Comparing psychopathy across measurement modalities.

Personality disorders Pub Date : 2023-05-01 Epub Date: 2022-04-21 DOI:10.1037/per0000565
Samuel J West, Elena Psederska, Georgi Vasilev, Kiril Bozgunov, Dimitar Nedelchev, Nicholas D Thomson, Jasmin Vassileva
{"title":"Comparing psychopathy across measurement modalities.","authors":"Samuel J West, Elena Psederska, Georgi Vasilev, Kiril Bozgunov, Dimitar Nedelchev, Nicholas D Thomson, Jasmin Vassileva","doi":"10.1037/per0000565","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Psychopathy is a collection of personality traits and behaviors that are associated with costly personal, interpersonal, and societal outcomes. The nature of this construct has been widely debated across decades of literature, and such debates have produced a multitude of instruments for the measurement of psychopathy. These measures include self-reports and clinical interviews, yet little work has examined the degree to which measurements of psychopathy may differ across these modalities and whether such potential differences may impact the associations commonly found with psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity). To this end, we applied psychometric network and item response theory analyses to data obtained from the interview-based Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version and the Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy in the same sample. Our results revealed similarities and differences across measurement modalities. Regarding the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, Factor 2 items were more important to the psychopathy construct (i.e., the most central and contributed more information than Factor 1 items), whereas Factor 1 items were more important to the Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy. Factor 1 items were positively linked with Positive Urgency and were either negatively associated or not associated with Negative Urgency. In contrast, Factor 2 items were positively linked with Negative Urgency in both networks. Our analyses also revealed that dishonesty and irresponsibility served as the primary bridges connecting the factors of psychopathy in both networks. We make suggestions for improving the assessment of psychopathy by implementing self-report and interview measures that allow scores to be compared directly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":74420,"journal":{"name":"Personality disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11087072/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000565","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/4/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Psychopathy is a collection of personality traits and behaviors that are associated with costly personal, interpersonal, and societal outcomes. The nature of this construct has been widely debated across decades of literature, and such debates have produced a multitude of instruments for the measurement of psychopathy. These measures include self-reports and clinical interviews, yet little work has examined the degree to which measurements of psychopathy may differ across these modalities and whether such potential differences may impact the associations commonly found with psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity). To this end, we applied psychometric network and item response theory analyses to data obtained from the interview-based Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version and the Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy in the same sample. Our results revealed similarities and differences across measurement modalities. Regarding the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version, Factor 2 items were more important to the psychopathy construct (i.e., the most central and contributed more information than Factor 1 items), whereas Factor 1 items were more important to the Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy. Factor 1 items were positively linked with Positive Urgency and were either negatively associated or not associated with Negative Urgency. In contrast, Factor 2 items were positively linked with Negative Urgency in both networks. Our analyses also revealed that dishonesty and irresponsibility served as the primary bridges connecting the factors of psychopathy in both networks. We make suggestions for improving the assessment of psychopathy by implementing self-report and interview measures that allow scores to be compared directly. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
比较不同测量模式下的心理变态。
心理变态是一系列人格特质和行为的集合,这些人格特质和行为与代价高昂的个人、人际和社会结果相关联。数十年来,关于这一概念的性质一直存在着广泛的争论,这些争论产生了许多测量心理变态的工具。这些测量方法包括自我报告和临床访谈,但很少有人研究过心理变态的测量方法在这些方法中的差异程度,以及这种潜在差异是否会影响心理变态的常见关联(如冲动性)。为此,我们将心理测量网络和项目反应理论分析应用于基于访谈的精神变态检查表(Psychopathy Checklist:筛查版》和《莱文森心理变态自我报告》在同一样本中获得的数据进行了心理测量网络和项目反应理论分析。我们的结果揭示了不同测量模式之间的异同。关于精神病态检查表:就《心理变态检查表:筛查版》而言,因子 2 项目对心理变态建构更为重要(即最核心且比因子 1 项目贡献更多信息),而因子 1 项目对《莱文森心理变态自我报告》更为重要。因子 1 项目与 "积极紧迫感 "呈正相关,与 "消极紧迫感 "呈负相关或无相关。相反,在这两个网络中,因子 2 项目都与消极紧迫性呈正相关。我们的分析还显示,不诚实和不负责任是连接两个网络中心理变态因子的主要桥梁。我们提出了改进精神变态评估的建议,即采用可直接比较得分的自我报告和访谈测量方法。(PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, 版权所有)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Comparing the clinical utility of the alternative model for personality disorders to the Section II personality disorder model: A randomized controlled trial. Comparing the DSM-5 categorical model of personality disorders and the alternative model of personality disorders regarding clinician judgments of risk and outcome. Comparing the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fifth edition, personality disorder models scored from the same interview. Longitudinal prediction of psychosocial functioning outcomes: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Section-II personality disorders versus alternative model personality dysfunction and traits. Prospective prediction of treatment outcomes in adolescents: A head-to-head comparison of alternative model for personality disorder versus borderline personality disorder.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1