Psychological Assessment Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association

2007, Vol. 19, No. 4, 430 – 436 1040-3590/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.430

A Comparison of MMPI–2 Measures of Psychopathic

Deviance in a Forensic Setting

Martin Sellbom and Yossef S. Ben-Porath Kathleen P. Stafford

Kent State University Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic and Kent State University

We examined the convergent and discriminant validity of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory—2 (MMPI–2) measures of psychopathy, including the Clinical Scale 4, Restructured Clinical
Scale 4 (RC4), Content Scale Antisocial Practices (ASP), and Personality Psychopathology Five Scale
Disconstraint (DISC). Comparisons of the empirical correlates of these scales were conducted with 2
samples of participants evaluated at a criminal court clinic. The 2 samples included 59 men and 19
women and 913 men and 327 women, respectively. Two types of criteria (clinician ratings and archival
record review) were utilized in the analyses. Relative to Clinical Scale 4, RC4 had significantly greater
convergent validity in predicting psychopathy as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist—Screening
Version (S. D. Hart, D. N. Cox, & R. D. Hare, 1995) and behavioral criteria associated with this
construct. RC4 also showed substantially improved discriminant validity when compared with its Clinical
Scale counterpart. Among all the MMPI–2 scales studied, RC4 was the best measure of the social
deviance traits of psychopathy.

Keywords: psychopathy, Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI–2), Restructured

Clinical (RC) scales, forensic assessment

The Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2
(MMPI–2) Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales (Tellegen et al.,
2003) were developed to address problems in the original clinical
scales, including higher than expected intercorrelations, inclusion
of questionable subtle items, and the lack of theoretical grounding.
This goal was accomplished by removing (to the extent necessary
and possible) items measuring a common emotional distress con-
struct labeled demoralization and identifying and developing new
scales measuring the major distinctive core constructs assessed by
the Clinical Scales. Complete details on the development of the RC
Scales as well as extensive validation data were provided by
Tellegen et al. (2003). Subsequent research with the RC scales has
demonstrated substantially improved psychometric characteristics
relative to their original counterparts (e.g., Forbey & Ben-Porath,
2007; Sellbom, Ben-Porath, & Graham, 2006; Sellbom, Ben-
Porath, McNulty, Arbisi, & Graham, 2006; Simms, Casillas, Clark,
Watson, & Doebbeling, 2005; Tellegen et al., 2003, 2006).
Despite these positive empirical findings, the RC Scales have
come under some criticism. Nichols (2006) asserted that the Clin-
ical Scales are better suited for the prediction of psychiatric diag-
noses than are the RC Scales because of the original scales’
Martin Sellbom and Yossef S. Ben-Porath, Department of Psychology,
Kent State University; Kathleen P. Stafford, Psycho-Diagnostic Clinic,
Akron, Ohio, and Department of Psychology, Kent State University.
This research was supported by a grant from the University of Minne-
sota Press, the publisher of the MMPI–2. Yossef Ben-Porath also serves as
a consultant to the publisher. We thank Scott Lilienfeld for his insightful
comments on an earlier version of this article. We are also grateful to
Dustin Wygant and Stephen James for their assistance with data collection.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Martin
Sellbom, Department of Psychology, Kent Hall 144, Kent State University,
Kent, OH 44242-0001. E-mail: msellbom@kent.edu
“syndromal fidelity”; that is, the multidimensional makeup of the
Clinical Scales is consistent with multifaceted diagnostic syn-
dromes. This assertion has been contradicted, however, by empir-
ical findings showing that the RC Scales outperform the Clinical
Scales in predicting psychiatric diagnoses (e.g., Sellbom, Graham,
& Schenk, 2006; Simms et al., 2005; Tellegen et al., 2006).
Caldwell (2006) has similarly argued that the Clinical Scales are
better suited than the RC Scales for assessing complex mental
disorders. He singled out the construct of psychopathy, which has
not been previously examined empirically in this context. Caldwell
(2006) proffered the MMPI–2 Scale 4 (Psychopathic Deviate) as
an “instructive case” (p. 194) and argued that the syndrome of
psychopathy is better captured by this scale than is the correspond-
ing RC4 (Antisocial Behavior) scale because “Scale 4 (Pd) reflects
a complex syndrome with multiple, contributory elements” (p.
196). The present study was designed to put this assertion to an
empirical test in the context of a broader examination of the utility
of MMPI–2 measures designed to assess features and correlates of
psychopathy.
Assessment of Psychopathy
Psychopathy is a constellation of maladaptive personality char-
acteristics such as superficial charm, pathological lying, callous-
ness, grandiosity, and a lack of empathy and remorse (Cleckley,
1941; Hare, 1991, 2003). Factor analyses of various measures of
this construct have generally yielded a two-factor solution (Ben-
ning et al., 2003; Harpur, Hakstian, & Hare, 1988; but see Cooke
& Michie, 2001; and Hare, 2003, for alternative models). These
factors focus on the Affective–Interpersonal (i.e., callous–
unemotional, fearlessness, grandiosity, etc.) and Social Deviance
(i.e., disinhibition, antisociality, excitement seeking, nonconfor-
mity, irresponsibility, etc.) dimensions.

