presented in Table G-9. The Big Five factors correlate with CPI
260 scales in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is
associated with high scores on several scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vec-
tor 1. Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance,
Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several CPI
260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance and with low
scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally, Neu-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
105
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE G-9.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED THROUGH
BY GENDER
THE ACL)
FOR INDIAN
FOR THEAND
SIMPLIFIED
U.S. SAMPLES
CHINESE SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.32
.29
.27
.25
.25
.24
.25
.05
.10
–.06
.08
.04
.16
.08
.13
.16
.12
.16
.15
.14
.15
.10
.08
.14
.03
.12
.13
.20
.09
.19
.14
.08
.14
.08
.15
.16
.06
.10
.13
.07
.14
.14
.21
.11
.18
.23
.19
.22
.17
.21
.20
.19
.11
.12
–.01
.11
.11
.19
.10
.18
–.14
–.08
–.10
–.18
–.18
–.17
–.11
–.08
–.18
–.09
–.12
–.15
–.17
–.06
–.10
.16
.13
.13
.18
–.09
.18
.15
.04
–.17
.22
.11
.19
.27
.07
.05
.17
.18
.01
–.03
.15
.15
.10
.19
.15
.08
.15
.14
.01
–.06
.16
.16
.08
.17
.15
.08
.20
.18
.04
–.08
.19
.16
.14
.22
.11
.08
–.12
–.15
.00
.07
–.14
–.12
–.07
–.19
–.18
–.13
–.22
.10
.13
–.04
.10
.12
–.01
.11
.13
–.12
.10
.13
.05
–.07
–.11
Note: n = 79.
roticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and with
low scores on several scales, including Dominance, Social
Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial
Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3. Again, the Simplified Chinese subsample was too small to be included in
this analysis.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determination, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
Simplified Chinese sample and subsample who provided
their current organizational level, mean CPI 260 scores were
examined. The sample obtained did not allow a detailed
examination of organizational level; however, the respondents
for each sample were divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and below—includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
106
TABLE G-10. CPI 260 ® SCALE STANDARD SCORE MEANS BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
FOR THE SIMPLIFIED CHINESE SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE
Simplified Chinese
(subsample)
Simplified Chinese
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 213)
Organizational Level
Management
and above
(n = 73)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 173)
Management
and above
(n = 52)
51.45
48.15
50.07
48.33
49.98
52.01
52.24
46.78
56.16
52.60
54.31
52.01
54.01
56.18
55.22
48.48
47.34
50.79
48.14
49.36
47.48
49.30
50.57
52.39
45.43
44.08
44.27
45.96
47.67
46.12
48.39
47.49
50.91
51.85
51.43
52.60
55.19
51.36
53.16
50.65
52.87
53.13
55.26
45.88
37.79
36.23
42.51
41.89
40.08
41.51
42.35
45.04
44.26
43.87
45.18
46.52
47.74
49.13
49.40
51.94
46.87
46.71
47.88
49.41
46.70
47.25
48.00
50.15
47.98
48.19
49.10
50.75
41.68
40.31
41.60
41.25
47.00
45.78
46.89
45.59
47.60
50.37
48.23
51.87
42.30
42.86
44.22
46.54
44.25
44.61
44.97
47.08
48.35
51.47
44.55
50.07
37.46
57.01
41.64
49.60
45.96
51.95
43.87
54.40
42.50
53.88
47.08
52.71
39.61
55.98
42.93
44.58
50.49
43.17
54.09
41.90
supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and above—includes management, executives, and top
executives). These results are provided in Table G-10. The
anticipated pattern of elevated scores was found among the
higher-level organizational group for the Simplified Chinese
samples. This replication of the pattern typically found in the
United States provides additional validity evidence for this
translation of the CPI 260 assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 286
individuals, nationally representative of the general Chinese
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 49% were women and 51% were men; 94% were currently employed full-time and 6% part-time, with 55%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
107
APPEN D IX H: TRADI TI ON AL CH I NES E S AM PLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in Traditional Chinese. The sample described here was used to create the standardization formulas for Traditional Chinese and is reflected in commercial
reports. Note that this results in means of 50 and standard
deviations of 10 for the sample and therefore are not reported
here. Raw scores and U.S. standard scores are noted in the
analyses that follow.
Data for the Traditional Chinese sample were collected
through a third-party market research company hired to
recruit participants to complete the CPI 260 assessment in
Traditional Chinese as well as demographic and validity
items. The targeted sample was selected to reflect the working
population within the Chinese culture. Employed adults and
adults seeking full-time employment are the primary users of
the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected, and respondents were paid for their participation. In order to represent employed adults in the target
culture, for respondents to be included in the sample they
had to be employed part- or full-time, be at least 18 years old,
and have indicated that their country of origin or country of
residence is one in which Traditional Chinese is used.
Respondents with too many omitted items (13 or more) were
removed from the sample. In addition, the sample has an
approximately equal number of women and men. The data
TABLE H-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
n
9
111
70
%
1.4
17.1
10.8
were collected in two waves. The first wave included individuals who completed the CPI 260 assessment as well as the
demographic and validity items. The second wave comprised
a random subset of participants from the first wave who then
completed the Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table H-1. As the fake
bad and random indicators in this sample were outside normal ranges, most of the analyses in this appendix were conducted for both the Traditional Chinese sample and a subsample that does not include any cases flagged with an
invalidity indicator. The rate of each invalidity indicator is
shown in the CPI™ Manual for numerous male and female
samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison
purposes. The rate of fake good cases reported in the CPI™
Manual for women ranges from 0% for several samples to
8.5% for a sample of police officer applicants, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 7.5% for a sample of
police officer applicants. The rate of fake bad cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 8.8% for a
sample of psychiatric patients, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for women ranges
from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a sample of high
school students, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric patients (Gough &
Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table H-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the Traditional Chinese sample and subsample. The table includes the number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time),
organizational level, whether they are satisfied with their job,
and their self-reported industry of employment. The table
also provides their average age and average number of years
working in their current occupation.
