Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1543–1548

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Reliability and validity of two Likert versions

of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ)
Viviana Wuthrich *, Timothy C. Bates
Macquarie Centre for Cognitive Science, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW 2109, Australia

Received 27 January 2004; received in revised form 15 July 2004; accepted 23 September 2004
Available online 30 November 2004

Abstract

Two alternative formats of the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ: Raine, 1991) were com-
pared to examine if a Likert format in which SPQ items could be interleaved with other personality mea-
sures would promote reporting of symptoms. The Likert versions correlated highly with the standard SPQ
(0.88–0.94) and showed better internal reliability compared to the standard version in which three subscales
had Cronbach a < 0.70. The Likert versions also identified additional high scorers missed by the standard
version and so may be desirable when testing relatives of patients with schizophrenia. Norms for the new
version administered to 834 subjects are provided.
Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: SPQ; Schizotypy; Schizotypal Personality Disorder; Validity; Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire

1. Introduction

The Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ: Raine, 1991) is a 74 item self-report question-
naire measuring the nine diagnostic criteria of the DSM-III-R (American Psychiatric Association,
1987) Schizotypal Personality Disorder (SPD): odd speech, odd behaviour, unusual perceptual
experiences, paranoia, no close friends, constricted affect, magical thinking, social anxiety, ideas

*
Corresponding author. Fax: +61 2 9850 6059.
E-mail address: viviana@maccs.mq.edu.au (V. Wuthrich).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2004 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2004.09.017
1544 V. Wuthrich, T.C. Bates / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1543–1548

of reference. A brief version of the scale SPQ-B is also available (Raine & Benishay, 1995). Since
its publication, the SPQ has been widely used as a self-report tool for research into Schizotypal
Personality Disorder (SPD) and also non-clinical levels of schizotypy or schizotypal features in
the normal population. Mirroring other data on SPD, high scorers on the SPQ demonstrate def-
icits in language (Moritz et al., 1999), spatial working memory (Park & McTigue, 1997), executive
functioning (Moritz, Andresen, Naber, Krausz, & Probsthein, 1999), and habituation to orienting
stimuli (Raine, Benishay, Lencz, & Scarpa, 1997). Adequate reliability and validity have been met
(see Raine, 1991), and therefore the SPQ appears to be a valid measure of SPD as defined by the
DSM.
The SPQ is administered in a forced choice format in which items indicative of SPD symptom-
atology are positively endorsed. We wanted to examine the validity of Likert versions of this scale
to enable comparison of SPQ symptoms with normal personality traits measured in a Likert for-
mat and to disguise the unusualness of SPD symptoms by both allowing partial endorsement of
items and by intermixing them with more normal and potentially more socially desirable person-
ality traits to encourage disclosure. This is particularly important given that some researchers
have suggested that relatives of patients with schizophrenia or SPD may be reluctant to disclose
schizophrenia like symptoms and thus limiting research in this area (Jones et al., 2000; Peltier &
Walsh, 1990). Therefore we administered three versions of the SPQ to university students (one
original format and two Likert versions: one paper and one computerized) across two to three
testing sessions.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Eight-hundred and thirty-four first year psychology students (212 male, 620 female and 2 un-
known) participated for course credit (age range = 18–67, mean = 24.03, SD = 7.82). Not all par-
ticipants completed all versions due to time constraints (see below).

3. Materials and scoring

Three versions of the SPQ were administered. The forced choice version was the original 74
items of the SPQ (Raine, 1991) presented on paper with participants responding by circling either
‘‘yes’’ or ‘‘no’’ for each item. In conjunction with Raine (1991), this scale was scored with ‘‘yes’’
responses generating one point. A Likert version was also presented on paper in which partici-
pants circled either ‘‘strongly disagree’’, ‘‘disagree’’, ‘‘neutral’’, ‘‘agree’’, ‘‘strongly agree’’. This
Likert version was presented again in a computerised form as part of a personality battery.
The battery also contained the items from the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Lar-
sen, & Griffin, 1985), Machiavellian Scale (Christie & Geis, 1970), Psychopathy Scale (Levenson,
Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995), Hypomania Scale (Eckblad & Chapman, 1986) and the Infrequency
Scale (Chapman & Chapman, unpublished). Approximately every third item was an SPQ item.
The participants responded by clicking the appropriate button on the screen using the five-point
 V. Wuthrich, T.C. Bates / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1543–1548 1545

Likert scale responses described above. The Likert versions were scored as follows: strongly dis-
agree = 0, disagree = 1, neutral = 2, agree = 3, strongly agree = 4. Scores for all 74 items on each
of the three versions were totaled to produce one score for each version. Scores for the nine sub-
scales and three factors (interpersonal, cognitive/perceptual, disorganization) were calculated
as described by Raine (1991).