430
 MMPI–2 AND PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIANCE
Assessment of psychopathy evolved primarily through the de-
velopment of clinical rating scales using incarcerated individuals
(e.g., Psychopathy Checklist—Revised [PCL–R]; Hare, 1991,
2003). Although views regarding self-report assessment of psy-
chopathy have generally been mixed (see Lilienfeld & Fowler,
2006), recent research with measures such as the Psychopathic
Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996), Levenson
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick,
1995), and the MMPI–2 (Butcher et al., 2001) has yielded prom-
ising results (see Lilienfeld & Fowler, 2006, for a review).
MMPI–2 Measures of Psychopathy
Caldwell (2006) suggested that Clinical Scale 4 measures the
same “psychopathic constellation” as the PCL–R (Hare, 1991,
2003) and cited the literature on various factor models (e.g., Cooke
& Michie, 2001; Hare, 2003) as support for the complexity of the
psychopathy construct. He also argued,
If the scale 4 (Pd) T-score is moderately to highly elevated (a bit over
T-70), all of the components originally identified by McKinley and
Hathaway (1944) as well as with the PCL–R and PCL–SV typically
are clinically apparent, if not severely so. (Caldwell, 2006, p. 195)
Caldwell’s (2006) assertion is inconsistent with the existing
research on Scale 4. As early as 50 years ago, Lykken (1957)
questioned the utility of this scale as an indicator of psychopathy,
as it did not differentiate offenders who were rated as psychopaths
(based on Cleckley’s, 1941, criteria) from nonpsychopathic of-
fenders. Hawk and Peterson (1974) examined associations be-
tween Scale 4 and Kohlberg’s (1981) moral development scheme
in groups of adolescent delinquents, college students, and therapy
clients. Their results showed that these associations were very
weak, indicating that Scale 4 is a measure of general social
deviance rather than psychopathic traits specifically. Moreover,
Hare and Cox (1978) and Hare (1985) found only modest associ-
ations between Scale 4 and clinician ratings (e.g., Psychopathy
Checklist [PCL]) of psychopathy.
The correlation between Scale 4 and psychopathy appears re-
stricted to traits and characteristics associated with the Social
Deviance facet rather than the Affective–Interpersonal facet. Har-
pur et al. (1989) found that Scale 4 correlated .05 and .11 with PCL
Factor 1 (Affective–Interpersonal) in two inmate samples, com-
pared with .28 and .31 with Factor 2 (Social Deviance). Sellbom,
Ben-Porath, Lilienfield, Patrick, and Graham (2005) found that
Scale 4 correlated –.17 with Psychopathic Personality Inventory
Factor 1 (Affective–Interpersonal) and .50 with Psychopathic Per-
sonality Inventory Factor 2 (Social Deviance). Thus, “core” psy-
chopathic traits (e.g., shallow affect, lack of empathy and remorse,
deceitfulness, fearlessness) represented in Factor 1 are minimally
correlated with this MMPI–2 scale.
The absence of correlations with core features of psychopathy
indicates that Scale 4 has limited validity as a measure of this
construct. Strong positive correlations between this Clinical Scale
and general distress and depression (e.g., Tellegen et al., 2003)
raise further questions about its construct validity. This unexpected
but consistent finding can be understood in the context of research
showing that psychopathy as a whole is uncorrelated with mea-
sures of emotional distress and negative affect (Hicks & Patrick,
2006; Schmitt & Newman, 1999), which is likely due to the
431
Affective–Interpersonal facet and the Social Deviance facet being
respectively negatively and positively correlated with negative
affect and emotional distress (cf. Hicks & Patrick, 2006; Patrick,
1994; Sellbom et al., 2005; Verona, Patrick, & Joiner, 2001). Scale
4⬘s failure to tap the Affective–Interpersonal component of psy-
chopathy likely explains its positive correlation with emotional
distress and depression.
Three major MMPI–2 scale development efforts in the past 20
years (i.e., the Content Scales, Personality Psychopathology Five
Scales, and RC Scales) have yielded newer measures designed to
address some of the limitations of Scale 4. The Content Scale
Antisocial Practices (ASP) was developed primarily through a
rational and statistical strategy to assess a face valid content
domain associated with antisocial personality. It has been found to
be superior to Scale 4 in the prediction of psychopathic personality
traits in several different college student samples (Lilienfeld, 1996;
Sellbom et al., 2005).
The Personality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) Scale Discon-
straint (DISC) was constructed to assess a stable personality trait
associated primarily with antisocial personality disorder and psy-
chopathy (Harkness, McNulty, & Ben-Porath, 1995). Sellbom et
al. (2005) found that DISC was superior to Scale 4 in predicting
global psychopathic personality traits, and in particular, those
associated with the Affective–Interpersonal psychopathy facet.