Note: N = 649.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
108
TABLE H-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE SAMPLE
AND SUBSAMPLE
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional
Chinese
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
n
%
308
341
47
53
210
249
46
54
598
51
92
8
421
38
92
8
96
244
151
94
41
22
1
524
15
38
23
14
6
3
<1
81
63
187
99
63
27
19
1
373
14
41
22
14
6
4
<1
81
5
3
41
81
43
65
55
70
33
26
42
44
141
1
<1
6
12
7
10
8
11
5
4
6
7
22
3
2
32
56
28
43
43
53
23
16
31
30
99
1
<1
7
12
6
9
9
12
5
3
7
7
22
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
30.6
7.2
7.3
6.2
31.1
7.2
7.6
6.4
Note: Traditional Chinese N = 649, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the Traditional Chinese sample are presented in
Table H-3 and for the subsample in Table H-4. The standard
score means and standard deviations are also shown separately for each gender.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
109
® STANDARDIZED
CPI5.260
CPI® 260
RAW AND STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE H-3.
TABLE
SCALE
STANDARDBY
DEVIATIONS
GENDER FOR
FORINDIAN
THE TRADITIONAL
AND U.S. SAMPLES
CHINESE SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
16.50
12.15
12.33
15.69
11.68
11.33
12.00
12.78
17.30
14.05
12.93
15.31
11.06
9.23
17.93
11.19
16.26
11.12
7.26
13.43
11.80
13.24
12.49
19.90
14.56
15.83
10.29
12.35
11.72
6.10
3.66
4.39
3.51
3.57
3.76
2.94
3.07
4.38
4.47
3.96
3.11
3.51
3.69
4.25
3.44
4.15
2.82
3.34
2.95
3.75
3.72
3.80
6.22
4.46
3.03
4.72
3.77
5.30
49.54
47.80
46.86
44.78
47.78
48.21
51.08
42.66
42.87
50.18
51.76
31.71
38.38
45.26
47.00
45.24
44.53
46.62
44.08
47.59
48.08
42.23
44.54
46.27
43.53
48.80
46.15
49.63
43.94
9.33
8.08
9.87
8.56
9.14
9.01
7.99
7.86
9.95
8.85
8.39
14.60
10.05
8.93
9.05
7.30
8.22
8.22
9.05
7.37
8.06
10.18
9.23
9.52
9.69
9.50
10.85
10.37
8.85
49.20
47.67
46.57
44.88
47.70
47.72
51.06
42.41
43.34
49.77
51.44
32.41
38.66
45.15
46.71
44.76
44.05
45.89
44.01
49.53
47.84
42.46
44.87
46.08
43.35
48.91
46.57
49.00
43.85
9.11
8.22
9.81
9.08
9.29
8.75
7.90
7.63
9.85
8.54
8.06
14.56
9.80
8.44
9.04
7.07
8.13
7.88
8.82
7.01
7.65
9.95
9.01
9.34
9.52
9.06
10.62
9.68
8.17
49.92
47.95
47.19
44.67
47.86
48.76
51.11
42.95
42.35
50.63
52.11
30.94
38.07
45.38
47.32
45.78
45.06
47.44
44.16
45.44
48.35
41.98
44.17
46.49
43.73
48.67
45.69
50.33
44.05
9.58
7.94
9.95
7.97
8.99
9.28
8.11
8.11
10.04
9.16
8.74
14.63
10.32
9.45
9.08
7.53
8.30
8.52
9.31
7.18
8.50
10.45
9.47
9.72
9.88
9.97
11.10
11.06
9.56
Note: N = 649.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the Traditional Chinese sample and subsample are
shown in Table H-5. Most of the alphas for this sample are
acceptable to good and are very similar to those reported in
the CPI 260® Manual for the U.S. workforce sample. In
interpreting these reliabilities, the following statement from
the CPI™ Manual should be kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by the intercorrelation of items within a
scale, whereas many tests posit this as a high priority,
interitem homogeneity is not a goal on the CPI. The reason
for this statement is that 13 of the 20 folk scales are developed
by empirical methodology, which bases the selection of items
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
110
® STANDARDIZED
CPI5.260
CPI® 260
RAW AND STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE H-4.
TABLE
SCALE
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR THE
INDIAN
TRADITIONAL
AND U.S. SAMPLES
CHINESE SUBSAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
16.78
12.23
12.62
16.24
11.84
11.84
11.89
13.49
18.28
14.70
13.18
16.81
11.92
9.62
19.00
11.62
17.07
11.61
7.16
13.42
11.98
14.16
12.69
20.77
15.33
16.33
10.91
12.45
11.83
6.52
3.81
4.59
3.55
3.75
3.70
2.99
2.82
4.05
4.25
3.84
1.94
3.29
3.48
3.82
3.14
3.92
2.64
3.23
3.09
3.74
3.38
3.66
6.35
4.28
2.85
4.64
3.69
4.85
49.96
47.97
47.53
46.11
48.18
49.42
50.78
44.48
45.10
51.47
52.28
38.74
40.85
46.19
49.27
46.17
46.15
48.06
43.82
47.56
48.47
44.77
45.01
47.62
45.20
50.38
47.58
49.93
44.13
9.98
8.41
10.33
8.66
9.61
8.88
8.14
7.22
9.20
8.42
8.14
9.09
9.41
8.41
8.13
6.66
7.76
7.67
8.75
7.73
8.03
9.27
8.89
9.71
9.28
8.92
10.68
10.14
8.10
49.41
47.92
47.12
46.28
48.17
48.68
50.77
44.09
45.38
50.69
51.71
39.15
40.94
46.05
48.83
45.38
45.56
47.09
43.58
49.75
47.92
44.77
45.13
47.22
44.65
49.96
47.81
49.12
43.87
9.64
8.39
9.98
9.01
9.59
8.66
7.97
7.15
9.03
8.37
8.01
8.59
9.07
7.86
8.04
6.36
7.63
7.51
8.53
7.18
7.44
9.05
8.91
9.42
9.17
8.61
10.57
9.51
7.47
50.62
48.03
48.01
45.91
48.20
50.29
50.79
44.95
44.77
52.40
52.96
38.25
40.74
46.36
49.78
47.11
46.85
49.20
44.11
44.95
49.13
44.77
44.88
48.09
45.85
50.88
47.31
50.88
44.43
10.34
8.46
10.74
8.24
9.66
9.08
8.36
7.28
9.41
8.40
8.27
9.64
9.81
9.04
8.23
6.89
7.87
7.71
9.02
7.57
8.66
9.55
8.90
10.06
9.39
9.27
10.82
10.78
8.80
Note: n = 459.
solely on their demonstrated relationships to nontest criteria”
(Gough & Bradley, 1996, p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the items in a scale is acceptable and, in
fact, to be expected” (p. 59).
