An item response theory analysis of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Comparing male and female probationers and prisoners.

Abstract

An item response theory (IRT) analysis of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) was performed on 26,831 (19,067 male and 7,764 female) federal probationers and compared with results obtained on 3,266 (3,039 male and 227 female) prisoners from previous research. Despite the fact male and female federal probationers scored significantly lower on the PICTS thinking style scales than male and female prisoners, discrimination and location parameter estimates for the individual PICTS items were comparable across sex and setting. Consistent with the results of a previous IRT analysis conducted on the PICTS, the current results did not support sentimentality as a component of general criminal thinking. Findings from this study indicate that the discriminative power of the individual PICTS items is relatively stable across sex (male, female) and correctional setting (probation, prison) and that the PICTS may be measuring the same criminal thinking construct in male and female probationers and prisoners.

Psychometric Validation of a Simplified Form of the PICTS for Low-Reading Level Populations

“…A robust version of the weighted least squares (WLS) estimator is most appropriate for fitting CFAs with ordinal items (Flora and Curran 2004; Muthen 1984). This estimation method is consistent with the analyses conducted by Walters et al (2011) and Walters (2014).…”

“…A sample item is “I thought the victims of my crimes deserved what they got or should have known better.” Reactive criminal thinking contains 24 items from the Cutoff (i.e., low distress tolerance and a tendency to remove deterrents of committing crime), Cognitive indolence (i.e., poor critical thinking skills and an over-reliance on short cuts for dealing with problems), and Discontinuity (i.e., inconsistency between intentions or cognitions and behavior) a priori subscales. A sample item is “I tend to act without thinking when I'm under stress.” The Sentimentality subscale is no longer included in any composite score because it failed to load onto a general criminal thinking factor in two large-scales studies (Walters 2014a; Walters et al 2011). A general criminal thinking score can also be calculated by summing the two subscales, totaling 56 items.…”

“…Three preliminary studies tested eight a priori criminal thinking style subscales and two validity scales developed, in part, from Yochelson and Samenow's (1976) model of criminal thinking errors (Walters 1995a; Walters 1995b; Walters 1996). Subsequent psychometric evaluation with confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory failed to support this factor structure, however, leading instead to two broad criminal thinking styles (i.e., proactive and reactive; Egan et al 2000; Walters et al 2011; Walters 2005, 2006, 2014) and revised validity scales (Walters 2001). The proactive and reactive thinking distinction stems from literature on childhood aggression describing two related dimensions (e.g., Dodge and Coie 1987; Poulin and Boivin, 2000).…”

“…The PICTS has demonstrated predictive validity among inmates for future crimes (Walters 2002; Walters 2012) and has been the subject of much research (e.g., Walters 1997; Walters 2012, 2014). However, measurement confounds may affect PICTS scale scores when used with low-literacy inmate populations.…”

Effectiveness of a self-administered intervention for criminal thinking: Taking a Chance on Change.

“… 3 The Sentimentality subscale is no longer included in any composite score because it failed to load onto a general criminal thinking factor in two large-scale studies (Walters, 2014; Walters, Hagman, & Cohn, 2011). …”