Most recently, RC4 was developed by removing the general
distress factor from Scale 4 and identifying and building on a
distinctive dimension of this scale associated with antisocial be-
havior. Sellbom et al. (2005) found that RC4 outperforms Scale 4
in measuring psychopathy and that this RC scale is the best
predictor of social deviance relative to other MMPI–2 scales.
However, Sellbom et al. (2005) used a college student sample with
a relatively low base rate of psychopathy. The present investiga-
tion compares these scales in a forensic sample by using non-self-
report criterion measures.
Caldwell’s (2006) hypothesis that Scale 4 is a better measure of
the construct than RC4 is predicated on the assumption that psy-
chopathy is a syndromal, and hence categorical, variable. Although
consistent with current clinical practice (cf. First, 2005), this
perspective has been challenged by conceptual and empirical de-
velopments in psychopathology research in general, and in the area
of psychopathy in particular. Two recent taxometric studies using
both self-report and PCL–R ratings concluded that psychopathy is
a dimensional construct rather than a taxon (Edens, Marcus, Lil-
ienfeld, & Poythress, 2006; Marcus, John, & Edens, 2004). In
contrast, Harris, Rice, and Quinsey (1994), Skilling, Quinsey, and
Craig (2001), and Vasey, Kotov, Frick, and Loney (2005) have
presented evidence of a taxon associated with serious antisocial
behavior or conduct problems but not for psychopathy as a broader
construct.
In the present study, we compared the convergent and discrimi-
nant validity of four MMPI–2 measures of psychopathy. For
reasons just reviewed, we examine psychopathy from both a di-
mensional and categorical perspective. Because several previous
studies have indicated that RC4, ASP, and DISC outperform Scale
4 in assessment of psychopathy (e.g., Lilienfeld, 1996; Sellbom et
al., 2005), we hypothesized that these scales would be stronger
predictors of psychopathy and antisociality than would Scale 4.
We further hypothesized that RC4, ASP, and DISC would be less
strongly associated with indices of emotional distress when com-
432 SELLBOM, BEN-PORATH, AND STAFFORD
pared with Scale 4, indicating their improved discriminant validity.
On the basis of the findings of Sellbom et al. (2005), we hypoth-
esized that RC4 would be the strongest measure of the Social
Deviance facet and its common correlates among the four
MMPI–2 psychopathy measures and that DISC would provide the
best prediction of affective–interpersonal traits.
Method
Two separate archival forensic samples drawn from the same
population and offering complementary types of criteria were used
in the present study. The Institutional Review Board at Kent State
University approved this study. Table 1 lists the basic demograph-
ics of both samples.
Participants
Forensic Sample 1. This sample consisted of 85 individuals
who were undergoing pre-trial forensic psychological evaluations
at a court clinic in Northeastern Ohio1 and who had been rated on
the Psychopathy Checklist—Screening Version (PCL–SV; Hart,
Cox, & Hare, 1995). Because deliberate response distortion is
commonplace in these settings, participants were excluded on the
basis of both inconsistent responding and extreme scores on
MMPI–2 measures of over- and under-reporting. Therefore, the
following exclusionary criteria for the MMPI–2 were employed:
Cannot Say ⱖ 30, VRIN or TRIN T ⱖ 80, F raw score ⱖ 29, FP
T ⱖ 100, and L T ⱖ 80 (Petroskey, Ben-Porath, & Stafford, 2003).
This procedure excluded 7 (22%) participants. The participants
were evaluated for either drug intervention in lieu of conviction
(82%), risk assessment issues (15%), or competency to stand
trial/criminal responsibility (3%). To test whether the excluded
participants differed meaningfully from the included participants
on the demographic variables in this sample, we conducted t tests
for continuous variables (i.e., age) and chi-square tests for cate-
gorical variables (i.e., sex and ethnicity). These tests were nonsig-
nificant: for age, t(84) ⫽ 0.435, p ⬎ .05, effect size r ⫽ .05; for
sex, ␹2(1, N ⫽ 85) ⫽ 0.169, p ⬎ .05, effect size r ⫽ .04; and for
ethnicity, ␹2(2, N ⫽ 85) ⫽ 1.80, p ⬎ .05, effect size r ⫽ .05.
Forensic Sample 2. Another 1,592 individuals who had been
evaluated at the same forensic center as Forensic Sample 1 were
used in the present investigation. The same MMPI–2 exclusionary
criteria were applied, which excluded 352 (22%) participants. The
referral questions for these participants were competency to stand
trial/criminal responsibility (50%), drug intervention in lieu of
conviction (28%), or risk assessment issues (14%). Consistent with
Table 1
Basic Sample Demographics
Variable Forensic Sample 1 Forensic Sample 2
Men (n) 59 913
Women (n) 19 327
Age range 18–74 18–82
Age, M (SD) 32.12 (12.21) 33.67 (11.03)
Ethnicity (%)
Caucasian 72 78
African American 26 21
Other or Unknown 2 1
Sample 1, there were no significant differences on demographic