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the Traditional Chinese samples using the
folk scales. Because previous factor analyses have shown primarily four factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
111
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE H-5. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Traditional
Chinese
Traditional
Chinese
(subsample)
Cronbach’s Alpha
Cronbach’s Alpha
.83
.58
.75
.49
.62
.66
.41
.49
.68
.71
.65
.58
.68
.70
.66
.66
.65
.40
.62
.33
.64
.64
.58
.81
.71
.31
.83
.73
.80
.86
.64
.79
.52
.68
.68
.47
.43
.63
.68
.65
.10
.65
.68
.62
.48
.60
.36
.61
.42
.64
.59
.56
.82
.70
.25
.83
.73
.77
Note: Traditional Chinese N = 649, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459.
analysis was conducted with a four-factor solution. The
results are presented in Table H-6.
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
Traditional Chinese sample and subsample compared to that
of the U.S. normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955)
factor similarity coefficient was used. The U.S. sample used
for this analysis was the U.S. normative sample used in the
CPI 260® Manual (Gough & Bradley, 2005). The results of
the factor similarity analysis are shown in Table H-7. The
coefficients of congruence between corresponding factors (in
bold) show that for both samples, factors 1 and 2 are nearly
identical, while factors 3 and 4 have high levels of similarity.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
112
VARIMAX ROTATED FACTOR LOADINGS FROM
TABLE H-6. KAISER NORMAL
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS OF CPI 260 ® SCALES FOR THE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
TRADITIONAL CHINESE SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE
Traditional Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional Chinese
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.92
.83
.89
.68
.83
.69
.72
.20
.16
–.26
.11
.05
.29
.12
.33
.12
.14
.07
–.12
–.05
.36
.08
.52
.64
.87
.87
.25
.68
.75
.55
.01
.19
–.04
.25
.11
.25
.21
.00
.00
.08
–.02
–.14
.10
.43
–.19
.14
.10
.20
.44
.20
.21
–.07
.55
.48
.06
–.09
.82
.40
.12
.54
.93
.84
.90
.73
.87
.78
.72
.22
.15
–.32
.05
.09
.31
.13
.37
.07
.08
.04
–.09
–.07
.28
.08
.49
.63
.84
.84
.25
.72
.77
.49
–.03
.15
–.04
.29
.06
.08
.27
–.13
–.08
–.06
–.15
–.20
.06
.37
–.34
.07
.15
.18
.30
.12
.06
.05
.46
.41
–.01
–.13
.73
.26
.11
.44
.40
.53
.48
.19
.47
.51
.35
.13
.52
.33
–.07
–.66
.57
.13
.36
.82
.04
.41
.42
.48
.10
–.15
.65
.75
.16
.34
.84
.54
.22
.33
.87
.14
.17
.14
.78
.00
.20
–.15
.45
.33
–.21
.19
.03
.43
.04
.30
.22
.20
.59
.39
–.04
–.69
.59
.14
.45
.86
.02
.50
.38
.42
.09
–.14
.63
.79
.08
.29
.87
.46
.13
.21
.84
.19
.10
.07
.73
–.06
.16
–.30
.40
.31
–.27
.25
.02
.33
–.02
.23
.18
–.07
Note: Traditional Chinese N = 649, Traditional Chinese (subsample) n = 459.
Respondents from the Traditional Chinese sample also completed the ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent validity, CPI 260 scales were correlated with the ACL. Selected
correlations between these two assessments are shown in
Table H-8. The Traditional Chinese subsample was too small
to include in this analysis.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
113
TABLE H-7. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS IN THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE
SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE AND THE U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLE
U.S. English
Factor 1
U.S. English
Factor 2
U.S. English
Factor 3
U.S. English
Factor 4
Traditional Chinese: Factor 1
Traditional Chinese: Factor 2
Traditional Chinese: Factor 3
Traditional Chinese: Factor 4
.98
.36
.42
.51
.99
.35
.62
.88
.03
.73
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 1
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 2
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 3
Traditional Chinese (subsample): Factor 4
.98
.32
.30
.45
.99
.11
.54
.92
.08
.80
Sample: Factor
TABLE H-8.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR THE
INDIAN
TRADITIONAL
AND U.S. SAMPLES
CHINESE SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
.22
.19
.26
.28
.30
–.01
–.45
–.38
–.25
–.40
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.19
.22
.53
.46
.44
–.06
–.26
–.32
–.26
–.39
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
.30
.23
.32
.11
.39
–.05
–.26
–.12
–.13
–.26
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
.26
.29
.53
.37
.39
–.27
.03
–.34
–.25
–.38
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.09
.36
.11
.33
.29
–.14
–.16
–.32
–.20
–.41
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
.43
.15
.16
.37
.31
–.14
–.07
–.23
–.24
–.38
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
114
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE H-8.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FOR FOR
THE TRADITIONAL
INDIAN AND U.S.