3.1. Procedure

All participants completed the computerised Likert version as part of other studies (Wuthrich
& Bates, submitted for publication). Within 3 months a subset of students completed the SPQ
forced choice (N = 60) and/or paper Likert versions (N = 67) as part of testing sessions on cogni-
tive function, with one version completed at the beginning and one at the end of testing, with a
random order of presentation.

4. Results

The mean, standard deviation (SD), N, range of scores and 10% cutoff values for each version,
along with the forced choice data from international samples are shown in Table 1. For the forced
choice version, the means were very similar to those from Hall and Habbits (1996), although this
Australian sample had a higher standard deviation. The mean for the computerised version was
higher than the mean for the paper Likert version (127.09 vs 112.03: t(66) = 5.733, p < 0.001) but
variances did not differ (44.42 vs 42.26: t(65) = 0.01 NS) by variance comparison test (Pitman,
1939; Zar, 1996).
Disattentuated correlations of the three versions were as follows: SPQ forced choice and SPQ
paper Likert r = 0.993 (n = 41); SPQ forced choice and SPQ computerised Likert r = 0.936
(n = 60); SPQ paper Likert and SPQ computerised Likert r = 0.919 (n = 67). These results suggest
that either Likert version is a good substitute for the standard forced choice version.
Coefficient as for the total score on each of the three versions were good: paper Likert
(a = 0.96), computerised Likert (a = 0.95) and forced choice (a = 0.93). Subscale coefficients were
good for the computer Likert version (0.77–0.90) and the paper Likert version (0.75–0.92). How-
ever, the coefficients for the forced choice version ranged from 0.58 to 0.90. Three subscales on
this version failed to reach adequate levels of reliability (a < 0.70). These were constricted affect

Table 1
Means, standard deviations and ranges
Version N Mean SD 90th percentile Range of scores Test range
Forced choice 68 23.84 12.97 44.2 5–54 0–74
Paper Likert 76 113.00 40.42 165.3 23–214 0–296
Computer Likert 834 115.97 39.91 165 6–235 0–296
Raine (1991) (sample 2)a 220 26.3 11.4 41 0–57 0–74
English sampleb 100 23.49 10.94 39 2–57 0–74
a
Raine (1991).
b
Hall and Habbits (1996).
1546 V. Wuthrich, T.C. Bates / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1543–1548

Table 2
Internal reliability for the three versions of the SPQ
Subscales Computer Likert Paper Likert Forced choice Raine (1991) (sample 2)
Social anxiety 0.85 0.89 0.86 0.68
Constricted affect 0.77 0.75 0.58 0.65
No close friends 0.80 0.83 0.68 0.74
Paranoia 0.84 0.90 0.74 0.73
Ideas of reference 0.82 0.83 0.78 0.71
Magical thinking 0.83 0.86 0.85 0.75
Unusual perceptual experiences 0.81 0.85 0.69 0.73
Odd speech 0.83 0.88 0.80 0.63
Odd behaviour 0.90 0.92 0.90 0.74
Total score 0.95 0.96 0.93 0.91
NB: Italics indicate subscales with inadequate internal reliability (a < 0.70).

(0.58), unusual perceptual experiences (0.69), and no close friends (0.68). Constricted affect scored
the lowest reliability coefficient across the three versions (see Table 2).
Given that Raine (1991) reported that 55% of scorers in the top 10% are likely to meet criteria for
SPD, we lastly examined whether the respondents identified in the top 10% on the standard version
were also identified by the Likert versions. We used the forced choice version to identify the num-
ber of hits (correct identification), misses (missed identification), false alarms (incorrect classifica-
tion) and correct rejections (correct rejections) that occurred for each of the Likert versions for the
top 10% of the forced choice version (score P 44.2). See Table 3 for a summary of the results. For
the paper Likert version, there were 4/4 hits, 0 misses, and 2 false alarms, and for the computer

Table 3
Hits, misses, false alarms and correct rejections for the Likert versions
Raw scores Coding Comments
Forced choice Paper Likert Computer Likert Forced Paper Computer
(N = 68) (N = 76) (N = 93) choice Likert Likert
38 165 204 0 1 1 False alarms or additional
identifications
40 187 0 1 False alarms or additional
identification
41 157 163 0 0 0 Correct rejection
43 152 0 0 Correct rejection
44 183 187 0 1 1 False alarm or additional
identification
46 215 1 1 Hit
48 189 210 1 1 1 Hit
48 177 1 0 Miss
53 194 209 1 1 1 Hit
53 166 200 1 1 1 Hit
54 214 225 1 1 1 Hit
NB: Bold font identifies individuals scoring in the top 10% on the forced choice version (forced choice > 44.2).
Coding = 1 represents if the individual scored in the top 10% of the sample on the specified version.
 V. Wuthrich, T.C. Bates / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1543–1548 1547

Likert version (N = 60), there were 5/6 hits, 1 miss and 3 false alarms. It is important to note that
two people received false alarms by both the paper and computer Likert versions. Therefore these
false alarms may actually represent a missed identification by the standard version.
Having established the utility of the Likert SPQ, Table 1 may be used as a normative data base
for future studies of student scores. This large (N = 834) sample indicates that schizotypy is neg-
atively correlated with age (r = 0.262, p < 0.001) and that males score above females (120.79 vs
114.25, p < 0.05).