variables between included and excluded participants: for age,
t(311) ⫽ 0.686, p ⬎ .05, effect size r ⫽ .02; for sex, ␹2(1, N ⫽
1,312) ⫽ 0.203, p ⬎ .05, effect size r ⫽ .01; and for ethnicity,
␹2(2, N ⫽ 1,312) ⫽ 5.72, p ⬎ .05, effect size r ⫽ .04.
Measures—All Samples
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI–2).
The MMPI–2 (Butcher et al., 2001) was administered in all sam-
ples. The internal consistencies for the scales used in this study
were .63 and .76 (Scale 4), .74 and .82 (RC4), .82 and .82 (ASP),
and .77 and .70 (DISC) in Samples 1 and 2, respectively.
Measures—Forensic Sample 1
PCL–SV. The PCL–SV (Hart et al., 1995) is a 12-item version
of the longer 20-item PCL–R. It correlated approximately .80 with
the longer version in the normative samples (Hart et al., 1995) and
consists of two rationally derived, 6-item parts. Part 1 corresponds
to Factor 1 of the PCL–R (Affective–Interpersonal), and Part 2
corresponds to Factor 2 on the PCL–R (Social Deviance). Each
item is scored 0 (absent), 1 ( possibly present or present to a minor
degree), or 2 (definitely present). Internal consistency values
across 11 samples published in the manual indicate acceptable
reliability.
Raters consisted of two licensed doctoral-level psychologists
and four advanced doctoral students in clinical psychology.2 All
raters were extensively trained. The doctoral-level psychologists
had received training through PCL workshops and had trained the
doctoral students. The doctoral students continued training until
they achieved an average of 90% inter-rater agreement on each
PCL–SV item. All raters used the scoring guide in the PCL–SV
manual for all cases. Due to practical limitations in this setting,
which included the PCL–SV being administered as part of a
psychological evaluation with no availability for videotaping or
otherwise observing the participant, we were unable to calculate
inter-rater reliability through the remainder of the study. We did
calculate internal consistencies for the PCL–SV Total and Factor
scores to at least partly address legitimate concerns regarding
measurement error. Cronbach’s alphas were .86 (PCL–SV Total),
.77 (Part 1), and .77 (Part 2).
Measures—Forensic Sample 2
Record Review Form. The Record Review Form was devel-
oped by Ben-Porath and Stafford (see Petroskey et al., 2003) to
extract data from forensic clients’ records, including demographic
and historical data (including social history, educational history,
relationship history, adult relationships, parenting history, employ-
1
Although this setting primarily receives referrals for pre-trial evalua-
tions, some individuals are evaluated post-conviction for risk assessment
and recommendations to assist in their management. This center also
performs risk assessments of individuals committed after being found not
guilty by reason of insanity. These post-conviction or post-insanity acquit-
tal evaluations are included in the risk assessment category.
2
Martin Sellbom was one of the advanced doctoral student raters, and
Kathleen P. Stafford was one of the doctoral-level psychologists.
 MMPI–2 AND PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIANCE
ment history, abuse history, psychiatric history, medical history,
legal history, and substance use history) as well as mental status at
the time of evaluation. Variables that were deemed conceptually
relevant to psychopathy on the basis of the research literature and
that appeared with enough frequency (⬎ 3%) were included in the
present study. These variables were clustered in four categories:
juvenile delinquency history, adult criminal history, substance
abuse history, and depressed mood variables. The last category
was chosen for discriminant validity analyses. The internal con-
sistencies for these variables were .84, .64, .77, and .51, respec-
tively. Because the number of items within each “scale” was quite
small (ranging from three to seven), we also calculated average
inter-item correlations. These ranged from .16 to .40. Clark and
Watson (1995) suggested that acceptable average inter-item cor-
relations should be in the .15 to .25 range, indicating adequate
internal reliability for the present scales. A randomly chosen 10%
of the records were reviewed independently by two research as-
sistants to assess inter-rater reliability. We calculated intra-class
correlations for the model of agreement, which ranged from .58
(juvenile delinquency history) to .84 (substance abuse history).
Procedures
Forensic Sample 1. Participants were administered the
MMPI–2 and rated on the PCL–SV as part of their psychological
evaluations. As part of an ongoing research protocol at this clinic,
PCL–SV ratings were based on interview and on legal, educa-
tional, and treatment records, and ratings were completed prior to
accessing the MMPI–2 results.
Forensic Sample 2. The MMPI–2 was administered as part of
the psychological evaluation at the court clinic. Research assistants
reviewed the client charts and coded the variables on the Record