CHINESE
SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
.20
.14
.18
.05
.19
–.24
–.28
–.17
–.23
–.13
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.17
.00
.01
.05
.07
–.18
–.26
–.28
–.26
–.18
Communality (Cm)
.15
.06
.11
–.13
–.08
–.17
–.24
–.38
–.19
–.33
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
complaining
dissatisfied
self-pitying
spineless
sour
.14
.09
.25
.04
.28
–.17
.01
–.10
–.23
–.06
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
–.08
.12
.05
–.10
.12
–.41
–.34
–.30
–.28
–.33
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.11
.18
.20
.13
.11
.03
–.10
–.15
–.42
–.20
Insightfulness (Is)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.21
–.15
.14
.03
.07
–.16
–.09
–.31
–.03
–.05
Tolerance (To)
.19
.42
.10
.30
.06
–.19
–.21
–.23
–.26
–.22
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
–.09
.05
–.01
.10
.13
–.29
–.20
–.41
–.39
–.18
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
r
Responsibility (Re)
.17
.11
.22
.29
.37
–.17
–.21
–.14
–.20
–.37
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
.11
.23
.22
.14
.12
–.41
–.16
–.13
–.32
–.27
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.12
.13
.07
.17
.13
–.28
.00
–.05
–.21
–.10
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
115
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW SCORE
WITH KEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE H-8.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FOR FOR
THE TRADITIONAL
INDIAN AND U.S.
CHINESE
SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
.13
.12
.11
.02
.09
–.18
–.07
–.18
–.07
–.04
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.23
.28
.04
.19
.27
–.22
–.07
–.16
–.06
–.11
Creative Temperament (Ct)
.24
.16
.17
.09
–.17
–.26
–.26
–.23
–.30
–.21
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.02
.14
.23
–.07
.20
–.12
–.10
–.29
–.19
–.30
Leadership (Lp)
.12
–.08
.10
.15
.02
–.16
.00
–.13
–.17
–.15
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.18
.27
.32
.44
.34
–.01
–.31
–.29
–.24
–.37
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.15
.06
.11
.10
.04
–.24
–.27
–.07
–.19
–.29
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.03
.02
.03
–.08
–.07
–.43
–.27
–.21
–.28
–.07
Note: n = 101.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the Traditional Chinese sample’s responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors were
then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results are
presented in Table H-9. The Big Five factors correlate with
CPI 260 scales in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is
associated with high scores on several scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vec-
tor 1. Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance,
Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several CPI
260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance and with low
scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally, Neu-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
116
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCORE
BIG
MEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE H-9.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED THROUGH
BY GENDER
THE ACL)
FOR FOR
INDIAN
THE AND
TRADITIONAL
U.S. SAMPLES
CHINESE SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.62
.51
.63
.51
.51
.50
.46
–.12
.02
–.38
–.14
.13
.20
–.11
.12
.23
.19
.22
.27
.07
.16
.38
.08
.07
.02
.12
.19
.22
.08
.07
.24
.12
.23
.14
.13
.23
.21
.17
.09
–.01
.22
.27
.24
.04
.40
.45
.36
.49
.44
.40
.40
.43
–.06
–.01
–.28
–.07
.11
.14
–.07
.17
–.20
–.27
–.19
–.17
–.23
–.43
–.24
–.21
–.41
–.28
–.40
–.05
–.43
–.45
–.30
.06
.04
.17
.22
–.41
.20
.17
–.02
–.31
.23
–.07
.32
.49
–.15
.10
.05
.08
.12
.03
.09
.11
.15
.20
.09
–.03
.17
.17
–.23
–.13
.21
.14
.03
.32
–.01
.14
.25
.24
.06
–.25
.14
–.04
.24
.38
–.15
.06
–.41
–.22
–.09
.30
–.41
–.42
–.30
–.31
–.44
–.35
–.58
.06
–.10
–.13
–.05
.12
–.18
.26
.13
–.45
.05
.04
–.11
–.16
–.50
Note: n = 101.
roticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and with
low scores on several scales, including Dominance, Social
Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial
Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3. Again, the Traditional Chinese subsample was too small to be included in this
analysis.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determination, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the Traditional Chinese sample and subsample who provided their
current organizational level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined. The samples obtained did not allow a detailed examination of organizational level; however, the respondents for
each sample were divided into lower-level groups (supervisor
and below—includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and super-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
117
TABLE H-10. CPI 260 ® SCALE STANDARD SCORE MEANS BY ORGANIZATIONAL LEVEL
FOR THE TRADITIONAL CHINESE SAMPLE AND SUBSAMPLE
Traditional Chinese
(subsample)
Traditional Chinese
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 213)
Organizational Level
Management
and above
(n = 73)
Supervisor
and below
(n = 173)
Management
and above
(n = 52)
48.70
47.08
46.30
45.67
47.11
48.56
49.86
44.04
54.07
50.86
51.48
47.50
51.60
52.25
53.73
45.80
45.59
48.55
47.08
45.96
44.42
46.99
47.60
50.36
42.22
42.73
43.33
44.97
50.17
50.21
51.57
51.19
51.51
52.56
51.93
53.43
52.70
50.09
49.73
45.89
50.22
50.17
53.37
43.97
31.75
31.54
38.68
38.86
38.07
39.38
40.53
41.94
45.16
45.53
46.11
46.41
46.52
48.50
48.73
51.00
44.93
46.24
45.70
47.69
44.02
46.11
45.55
48.03
46.13
48.15
47.49
49.85
44.41
43.06
44.13
42.87
48.28
45.32
48.28
45.10
47.39
50.28
47.70
50.98
42.12
42.51
44.63
45.13
44.30
45.28
44.65
46.15
45.28
49.39
43.16
50.02
43.07
52.06
44.36
46.40
45.21
49.87
48.81
49.02
43.97
51.53
45.17
52.13
43.64
52.84
44.62
43.64
48.43
47.13
48.86
43.81
visory employees) and higher-level groups (management and
above—includes management, executives, and top executives). These results are provided in Table H-10. The anticipated pattern of elevated scores was found among the
higher-level organizational group for the Traditional Chinese
samples. This replication of the pattern typically found in the
United States provides additional validity evidence for this
translation of the CPI 260 assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 649
individuals, nationally representative of the general Chinese
population, for people of working age (over 18). In the sample, 53% were women and 47% were men; 92% were currently employed full-time and 8% part-time, with 46%
describing themselves as being at supervisor level or above.