5. Discussion

The results of this study indicate that the two Likert versions of the SPQ were at least as good
as the standard SPQ version. This was indicated by the high correlations between the measures
and the high percentage of hit rates within the top 10% of the sample across the three versions.
In addition, the Likert versions were found to have better internal reliability, particularly at a sub-
scale level. This is important given that in our sample, three of the subscales measures by the
forced choice version failed to reach adequate levels of reliability (a < 0.70).
While previous researchers (Jones et al., 2000; Peltier & Walsh, 1990), have cautioned that peo-
ple may be reluctant to endorse schizotypy items on self-report questionnaires, this research sug-
gests that most students are just as willing to endorse schizotypy items in the original (forced
choice) format, as they are when items are intermingled with other more socially desirable person-
ality characteristics and are less detectable as ‘‘unusual’’ items. However, in addition to correctly
identifying hits, the Likert versions also identified several Ôfalse alarmsÕ. Given that both the Likert
versions identified the same people as false alarms, these false alarms may instead reflect missed
identifications by the forced choice version (false negatives). If this is true, then this suggests that a
small portion of people may be more willing to disclose schizotypal symptoms using a Likert for-
mat than a forced choice format. Interestingly the computerized version was not superior to the
paper Likert version even though SPQ items were hidden amongst other personality variables.
One person scoring in the top 10% on the Forced Choice version scored below this rank on the
computer Likert version. Overall, the data suggest that our Likert version of the SPQ may be bet-
ter able to detect more guarded respondents, and therefore may be both more practical for many
purposes as well as being more valid for the measurement of schizotypal symptoms amongst the
relatives of patients with schizophrenia.

Acknowledgment

Viviana Wuthrich conducted this research while a Fellow of the NSW Institute of Psychiatry.

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (3rd ed., revised).
Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
1548 V. Wuthrich, T.C. Bates / Personality and Individual Differences 38 (2005) 1543–1548

Chapman, L. J., & Chapman, J. P. Infrequency Scale (unpublished).

Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.
Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 49, 71–75.
Eckblad, M., & Chapman, L. J. (1986). Development and validation of a scale for hypomanic personality. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 95, 214–222.
Hall, G., & Habbits, P. (1996). Shadowing on the basis of contextual information in individuals with schizotypal
personality. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 35, 595–604.
Jones, L., Cardno, A., Murphy, K., Sanders, R., Gray, M., McCarthy, G., et al. (2000). The Kings Schizotypy
questionnaire as a quantitative measure of schizophrenia liability. Schizophrenia Research, 45(3), 213–221.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalised
population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.
Moritz, S., Andresen, B., Domin, F., Martin, T., Probsthein, E., Kretschmer, G., et al. (1999). Increased automatic
spreading activation in healthy subjects with elevated scores in a scale assessing schizophrenic language disturbances.
Psychological Medicine, 29(1), 161–170.
Moritz, S., Andresen, B., Naber, D., Krausz, M., & Probsthein, E. (1999). Neuropsychological correlates of schizotypal
disorganisation. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 4(4), 343–349.
Park, S., & McTigue, K. (1997). Working memory and the syndromes of schizotypal personality. Schizophrenia
Research, 26(2–3), 213–220.
Peltier, B. D., & Walsh, J. A. (1990). An investigation of response bias in the Chapman scales. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 50, 803–815.
Pitman, E. J. G. (1939). A note on normal correlation. Biometrika, 31, 9–12.
Raine, A. (1991). The SPQ: A scale for the assessment of schizotypal personality based on DSM-III-R criteria.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 17(4), 555–564.
Raine, A., & Benishay, D. (1995). The SPQ-B: A brief screening instrument for schizotypal personality disorder.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 9(4), 346–355.
Raine, A., Benishay, D., Lencz, T., & Scarpa, A. (1997). Abnormal orienting in schizotypal personality disorder.
Schizophrenia Bulletin, 23(1), 75–82.
Wuthrich, V., & Bates, T. C. (submitted for publication). Confirmatory factor analysis of the 3 factor structure of the
schizotypal personality questionnaire and Chapman schizotypy scales.
Zar, J. (1996). Biostatistical analysis (3rd ed.). New Jersey: Prentice Hall International Inc.