Review Form. The research assistants had been extensively trained
prior to coding and were blind to the MMPI–2 results.
Results
We calculated zero-order correlations between the MMPI–2
scales and external criteria. These are reported in Table 2 for the
two samples. We used Steiger’s (1980) t test for dependent cor-
relations to test whether the correlations between the MMPI–2
scales and criteria were significantly different from each other and
calculated an effect size (point bi-serial r values) for each com-
parison. Table 2 also shows the effect sizes for each of these
comparisons.3 An r ⬎ .10 is indicative of a small but meaningful
effect (Cohen, 1988).
We first examined the point bi-serial correlations for Scale 4,
RC4, ASP, and DISC with PCL–SV scores as a categorical vari-
able. For this purpose, we divided participants into two groups: a
psychopathy group including participants scoring equal to or
greater than 18 on the PCL–SV and a nonpsychopathy group
including participants scoring 12 or lower on the PCL–SV (Hart et
al., 1995). Fifteen participants who scored between 13 and 17 were
left out of the categorical analyses. Table 2 shows these correla-
tions. None of the four MMPI–2 scales was better able to predict
the dichotomized psychopathy classification relative to the others.
We followed up with receiver-operating characteristics analyses
and examined the area under the curve (AUC) for each scale. A
perfect measure would yield an AUC of 1.0, whereas a completely
433
ineffective measure would yield an AUC of .50 (chance level). In
the present study, the AUCs for classifying psychopathy were the
following: for Scale 4, .70 ( p ⫽ .06; 95% confidence interval [CI]
⫽ .54, .86); for RC4, .72 ( p ⬍ .05; 95% CI ⫽ .54, .89); for ASP,
.62 ( p ⫽ .27; 95% CI ⫽ .44, .80); and for DISC, .74 ( p ⬍ .05;
95% CI ⫽ .60, .87). These results indicate generally poor classi-
fication for all scales with only RC4 and DISC reaching significant
AUC values.
In the analyses where psychopathy was treated as a dimensional
variable, the results generally conformed to our expectations that
RC4 would be more strongly correlated with psychopathy-relevant
criteria than would Scale 4, with mixed results for ASP and DISC.
In the first forensic sample, RC4 was significantly more strongly
correlated with PCL–SV scores than was Scale 4 (rs ⫽ .50 and .29,
respectively). Importantly, in direct contradiction to Caldwell’s
hypothesis about the two scales, RC4 was also significantly cor-
related with PCL–SV Part 1 score, whereas Scale 4 was not (rs ⫽
.29 vs. .06), demonstrating that RC4 is associated with some of the
“core” psychopathy traits and does not exclusively predict social
deviance. DISC and ASP were also more highly correlated with
PCL–SV scores than was Clinical Scale 4, but only DISC was
significantly more highly correlated with PCL–SV Part 1 than was
Scale 4.
The three newer, unidimensional MMPI–2 scales were compa-
rably correlated with PCL–SV Total score, with the correlation for
RC4 having the highest magnitude. Although DISC had the high-
est correlation with PCL–SV Part 1, it was not significantly higher
than those for RC4 and ASP. As hypothesized, RC4 had signifi-
cantly and meaningfully higher correlations with PCL–SV Part 2
than did ASP and DISC.
In the second forensic sample (see Table 2; lower panel), RC4
was also more strongly correlated than Scale 4 with various forms
of criminal history, including juvenile delinquency and adult arrest
history. ASP and DISC also had significantly higher correlations
with these variables relative to Scale 4, but the effect sizes for
these differential associations were not meaningful. Substance
abuse, a consistently strong correlate of psychopathy (e.g., Smith
& Newman, 1990), was more strongly correlated with RC4 than
Scale 4, ASP, and DISC, which did not differ from each other. In
the analyses designed to compare the scales’ discriminant validity,
Scale 4 had a significantly and meaningfully higher correlation
with Depressed Mood Variables relative to RC4, ASP, and DISC.
Discussion
We examined the ability of four MMPI–2 scales to assess
psychopathy and related criteria. When psychopathy was treated as
3
An examination of Table 2 indicates that sometimes absolute correla-
tional magnitude difference between one comparison might be higher than
that for a second comparison, but the second comparison has a higher effect
size. This is not a miscalculation. Steiger’s (1980) formula takes the
correlation between the two scales (e.g., Scale 4 and RC4) into account
when comparing their relative correlations with external criteria. For in-
stance, the correlation for Scale 4, RC4, and DISC with PCL–SV Part 1
were .09, .29, and .36, respectively. However, the effect size for the
comparison of Scale 4 and RC4 with this PCL–SV factor is higher than that
for the Scale 4 and DISC comparison (–.28 vs. –.26). This is the effect of
Scale 4 and RC4 being more highly correlated than are Scale 4 and DISC.
434 SELLBOM, BEN-PORATH, AND STAFFORD