For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint. The lower the
score, the more relevant will be the comments to the left of
the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be
those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
118
APPEN D IX I: L ATI N AMERI CAN S PANI S H S AM PLE
U.S. scoring of the CPI 260 assessment was used for all samples and analyses reported in this appendix in order to indicate patterns of differences in how each of the CPI 260 scales
functions psychometrically in the Latin American Spanish
language. The sample described here was used to create the
standardization formulas for Latin American Spanish and is
reflected in commercial reports. Note that this results in
means of 50 and standard deviations of 10 for the sample and
therefore are not reported here. Raw scores and U.S. standard
scores are noted in the analyses that follow.
Data for the Latin American Spanish sample were collected
through a third-party market research company hired to
recruit participants to complete the CPI 260 assessment in
Latin American Spanish as well as demographic and validity
items. The targeted sample was selected to reflect the working
population within the Latin American Spanish culture.
Employed adults and adults seeking full-time employment
are the primary users of the CPI 260 assessment. No personally identifying information was collected, and respondents
were paid for their participation. In order to represent
employed adults in the target culture, for respondents to be
included in the sample they had to be employed part- or fulltime, be at least 18 years old, and have indicated that their
country of origin or country of residence is one in which
Latin American Spanish is spoken. Respondents with too
many omitted items (13 or more) were removed from the
sample. In addition, the sample has an approximately equal
TABLE I-1. FAKE GOOD, FAKE BAD, AND
RANDOM INVALIDITY INDICATORS
IN THE LATIN AMERICAN SPANISH SAMPLE
Invalidity Indicator
n
%
Fake good
Fake bad
Random
18
7
5
6.9
2.7
1.9
number of women and men. The data were collected in two
waves. The first wave included individuals who completed
the CPI 260 assessment as well as the demographic and validity items. The second wave comprised a random subset of
participants from the first wave who then completed the
Adjective Check List.
Those respondents who had invalidity indicators (fake good,
fake bad, and random) within the normal ranges were
included. The number and percentage of respondents with
each invalidity indicator are shown in Table I-1. The rate of
each invalidity indicator is shown in the CPI™ Manual for
numerous male and female samples, some of which are summarized here for comparison purposes. The rate of fake good
cases reported in the CPI™ Manual for women ranges from
0% for several samples to 8.5% for a sample of police officer
applicants, and for men ranges from 0% for several samples
to 7.5% for a sample of police officer applicants. The rate of
fake bad cases for women ranges from 0% for several samples
to 8.8% for a sample of psychiatric patients, and for men
ranges from 0% for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of
psychiatric patients. Finally, the rate of random cases for
women ranges from 0% for several samples to 3.8% for a
sample of high school students, and for men ranges from 0%
for several samples to 4.9% for a sample of psychiatric
patients (Gough & Bradley, 1996/2002).
Table I-2 shows the demographic characteristics of the
respondents in the Latin American Spanish sample. The table
includes the number and percentage of respondents by gender, employment status (full-time or part-time), organizational level, whether they are satisfied with their job, and their
self-reported industry of employment. The table also provides their average age and average number of years working
in their current occupation.
The CPI 260 raw and standard score means and standard
deviations for the Latin American Spanish sample are presented in Table I-3. The standard score means and standard
deviations are also shown separately for each gender.
Note: N = 261.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
119
TABLE I-2. DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LATIN AMERICAN SPANISH SAMPLE
Demographic Characteristic
Gender
Men
Women
Employment status
Working full-time
Working part-time
Organizational level
Entry level
Nonsupervisory
Supervisory
Management
Executive
Top executive
Not provided
Satisfied with job
Industry
Agriculture, forestry, and fishing
Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale trade
Retail trade
Finance, insurance, and real estate
Professional, scientific, and technical services
Personal care and other services
Transportation, electric, gas, and sanitary services
Information systems and technology
Information, media, and communications
Other
Age
Years working in current occupation
n
%
110
151
42
58
178
83
68
32
24
65
58
46
41
24
3
234
9
25
22
18
16
9
1
90
3
0
19
13
15
30
19
50
5
6
19
16
64
1
0
7
5
6
11
7
19
2
2
7
6
25
Mean
SD
34.6
8.7
10.5
7.9
Note: N = 261. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
Internal consistency reliabilities (Cronbach’s coefficient alphas) for the Latin American Spanish sample are shown in
Table I-4. Most of the alphas for this sample are acceptable to
good and are very similar to those reported in the CPI 260®
Manual for the U.S. workforce sample. In interpreting these
reliabilities, the following statement from the CPI™ Manual
should be kept in mind: “In regard to reliability as assessed by
the intercorrelation of items within a scale, whereas many
tests posit this as a high priority, interitem homogeneity is not
a goal on the CPI. The reason for this statement is that 13 of
the 20 folk scales are developed by empirical methodology,
which bases the selection of items solely on their demon-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
120
® SCALE
CPI 260
5. CPI
260 ® RAW
AND U.S. STANDARD
RAW SCORE
SCORE
MEANS
MEANS AND
TABLE I-3.TABLE
STANDARDIZED
STANDARD DEVIATIONS
BY GENDER FOR
FOR THE
INDIAN
LATIN
AND
AMERICAN
U.S. SAMPLES
SPANISH SAMPLE
Raw Scores
Standard Scores
Standard Scores:
Women
Standard Scores:
Men
CPI 260® Scale
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Mean
SD
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
22.76
15.96
16.53
19.04
15.48
15.70
14.82
16.24
20.45
14.03
13.79
18.17
14.85
11.57
21.00
14.29
19.69
12.86
7.12
11.73
14.77
15.34
16.17
27.04
16.77
17.50
7.410
14.10
14.59
5.98
3.98
3.74
3.36
3.18
3.40
2.98
3.10
4.13
4.55
4.57
2.25
3.59
3.72
4.00
3.44
4.15
2.82
3.04
2.97
4.13
3.51
3.44
6.19
4.36
2.93
3.71
2.94
5.46
59.12
56.21
56.32
52.95
57.51
58.68
58.76
51.51
50.02
50.14
53.57
45.12
49.22
50.93
53.53
51.83
51.32
51.68
43.72
43.32
54.48
47.99
53.47
57.21
48.34
54.03
39.53
54.45
48.73
9.14
8.80
8.41
8.21
8.15
8.15
8.09
7.92
9.37
9.00
9.68
10.55
10.27
9.01
8.51
7.29
8.22
8.19
8.25
7.43
8.88
9.60
8.35
9.47
9.46
9.18
8.52
8.07
9.11
59.91
56.53
56.38
53.92
58.46
59.14
59.37
51.91
49.83
49.63
52.54
46.65
49.28
51.62
53.87
51.66
51.80
52.04
44.25
45.47
54.91
48.01
54.16
57.63
47.95
53.59
38.76
53.96
48.90
8.72
8.12
8.03
7.92
7.85
7.58
7.97
7.63
8.97
9.32
9.67
9.64
9.97
8.45
7.92
6.59
7.67
8.34
8.22
6.52
8.54
9.52
8.57
9.00
9.76
8.83
8.56
7.83
8.57
58.04
55.78
56.23
51.61
56.20
58.06
57.91
50.97
50.28
50.84
54.99
43.00
49.14
49.98
53.05
52.06
50.66
51.20
42.99
40.36
53.89
47.96
52.53
56.63
48.87
54.64
40.58
55.13
48.50
9.63
9.68
8.95
8.44
8.40
8.86
8.22
8.30
9.93
8.55
9.55
11.38
10.72
9.68
9.27
8.18
8.92
8.01
8.27
7.61
9.33
9.76
7.99
10.09
9.06
9.65
8.39
8.38
9.84
Note: N = 261.
