Top

Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment

Gepubliceerd in:

01-09-2015

Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy: What is their Role in Forensic Assessments?

Auteurs: Katherine R. Kelsey, Richard Rogers, Emily V. Robinson

Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment | Uitgave 3/2015

Abstract

Psychopaths have long been characterized as having a remarkable disregard for the truth, to the extent that deceit is often regarded as a defining characteristic of the syndrome (Porter and Woodworth 2006). Although the PCL-R is considered the general standard for evaluating psychopathy, self-report measures have become more widely available and researched. The current study evaluated the ability of jail detainees with moderate and high levels of psychopathy to successfully engage in Positive Impression Management (PIM) on three self-report measures (i.e., SRP-4, LSRP, and PPI–R). Overall, detainees were successfully able to mask their psychopathy, achieving average scores that are even lower than college and community samples. Predictably, detainees with higher levels of psychopathy were generally able to achieve larger decreases than others on psychopathy measures. To identify PIM, we investigated the PPI-R Virtuous Responding (VR) Scale and a modified Social Desirability–Psychopathy (SDP) index for the SRP-4. Overall, self-report measures of psychopathy evidence only modest convergence with the PCL-R and have proven to be highly susceptible to PIM.

vorige artikel Big-Five and Callous-unemotional Traits in Preschoolers

volgende artikel Assessing Callous-Unemotional Traits in a Spanish Sample of Institutionalized Youths: The Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits

Craig Neumann (Personal communication on August, 2, 2011), an author of the SRP-4, reported that the SRP-III and SRP-4 have identical scales and items.

Bewsey (2013, p. 48), “It is critical to note that the magnitude of the correlations between SRP-4 and PCL: SV scores are strongly influenced by the extreme group approach where only high and low scorers on the SRP-4 were selected for administration of the PCL:SV.”

Unlike the PCL measures utilizing record reviews and clinical observations, these self-report measures are rely solely on the examinee’s answers for their interpretation.

The data for this study are entirely original. If detainees volunteered for a second study, the PCL-R data were shared with that study.

The informed consent has a Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of 7.2.

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) is sometimes referred to the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy scale (LPSP) or the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRPS) across various studies.

The IM scale of the PDS was used as a partial manipulation check for PIM response pattern in the genuine condition.

Hare’s (2003, p. 31) original five psychopathy descriptors were “Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low.” For the purpose of this study, those groups were collapsed into three categories: High (i.e., combining the Very High and High), Moderate, and Low (combining the Low and Very Low).

By design, the low psychopathy (n =5, M =12.80, SD =3.77) is poorly represented.

As noted, two detainees were also excused prior to the beginning of the study.

The original plan, as considered further in the Concluding Thoughts, was to focus on concurrent validity with high correlations (e.g., rs ≥ 0.70) between nearly identical constructs. When that was not possible, we resorted to construct validity as the alternative.

The Ms and SDs are provided in Table 4 for the genuine condition.

Interestingly, it is similar to male offenders (i.e., the 43rd percentile).

We are using this term to underscore the nature of VR as a non-specific measure of PIM.

With an alpha of 0.65 and SD of 5.40, the SEM =3.19 (Kelsey 2014); when measurement errors are also calculated, the total percentage or error exceeds 50 %.

For VR, 30.2 % of the indeterminate group evidenced classification errors (Kelsey 2014).

In an effort to minimize the exclusion of offenders, the indeterminate group was defined as ± 0.5 SEM. With an SEM of 3.04, this criterion resulted in the removal of ±2 points as indeterminate.

A PsychInfo search on 7-30-14, of “psychopathy,” “forensic,” and “civil” yielded 20 empirical studies; however, most involved sex offenders.

Bewsey, K. (2013). Exploring psychopathic personality traits and moral development in a non-criminal sample. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.

Book, A. S., Quinsey, V. L., & Langford, D. (2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(4), 531–544. doi:10.1177/0093854806293554.CrossRef

Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1021–1038. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1.CrossRef

Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi:10.1037/h0046016.PubMedCrossRef

Cooke, D.J., Hart, S.D., & Logan, C. (2004). Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality - institutional rating scale (CAPP-IRS). Unpublished manuscript.

Copestake, S., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2011). A comparison of a self-report measure of psychopathy with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in a UK sample of offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 22(2), 169–182. doi:10.1080/14789949.2010.545134.

Edens, J. F., Buffington, J. K., & Tomicic, T. L. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between psychopathic traits and malingering on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7(3), 281–296. doi:10.1177/107319110000700307.PubMedCrossRef

Edens, J., Buffington, J., Tomicic, T., & Riley, B. (2001). Effects of positive impression management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Law and Human Behavior, 25(3), 235–256. doi:10.1023/A:1010793810896.PubMedCrossRef

Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D. (1980). The Psychopathy Checklist. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript.

Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.53.1.7.PubMedCrossRef

Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–88). New York: Guilford Press.

Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452.PubMedCrossRef

Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., & Hemphill, J. F. (1989). Scoring pamphlet for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: SRP-II. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Unpublished document.

Harlow, C. W. (2003). Special report: Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Hoff, H., Rypdal, K., Hystad, S. W., Hart, S. D., Mykletun, A., Kreis, M. F., & Cooke, D. J. (2014). Cross-language consistency of the comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality (CAPP) model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. doi:10.1037/per0000069. Online publication.

Kelsey, K. R. (2014). The vulnerability of self-report measures of psychopathy to positive impression management: A simulation study with inmates. Denton: Department of Psychology, University of North Texas. Unpublished dissertation.

Lanyon, R. I., & Carle, A. C. (2007). Internal and external validity of scores on the balanced inventory of desirable responding and the paulhus deception scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 859–876. doi:10.1177/0013164406299104.CrossRef

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. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151.PubMedCrossRef

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, NY: Guilford Press.

Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. (2005). Manual for the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: a validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA730108.PubMedCrossRef

Malterer, M. B., Lilienfeld, S. O., Neumann, C. S., & Newman, J. P. (2010). Concurrent validity of the psychopathic personality inventory with offender and community samples. Assessment, 17(1), 3–15. doi:10.1177/1073191109349743.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef

Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-7, user’s manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2014). Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (4th Ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford Press.

Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., Edens, J. F., Epstein, M., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Using the PCL-R to help estimate the validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy with offenders. Assessment, 17, 206–219. doi:10.1177/1073191109351715.PubMedCrossRef

Ray, J. V., Hall, J., Rivera-Hudson, N., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Morano, M. (2012). The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: a meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 1–14. doi:10.1037/a0026482.CrossRef

Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2013). Evaluation of malingering and related response styles. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 517–539). Hoboken: Wiley.

Rogers, R., & Cruise, K. R. (1998). Assessment of malingering with simulation designs: threats to external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 273–285. doi:10.1023/A:1025702405865.PubMedCrossRef

Rogers, R., Vitacco, M. J., Jackson, R. L., Martin, M., Collins, M., & Sewell, K. W. (2002). Faking psychopathy? An examination of response styles with antisocial youth. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 31–46. doi:10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_03.PubMedCrossRef

Rogstad, J. E., & Rogers, R. (2008). Gender differences in contributions of emotion to psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1472–1484. doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2008.09.004.PubMedCrossRef

Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist – Revised: predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 203–215. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2850.1996.tb00071.x.

Sandvik, A. M., Hansen, A. L., Kristensen, M., Johnsen, B., Logan, C., & Thornton, D. (2012). Assessment of psychopathy: inter-correlations between Psychopathy Checklist Revised, Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality—Institutional Rating Scale, and Self-Report of Psychopathy Scale–III. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(4), 280–288. doi:10.1080/14999013.2012.746756.CrossRef

Seibert, L., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2010). An examination of the structure of self-report psychopathy measures and their relations with general traits and externalizing behaviors. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2(3), 193–208. doi:10.1037/a0019232.CrossRef

Stein, L. R., & Rogers, R. (2008). Denial and misreporting of substance abuse. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 87–108). New York: Guilford Press.

Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful psychopaths: are they unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 139–149. doi:10.1007/s10551-011-0963-1.CrossRef

Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition (WAIS-IV). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.

Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence–second edition (WASI-II). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.

Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–219. doi:10.1080/00223890701268074.PubMedCrossRef

Titel: Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy: What is their Role in Forensic Assessments?
Auteurs: Katherine R. Kelsey
Richard Rogers
Emily V. Robinson
Publicatiedatum: 01-09-2015
Uitgeverij: Springer US
Gepubliceerd in: Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment / Uitgave 3/2015
Print ISSN: 0882-2689
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-3505
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9475-5

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2015

Identifying Shared Latent Dimensions of Psychological Symptoms: Implications for the Psychological Correlates of Smoking

Psychometric Analysis of the Social Communication Questionnaire Using an Item-Response Theory Framework: Implications for the Use of the Lifetime and Current Forms

Big-Five and Callous-unemotional Traits in Preschoolers

Emotion Regulation Strategy Use and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Associations Between Multiple Strategies and Specific Symptom Clusters

Personality Measured in Elementary School Predicts Middle School Addictive Behavior Involvement

Standardized Screening for Mental Health Needs of Detained Youths from Various Ethnic Origins: The Dutch Massachusetts Youth Screening Instrument-Second Version (MAYSI-2)