Table 2
Correlations for MMPI–2 Scales with Psychopathy-Relevant External Criteria and Effect Size Comparisons for Correlational Pairs

Correlational analyses Effect size comparisons (r)

Scale 4 vs. Scale 4 vs. Scale 4 vs. RC4 vs. RC4 vs. ASP vs.
Measure n Scale 4 RC4 ASP DISC RC4 ASP DISC ASP DISC DISC

Forensic Sample 1
PCL–SV Categorical scorea 63 .22 .28 .16 .27 ⫺.08 .06 ⫺.05 .14 .01 ⫺.17
PCL–SV Total score 78 .29 .50 .39 .45 ⫺.31** ⫺.11 ⫺.16 .15 .07 ⫺.10
PCL–SV Part 1 78 .09 .29 .29 .36 ⫺.28** ⫺.21 ⫺.26* .00 ⫺.09 ⫺.11
PCL–SV Part 2 78 .45 .62 .41 .46 ⫺.28** .06 ⫺.01 .30** .25* ⫺.09

Forensic Sample 2
Juvenile Delinquency History 1,240 .14 .27 .22 .23 ⫺.17*** ⫺.09** ⫺.07** .06* .06* .01
Adult Criminal History 1,240 .14 .23 .15 .14 ⫺.12*** ⫺.01 .00 .08** .10*** .01
Substance Abuse History 1,240 .27 .50 .24 .31 ⫺.32*** .03 ⫺.04 .33*** .26*** ⫺.09**
Depressed Mood Variables 1,240 .21 .06 ⫺.02 ⫺.10 .19*** .22*** .27*** .10** .19*** .10**

Note. Absolute rs of .29 and .37 in Forensic Sample 1 are statistically significant at alphas of .01 and .001, respectively. Absolute r of .13 is statistically
significant at an alpha of .001 in Forensic Sample 2. All effect sizes are in r values. Steiger’s (1980) t test for dependent correlations was used as significance
test for each correlational pair. MMPI–2 ⫽ Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2; Scale 4 ⫽ Clinical Scale 4; RC4 ⫽ Restructured Clinical Scale
4; ASP ⫽ Antisocial Practices; DISC ⫽ Disconstraint; PCL–SV ⫽ Psychopathy Checklist—Screening Version.
*
p ⬍ .05. ** p ⬍ .01. *** p ⬍ .001.
a
PCL–SV dummy coded, 1 ⫽ nonpsychopath (i.e., PCL–SV ⱕ 12; Hart et al., 1995) and 2 ⫽ psychopath (PCL–SV ⱖ 18; Hart et al., 1995). Fifteen
participants scored between 13 and 17 and were left out of this analysis.

