Co-occurring psychopathy symptoms in offending boys: Do patterns of interactions among symptoms depend on levels of psychopathic tendencies?

Tsang, Siny; Bontemps, Andrew P.; Salekin, Randall T.

doi:10.1016/j.paid.2019.109682

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior Network Analyses of Psychopathy Some of our findings conflict with existing network accounts of interview-based measures of psychopathy. Several such investigations have revealed Factor 1 items to be the most central in networks estimated using different versions of the PCL (e.g., PCL-R, PCL:YV; Preszler et al, 2018;Tsang et al, 2020). One study comparing psychopathy networks across cultures found that a psychopathy network from American participants found a Factor 1 item (i.e., callousness) to be the most central, but a Factor 2 item (i.e., irresponsibility) was most central in a Dutch sample (Verschuere et al, 2018).…”

Section: Bridge Nodesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another network analysis of PCL-R data indicated that callousness/lack of empathy was the most central node in an American sample, but irresponsibility was the most central in a Dutch sample, suggesting some cultural differences in the structure of psychopathy (Verschuere et al, 2018). Other recent efforts reveal that networks of PCL-measured symptoms are invariant across sexes and that callousness is the most central node using the PCL:YV (Tsang et al, 2020). Network analytic efforts examining self-reports of psychopathy have provided some conflicting evidence regarding centrality.…”

Section: Existing Network Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing psychopathy across measurement modalities.

West¹,

Psederska²,

Vasilev³

et al. 2023

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Bridge Nodesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Existing Network Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing psychopathy across measurement modalities.

West¹,

Psederska²,

Vasilev³

et al. 2023

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other recent efforts reveal that networks of PCL-measured symptoms are invariant across genders and that callousness is the most central node using the PCL:YV (Tsang et al, 2020).…”

Section: Existing Network Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some of our findings conflict with existing network accounts of interview-based measures of psychopathy. Several such investigations have revealed Factor 1 items to be the most central in networks estimated using different versions of the PCL (e.g., PCL-R, PCL:YV; Preszler et al, 2018;Tsang et al, 2020). One study comparing psychopathy networks across cultures found that a psychopathy network from American participants found a Factor 1 item (i.e., callousness) to be the most central, but a Factor 2 item (i.e., irresponsibility) was most central in a Dutch sample (Verschuere et al, 2018).…”

Section: Prior Network Analyses Of Psychopathymentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparing Psychopathy Across Measurement Modalities

West¹,

Psederska²,

Vasilev³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 (PCL:SV) and the Levenson Self-report of Psychopathy (LSRP) in the same sample. Our results revealed similarities and differences across measurement modalities. Regarding the PCL:SV, 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 LSRP. 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.

show abstract