strated relationships to nontest criteria” (Gough & Bradley,
1996, p. 57). Given this, “moderate heterogeneity among the
items in a scale is acceptable and, in fact, to be expected”
(p. 59).
the folk scales. Because previous factor analyses have shown
primarily four factors (Gough & Bradley, 2005), this factor
analysis was conducted with a four-factor solution. The
results are presented in Table I-5.
Principal components factor analysis with varimax rotation
was conducted for the Latin American Spanish sample using
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
121
TABLE 5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED RAW SCORE MEANS
TABLE I-4. CPI 260 ® SCALE ALPHAS FOR THE LATIN AMERICAN SPANISH SAMPLE
BY GENDER FOR INDIAN AND U.S. SAMPLES
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.86
.69
.73
.55
.63
.71
.46
.63
.74
.74
.76
.52
.80
.73
.72
CPI 260® Scale
Cronbach’s Alpha
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
.66
.70
.52
.58
.38
.76
.72
.57
.87
.74
.37
.73
.63
.80
Note: N = 261.
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE I-5. KAISER
TABLE
NORMAL
5. CPI 260
VARIMAX
ROTATED FACTOR
RAW SCORE
LOADINGS
MEANS
FROM PRINCIPAL
COMPONENTS FACTOR ANALYSIS
BY GENDER
OF CPIFOR
260 ®INDIAN
SCALES
AND
FORU.S.
THESAMPLES
LATIN AMERICAN SPANISH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
Factor 1
.91
.79
.86
.73
.86
.79
.59
.23
.29
–.21
.04
.24
.46
.23
.47
.44
.57
.43
–.02
–.62
.56
.27
.49
.79
.08
.43
Factor 2
.24
.35
.15
.01
–.05
.35
.35
.68
.75
.89
.86
.25
.72
.76
.69
.60
.59
.59
–.09
–.02
.67
.81
.13
.51
.88
.49
Factor 3
.00
.21
–.02
.31
.02
.09
.23
.01
–.17
–.11
–.13
–.19
.03
.39
–.16
.43
.21
.28
.81
.18
.17
.01
.69
–.04
.11
–.39
Factor 4
.06
.05
–.02
.19
.24
.07
.05
.39
.22
.01
–.15
.76
.11
.07
.19
.04
.16
.02
–.22
.45
–.05
.17
.11
.11
.08
–.13
Note: N = 261.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
122
TABLE I-6. COEFFICIENTS OF CONGRUENCE FOR CPI 260 ® FACTORS
IN THE LATIN AMERICAN SPANISH AND U.S. ENGLISH SAMPLES
Sample: Factor
Latin Amerian Spanish: Factor 1
Latin Amerian Spanish: Factor 2
Latin Amerian Spanish: Factor 3
Latin Amerian Spanish: Factor 4
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
U.S. English
Factor 1
Factor 2
Factor 3
Factor 4
.98
.45
.37
.26
.98
.14
.29
.96
.09
.78
To examine precisely the similarity of factor structure of the
Latin American Spanish sample compared to that of the U.S.
normative sample, the Wrigley-Neuhaus (1955) factor similarity coefficient was used. The U.S. sample used for this
analysis was the U.S. normative sample used in the CPI 260®
Manual (Gough & Bradley, 2005). The results of the factor
similarity analysis are shown in Table I-6. The coefficients of
congruence between corresponding factors (in bold) show
that factors 1, 2, and 3 are nearly identical, while factor 4 has
a high level of similarity.
Respondents from the Latin American Spanish sample also
completed the ACL assessment. To demonstrate convergent
validity, CPI 260 scales were correlated with the ACL.
Selected correlations between these two assessments are
shown in Table I-7.
TABLE I-7.