a categorical variable, the four scales were comparable in their
correlations with this construct. Thus, Caldwell’s hypothesis that
Scale 4 would predict a classification of psychopathy better than
would RC4 (or any other unidimensional MMPI–2 scale) was not
supported. The AUC analyses indicated that none of the four
MMPI–2 scales was particularly effective in classifying psychop-
athy.
When psychopathy was treated as a dimensional construct, RC4
had substantially greater validity as a predictor of the total psy-
chopathy score as well as both factor scores relative to Scale 4. In
fact, this Clinical Scale, which Caldwell hypothesized would be a
superior measure of PCL Factor 1, was uncorrelated with this
factor, whereas the correlation for RC4 was significant and also
substantially greater than the one for Scale 4. Both ASP and DISC
also had higher correlations with the PCL–SV relative to Scale 4,
indicating that this Clinical Scale was not superior to any of the
unidimensional MMPI–2 psychopathy/antisociality measures in
predicting individual differences in psychopathy. Scale 4 also had
weak discriminant validity relative to RC4, ASP, and DISC. It was
more strongly correlated with depressed mood than were the other
MMPI–2 scales, where, as discussed earlier, the literature has
indicated that overall psychopathy measures are generally uncor-
related to moderately negatively correlated with depressed affect.
Relative to ASP and DISC, RC4 was a substantially better
predictor of social deviance, including juvenile delinquency, adult
criminal behavior, and substance abuse. RC4, on the other hand,
did not outperform either of these scales in the prediction of
affective–interpersonal traits. Although the PSY-5 Scale DISC had
the highest correlation with such traits, the difference relative to
RC4 and ASP was not statistically significant.
One of the major reasons for Scale 4’s failure to capture the core
aspects of psychopathy can be traced back to its development
through empirical keying by contrasting the MMPI–2 responses of
delinquents and criminals who were hospitalized for treatment
with those of normal individuals (Hathaway & McKinley, 1940).
This approach resulted in the identification of some items that
were unique to psychopathy and others that more generally differ-
entiated between individuals hospitalized for treatment and non-
patients. As a result, nonspecific demoralization variance was
introduced, which significantly attenuated the correlation of Scale
4 with psychopathy-relevant criteria.
The present results indicate that the MMPI–2 can capture a
considerable amount of variance associated with psychopathy.
RC4 correlated .50 with the PCL–SV Total score; this is a sub-
stantial correlation when considered in light of existing literature
on the use of self-report measures to predict clinical rating scales
of psychopathy (e.g., Hare, 1985; Harpur et al., 1989). Elevated
scores on RC4 indicate the potential presence of psychopathic
traits. However, because of the focus on social deviance in the
RC4 items, scores on other RC scales more directly related to the
affective–interpersonal deviance aspects of psychopathy should be
consulted as well. Sellbom et al. (2005) found that an elevation on
RC4 along with RC9 and DISC, and a below average score on
RC7, indicate the likely presence of behavioral proclivities and
personality traits associated with psychopathy. RC9 assesses a
grandiose, socially potent, and sensation-seeking style (Sellbom &
Ben-Porath, 2005), DISC captures low harm avoidance (Harkness
et al., 1995), whereas RC7 measures negative affectivity and
fearfulness (Tellegen et al., 2003, 2006). These characteristics in
conjunction cover many of the core characteristics of psychopathy.
One of the strengths of the present study is that the MMPI–2
scales were examined in a forensic sample. This setting allowed
for an examination in the context where psychopathy assessment is
most relevant and where psychopathy occurs with a higher base
rate than that of other settings (e.g., college students, Sellbom et
al., 2005). No previously published study has examined the rela-
tive utility of these four scales in predicting clinician-rated psy-
chopathy and various forms of antisocial behaviors.
There are also limitations to this study that must be acknowl-
edged. First, we did not have access to inter-rater reliability data
 MMPI–2 AND PSYCHOPATHIC DEVIANCE
for the PCL–SV. However, the obtained pattern of validity coef-
ficients indicates strong convergence between PCL–SV scores and
MMPI–2 scales, suggesting that unreliability of the criterion mea-
sure is not likely problematic in the present investigation. In any
event, it would not differentially favor any of the MMPI–2 scales
in the comparative analyses. Second, the sample size for the first
forensic sample was somewhat small, particularly when the am-
biguous psychopathy scores were removed. Therefore, replication
of these findings is warranted.
In conclusion, in analyses where it was treated as a categorical
variable, Clinical Scale 4 did not outperform RC4 or the other
dimensionally based MMPI–2 measures of psychopathy. This
finding is consistent with previous research (Sellbom, Graham, &
Schenk, 2006; Simms et al., 2005; Tellegen et al., 2006) in refuting
assertions by Caldwell (2006) and Nichols (2006) that the Clinical
Scales are better suited for assessing syndromal, diagnostic con-
structs than are their restructured counterparts. Our findings also
add to a growing body of literature showing that RC4, ASP, and
DISC consistently outperform Scale 4 in predicting psychopathy
and related criteria when assessed from a dimensional perspective.
References
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger,
R. F. (2003). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory:
Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assess-
ment, 15, 340 –350.
Butcher, J. N., Graham, J. R., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Tellegen, A., Dahlstrom,
W. G., & Kaemmer, B. (2001). Minnesota Multiphasic Personality
Inventory—2: Manual for Administration and Scoring (2nd ed.). Min-
neapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Caldwell, A. B. (2006). Maximal measurement or meaningful measure-
ment: The interpretive challenges of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical
(RC) Scales. Journal of Personality Assessment, 87, 193–201.
Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in
objective scale development. Psychological Assessment, 7, 309 –319.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis, MO: C. V. Mosby.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
(2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy:
Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171–188.
Edens, J. F., Marcus, D. K., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Poythress, N. G. (2006).
Psychopathic, not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional
structure of psychopathy. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 131–
144.
First, M. B. (2005). Clinical utility: A prerequisite for the adoption of a
