Convergent Validity of the Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory and the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2: Preliminary Findings With a Normative Sample

2004 ◽  
Vol 82 (1) ◽  
pp. 92-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny M. Cheung ◽  
Shu-fai Cheung ◽  
Jianxin Zhang
2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mingjie Zhou ◽  
Duan Huang ◽  
Fen Ren ◽  
Weiqiao Fan ◽  
Weiqi Mu ◽  
...  

Filling out long questionnaires can be frustrating, unpleasant, and discouraging for respondents to continue. This is why shorter forms of long instruments are preferred, especially when they have comparable reliability and validity. In present study, two short forms of the Cross-cultural (Chinese) Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI-2) were developed and validated. The items of the short forms were all selected from the 28 personality scales of the CPAI-2 based on the norm sample. Based on some priori criteria, we obtained the appropriate items and constructed the 56-item Chinese Personality Assessment Inventory (CPAI) and the 28-item CPAI. Then, we examined the factor structure of both short forms with Exploratory SEM (ESEM) and replicated the four-factor structure of the original CPAI-2, reflecting the four personality domains of Chinese people, namely, Social Potency, Dependability, Accommodation, and Interpersonal Relatedness. Further analyses with ESEM models demonstrate full measurement invariance across gender for both short forms. The results show that females score lower than males on Social Potency. In addition, these four factors of both short forms have adequate internal consistency, and the correlation patterns of the four factors, the big five personality traits, and several health-related variables are extremely similar across the two short forms, reflecting adequate and comparable criterion validity, convergent validity, and discriminant validity. Overall, the short versions of CPAI-2 are psychometrically acceptable and have practically implications for measuring Chinese personality and cross-cultural research.


Assessment ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 24 (5) ◽  
pp. 555-574 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam H. Crighton ◽  
Anthony M. Tarescavage ◽  
Roger O. Gervais ◽  
Yossef S. Ben-Porath

Elevated overreporting Validity Scale scores on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2–Restructured Form (MMPI-2-RF) are associated with higher scores on collateral measures; however, measures used in prior research lacked validity scales. We sought to extend these findings by examining associations between elevated MMPI-2-RF overreporting scale scores and Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) scale scores among 654 non–head injury civil disability claimants. Individuals were classified as overreporting psychopathology (OR-P), overreporting somatic/cognitive complaints (OR-SC), inconclusive reporting psychopathology (IR-P), inconclusive reporting somatic/cognitive complaints (IR-SC), or valid reporting (VR). Both overreporting groups had significantly and meaningfully higher scores than the VR group on the MMPI-2-RF and PAI scales. Both IR groups had significantly and meaningfully higher scores than the VR group, as well as lower scores than their overreporting counterparts. Our findings demonstrate the utility of inventories with validity scales in assessment batteries that include instruments without measures of protocol validity.


2003 ◽  
Vol 92 (1) ◽  
pp. 223-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alfred L. Brophy

Norms based on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 (MMPI-2) normative sample are provided for the L + K and L + K – F indexes of underreporting and defensiveness. Index scores produced by consistently desirable responding, which was guided by desirability eatings of the MMPI-2 items, also are provided and compared with scores produced by underreporting in other studies. The indexes correlate highly with other measures of underreporting in both normative and clinical samples. The L and K scales assess different types of underreporting and should be interpreted separately as well as in combination. The L scale can be elevated by undesirable responding or random responding in addition to desirable responding.


2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fanny M. Cheung ◽  
Shu Fai Cheung ◽  
Kwok Leung ◽  
Colleen Ward ◽  
Frederick Leong

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document