TABLE
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FOR
FOR
THE
INDIAN
LATIN AND
AMERICAN
U.S. SAMPLES
SPANISH SAMPLE
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
Dominance (Do)
ambitious
enterprising
initiative
outgoing
talkative
inhibited
retiring
silent
timid
withdrawn
r
–.01
.00
.16
.04
.08
.17
.08
.06
.03
.01
enterprising
imaginative
interests wide
outgoing
talkative
awkward
interests narrow
silent
timid
withdrawn
–.06
–.01
.08
.07
.06
–.11
.03
.10
.02
.00
ambitious
assertive
enterprising
self-confident
talkative
anxious
awkward
timid
unambitious
withdrawn
r
active
enterprising
.07
.06
initiative
sociable
talkative
nervous
reserved
silent
timid
withdrawn
.11
.03
.06
.02
.12
.07
.03
.04
Independence (In)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
–.07
.07
–.01
.03
–.02
.03
.10
.07
.00
.06
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Sociability (Sy)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Social Presence (Sp)
adventurous
energetic
outgoing
spontaneous
talkative
dull
fearful
reserved
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
–.07
.09
.03
.13
.04
.10
–.15
.00
–.06
.02
confident
enterprising
independent
initiative
resourceful
confused
gloomy
nervous
timid
withdrawn
–.03
–.01
.07
.10
.04
–.05
.07
–.09
–.03
.00
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
123
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE I-7.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FOR THE
FOR
LATIN
INDIAN
AMERICAN
AND U.S.SPANISH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
r
–.02
–.12
.12
.05
.02
–.04
–.05
–.01
.09
.04
.09
.05
.14
.12
.01
.03
–.07
.13
.03
–.03
–.06
–.12
.04
.07
.01
–.03
–.12
.08
–.04
–.04
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
capable
clear-thinking
intelligent
interests wide
rational
annoyed
cowardly
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
conscientious
patient
peaceable
stable
tactful
changeable
cynical
impulsive
restless
temperamental
–.03
.01
.12
.13
.03
.08
–.01
–.03
.05
.10
clear-thinking
contented
honest
interests wide
optimistic
bitter
complaining
dissatisfied
distrustful
nervous
r
optimistic
patient
reasonable
relaxed
wholesome
dissatisfied
distrustful
impulsive
rebellious
restless
.05
.05
.03
.13
.08
–.05
–.03
.08
.14
.03
Communality (Cm)
.04
.21
.23
.09
.15
.07
.06
.07
.09
.05
capable
civilized
cooperative
fair-minded
reliable
complaining
dissatisfied
self-pitying
spineless
sour
–.03
.03
.07
.05
.04
.10
.06
.06
.06
.01
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
.09
.04
.12
.13
.06
.09
–.06
–.05
–.05
.01
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
clear-thinking
confident
initiative
intelligent
interests wide
absent-minded
awkward
confused
fearful
interests narrow
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Social Conformity (So)
.08
.16
.05
.08
–.02
.01
.08
–.01
.07
–.08
Tolerance (To)
Well-being (Wb)
active
cheerful
clear-thinking
confident
efficient
confused
dissatisfied
moody
nervous
pessimistic
conscientious
interests wide
practical
rational
responsible
coarse
distrustful
immature
interests narrow
rattlebrained
Good Impression (Gi)
Self-control (Sc)
calm
modest
patient
peaceable
quiet
adventurous
aggressive
impulsive
rebellious
sarcastic
r
Responsibility (Re)
Empathy (Em)
confident
enterprising
interests wide
outgoing
sociable
distrustful
interests narrow
nervous
silent
withdrawn
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
efficient
industrious
organized
planful
thorough
aloof
coarse
disorderly
distractible
rattlebrained
.10
.13
.20
.23
.23
.07
.15
–.09
–.02
.05
Insightfulness (Is)
.06
.07
.10
.22
.19
–.10
–.02
–.01
–.01
.03
alert
clear-thinking
efficient
intelligent
rational
anxious
dissatisfied
distrustful
fearful
interests narrow
.10
.01
.05
.14
.04
.01
–.08
.03
.06
.04
(cont’d)
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
124
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® STANDARDIZED
OF CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAW WITH
SCOREKEY
MEANS
ADJECTIVAL
TABLE I-7.
TABLE
SELF-DESCRIPTIONS
BY GENDER
FOR THE
FOR
LATIN
INDIAN
AMERICAN
AND U.S.SPANISH
SAMPLES
SAMPLE CONT’D
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Flexibility (Fx)
changeable
complicated
imaginative
interests wide
unconventional
autocratic
cautious
conservative
fearful
formal
r
–.04
–.14
–.12
–.03
–.01
–.06
–.02
–.14
.10
.01
Work Orientation (Wo)
conscientious
reliable
responsible
tactful
thorough
dissatisfied
distractible
high-strung
moody
restless
r
Sensitivity (Sn)
anxious
fearful
feminine
inhibited
nervous
adventurous
arrogant
assertive
masculine
outspoken
.09
.07
.01
–.15
–.06
.01
–.07
.00
.09
–.06
Creative Temperament (Ct)
–.02
.14
.05
.12
.16
–.02
–.03
.16
.01
.03
Amicability (Ami)
contented
patient
peaceable
relaxed
wholesome
arrogant
dissatisfied
headstrong
sarcastic
suspicious
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
capable
enterprising
independent
interests wide
original
anxious
cautious
dull
reserved
touchy
CPI 260® Scale and
ACL Adjectives
Managerial Potential (Mp)
efficient
enterprising
initiative
poised
self-confident
awkward
interests narrow
suspicious
timid
withdrawn
r
.08
.07
.15
.25
.20
–.03
.00
.04
–.03
.01
Leadership (Lp)
–.01
–.10
–.02
.03
–.12
–.07
–.11
.00
–.08
.01
ambitious
enterprising
forceful
initiative
self-confident
awkward
inhibited
silent
timid
withdrawn
.03
.01
.10
.15
.16
–.08
.16
.08
.04
.04
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
.17
.15
.11
.06
.07
–.03
–.10
.05
.01
.04
determined
efficient
organized
painstaking
reasonable
absent-minded
changeable
confused
disorderly
vindictive
.15
.09
.12
.11
.11
.00
.15
–.02
–.14
.16
Note: n = 181.