dimensional approach in DSM. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 114,
560 –564.
Forbey, J. D., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2007). A comparison of the MMPI–2
Restructured Clinical (RC) and Clinical Scales in a substance abuse
treatment sample. Psychological Services, 4, 46 –58.
Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of the procedures for the assessment of
psychopathy. Journal of Clinical and Consulting Psychology, 53, 111–
119.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised (2nd ed.).
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., & Cox, D. N. (1978). Clinical and empirical conceptions of
psychopathy, and the selection of subjects for research. In R. D. Hare &
D. Schalling (Eds.), Psychopathic behaviour: Approaches to research
(pp. 1–21). Chichester, England: Wiley.
435
Harkness, A. L., McNulty, J. L., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (1995). The Person-
ality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5): Constructs and MMPI–2 scales.
Psychological Assessment, 7, 104 –114.
Harpur, T. J., Hakstian, A. R., & Hare, R. D. (1988). Factor structure of the
Psychopathy Checklist. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
56, 741–747.
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor concep-
tualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implica-
tions. Psychological Assessment, 1, 6 –17.
Harris, G. T., Rice, M. E., & Quinsey, V. L. (1994). Psychopathy as a
taxon: Evidence that psychopaths are a discrete class. Journal of Con-
sulting and Clinical Psychology, 62, 387–397.
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Psychopathy
Checklist—Screening Version (PCL–SV). Toronto, Ontario, Canada:
Multi-Health Systems.
Hathaway, S. R., & McKinley, J. C. (1940). A multiphasic personality
schedule (Minnesota): I. Construction of the schedule. Journal of Psy-
chology, 10, 249 –254.
Hawk, S. S., & Peterson, R. A. (1974). Do MMPI psychopathic deviancy
scores reflect psychopathic deviancy or just deviancy? Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 38, 362–368.
Hicks, B. M., & Patrick, C. J. (2006). Psychopathy and negative emotion-
ality: Analyses of suppressor effects reveal distinct relations with emo-
tional distress, fearfulness, and anger– hostility. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 115, 276 –287.
Kohlberg, L. (1981). The meaning and measurement of moral develop-
ment. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.
Lilienfeld, S. O. (1996). The MMPI–2 Antisocial Practices Content Scale:
Construct validity and comparison with the psychopathic deviate scale.
Psychological Assessment, 8, 281–293.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary
validation of a self report measure of psychopathic personality traits in
noncriminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488 –
524.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of
psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.),
Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford Press.
Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 55, 6 –10.
Marcus, D. K., John, S. L., & Edens, J. F. (2004). A taxometric analysis of
psychopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 626 –
635.
McKinley, J., & Hathaway, S. R. (1944). The MMPI: Hysteria, hypomania,
and psychopathic deviate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 28, 153–174.
Nichols, D. S. (2006). The trials of separating bath water from baby: A
review and critique of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical Scales. Jour-
nal of Personality Assessment, 87, 121–138.
Patrick, C. J. (1994). Emotion and psychopathy: Startling new insights.
Psychophysiology, 31, 319 –330.
Petroskey, L. J., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Stafford, K. P. (2003). Correlates of
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory—2 (MMPI–2) Person-
ality Psychopathology Five (PSY-5) scales in a forensic assessment
setting. Assessment, 10, 393–399.
Schmitt, W. A., & Newman, J. P. (1999). Are all psychopathic individuals
low anxious. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 108, 353–358.
Sellbom, M., & Ben-Porath, Y. S. (2005). Mapping the MMPI–2 Restruc-
tured Clinical (RC) Scales onto normal personality traits: Evidence for
construct validity. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 169 –178.
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Correlates of the
MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a college counseling
setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 89 –99.
436 SELLBOM, BEN-PORATH, AND STAFFORD
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Patrick, C. J., & Graham,
J. R. (2005). Assessing psychopathic personality traits with the
MMPI–2. Journal of Personality Assessment, 85, 334 –343.
Sellbom, M., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., & Graham,
J. R. (2006). Elevation differences between MMPI–2 Clinical and Re-
structured Clinical (RC) Scales: Origins and interpretative implications.
Assessment, 13, 430 – 441.
Sellbom, M., Graham, J. R., & Schenk, P. W. (2006). Incremental validity
of the MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales in a private practice
sample. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 196 –205.
Simms, L. J., Casillas, A., Clark, L. A., Watson, D., & Doebbeling, B. N.
(2005). Psychometric evaluation of the Restructured Clinical Scales of
the MMPI–2. Psychological Assessment, 17, 345–358.
Skilling, T. A., Quinsey, V. L., & Craig, W. M. (2001). Evidence of a taxon
underlying serious antisocial behavior in boys. Criminal Justice and
Behavior, 28, 450 – 470.
Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (1990). Alcohol and drug abuse-dependence
disorders in psychopathic and nonpsychopathic criminal offenders. Jour-
nal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 430 – 439.
Steiger, J. H. (1980). Tests for comparing elements of a correlation matrix.
Psychological Bulletin, 87, 245–251.
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., McNulty, J. L., Arbisi, P. A., Graham,
J. R., & Kaemmer, B. (2003). MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC)
scales: Development, validation, and interpretation. Minneapolis: Uni-
versity of Minnesota Press.
Tellegen, A., Ben-Porath, Y. S., Sellbom, M., Arbisi, P. A., McNulty,
J. L., & Graham, J. R. (2006). Further evidence on the validity of the
MMPI–2 Restructured Clinical (RC) Scales: Addressing questions
raised by Rogers et al. and Nichols. Journal of Personality Assess-
ment, 87, 148 –171.
Vasey, M. W., Kotov, R., Frick, P. J., & Loney, B. R. (2005). The latent
structure of psychopathy in youth: A taxometric investigation. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 411– 429.
Verona, E., Patrick, C. J., & Joiner, T. E. (2001). Psychopathy, antisocial
personality, and suicide risk. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110,
462– 470.
Received November 9, 2006
Revision received August 2, 2007
Accepted August 8, 2007 䡲