A method for scoring the ACL into the Big Five personality
factors (John, 1989) was used to score the Latin American
Spanish sample’s responses to the ACL. The Big Five factors
were then correlated with the CPI 260 scales, and the results
are presented in Table I-8. The Big Five factors correlate with
CPI 260 scales in expected ways. For example, Extraversion is
associated with high scores on several scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Empathy, and Leadership, and with low scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vec-
tor 1. Agreeableness is associated with high scores on Sociability and Empathy and with low scores on vector 2. Conscientiousness is associated with high scores on Dominance,
Independence, Responsibility, and Achievement via Conformance and with low scores on Flexibility, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Openness is associated with high scores on several CPI
260 scales, including Dominance, Capacity for Status, Sociability, Social Presence, and Self-acceptance, and with low
scores on Self-control, Sensitivity, and vector 1. Finally, Neu-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
125
CORRELATIONS
5. CPI 260 ® OF
CPI 260 ® SCALES
RAWWITH
SCORE
BIGMEANS
FIVE FACTORS
TABLE I-8.
TABLE
STANDARDIZED
(SCORED THROUGH
BY GENDER
THE ACL)
FOR
FOR
INDIAN
THE LATIN
AND AMERICAN
U.S. SAMPLES
SPANISH SAMPLE
Big Five Factor
CPI 260 Scale
®
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via
Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via
Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement
Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Extraversion
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
Openness
Neuroticism
.06
.02
.06
–.01
.08
.07
.01
.08
.11
.11
.16
.05
.08
.08
.17
.13
.14
.13
.07
.12
.06
.11
.16
.20
.16
.23
.12
.07
.18
.22
.13
.11
.16
.02
.11
.06
.08
.14
.16
.14
.26
.13
.05
.11
.23
.12
.10
.13
.07
.14
.11
.11
.19
.23
.12
.24
.23
.14
.13
.29
.11
.01
.09
.04
.14
.01
.03
.07
.02
–.05
–.03
.13
.03
.05
.09
.08
.18
.10
.12
.01
.18
.05
–.10
–.04
.09
.05
.12
.11
.24
–.06
.21
.15
.01
.10
.19
.22
–.01
.14
.18
.12
.20
.03
–.01
–.02
.22
.21
–.12
.15
.11
.20
.21
.11
–.08
.00
.21
.30
–.05
.15
.22
.20
.03
–.02
–.19
–.05
.06
–.02
.00
.06
–.05
.10
.09
.17
.18
.01
.13
.22
–.05
.16
.20
.00
.14
.17
–.08
.04
.00
Note: n = 181.
roticism is associated with high scores on Sensitivity and with
low scores on several scales, including Dominance, Social
Presence, Independence, Conceptual Fluency, Managerial
Potential, Work Orientation, and vector 3.
Past research has shown a consistent pattern in the CPI profiles of organizational members based on hierarchical level. In
the United States, the pattern shows that higher-level organizational members have higher scores on most of the CPI
scales than lower-level organizational members. Specifically,
higher scores among the scales that relate to “drive, determi-
nation, and a willingness to make difficult decisions” (Do, In,
Mp, and Lp) are usually found among managers (Gough &
Bradley, 2005, pp. 65–66). Using the respondents in the
Latin American Spanish sample who provided their current
organizational level, mean CPI 260 scores were examined.
The sample obtained did not allow a detailed examination of
organizational level; however, the respondents for each sample were divided into lower-level groups (supervisor and
below—includes entry-level, nonsupervisory, and supervisory employees) and higher-level groups (management and
above—includes management, executives, and top execu-
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
126
® STANDARDIZED
TABLE I-9. CPITABLE
260 ® 5.
SCALE
CPI 260
STANDARD
SCORE MEANS
RAW SCORE
BY ORGANIZATIONAL
MEANS
LEVEL
FOR
BY GENDER
THE LATIN
FORAMERICAN
INDIAN AND
SPANISH
U.S. SAMPLES
SAMPLE
Organizational Level
CPI 260® Scale
Dominance (Do)
Capacity for Status (Cs)
Sociability (Sy)
Social Presence (Sp)
Self-acceptance (Sa)
Independence (In)
Empathy (Em)
Responsibility (Re)
Social Conformity (So)
Self-control (Sc)
Good Impression (Gi)
Communality (Cm)
Well-being (Wb)
Tolerance (To)
Achievement via Conformance (Ac)
Achievement via Independence (Ai)
Conceptual Fluency (Cf)
Insightfulness (Is)
Flexibility (Fx)
Sensitivity (Sn)
Managerial Potential (Mp)
Work Orientation (Wo)
Creative Temperament (Ct)
Leadership (Lp)
Amicability (Ami)
Law Enforcement Orientation (Leo)
vector 1 (v.1)
vector 2 (v.2)
vector 3 (v.3)
Supervisor and below
(n = 147)
Management and above
(n = 111)
57.36
54.60
55.21
52.51
56.25
56.93
57.40
50.09
48.91
49.18
52.70
44.52
47.79
50.10
52.23
50.57
49.89
50.33
43.63
43.93
52.83
46.81
51.99
55.34
47.20
53.28
40.38
53.67
47.20
61.61
58.57
58.05
53.65
59.29
61.07
60.69
53.32
51.64
51.40
54.81
46.02
51.31
52.11
55.38
53.71
53.35
53.56
43.95
42.45
56.79
49.78
55.49
59.86
49.92
55.01
38.20
55.49
50.87
Note: N = 261. Not all respondents provided answers to all the demographic items.
tives). These results are provided in Table I-9. The anticipated
pattern of elevated scores was found among the higher-level
organizational group for the Latin American Spanish sample.
This replication of the pattern typically found in the United
States provides additional validity evidence for this translation of the CPI 260 assessment.
Translated CPI 260 reports that make use of modified norm
computations use the data from this technical brief. Scores
are reported in standardized form, based on a sample of 261
individuals, nationally representative of the general Latin
American Spanish population, for people of working age
(over 18). In the sample, 58% were women and 42% were
men; 68% were currently employed full-time and 32% parttime, with 65% describing themselves as being at supervisor
level or above. For each scale, 50 is the norm-based midpoint.
The lower the score, the more relevant will be the comments
to the left of the graph; the higher the score, the more relevant will be those to the right of the graph.
International Technical Brief for the CPI 260® Assessment Copyright 2011 by CPP, Inc. All rights reserved.
127