Critical evaluation of psychopathy measurement (PCL-R and SRP-III/SF) and recommendations for future research

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this paper was to review, summarize, and critically engage with the most recent findings into the dimensionality of the PCL-R, SRP-III, and SRP-SF. Another objective was to provide a set of directions for future research.Methods: A search in PubMed, PsychInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, Science Direct, and Google Scholar was performed. Twenty-one studies examining the dimensionality of the PCL-R and 11 studies assessing the factor structure of the SRP-III and SRP-SF were identified.Results: A critical review of the studies revealed inconsistent findings as to the underlying structure of the PCL-R and SRP-III/SF. Research has been limited by methodological and conceptual weaknesses, which calls into question the applicability of its findings. As such, it is suggested that prior results should be interpreted with caution. Conclusion:Future research should test competing models derived on the basis of previous research and theory, report the results of a differential predictive validity or alternative test, provide all relevant fit indices, utilize new data sets of appropriate size, avoid parceling procedures with short scales, and report the results of composite reliability.

Introduction and validation of Psychopathic Personality Traits Scale (PPTS) in a large prison sample

“…All correlations between four psychopathy factors were weak to moderate, except for the correlation between affective responsiveness and cognitive responsiveness (r = .50) facets, which indicates a significant overlap between the variables. As suggested by Boduszek and Debowska (2016), when the best model fit is multidimensional and some factors are highly correlated (.50 and above), a differential predictive validity test has to be conducted to verify whether the factors correlate differentially with external criteria. Table 5 presents the outcome of regression analyses.…”

“…As for the factor structure of the PPTS, Boduszek and Debowska (2016), in a critical evaluation of psychopathy measurement, indicated that it is unacceptable to assume that only one model exists for a particular scale and that competing solutions ought to be tested in order to fully explore the dimensionality of a measure. As per those recommendations, we tested seven different conceptually sound models of the PPTS, using confirmatory factor techniques.…”

“…A recent critical review of psychopathy measurement by Boduszek and Debowska (in 2016) revealed that factor analytic literature is compromised by a number of methodological limitations. In an attempt to systemize research in the area, the following recommendations were made for future investigations: (1) confirmatory techniques should be used to test competing models derived on the basis of previous research and theory and bi-factor conceptualization should be used as a comparison model; (2) when the best model fit is multidimensional in nature, a differential predictive validity or alternative test must be performed to verify whether the recognized factors correlate differently with external criteria;…”

Psychopathy in a forensic sample – the factor structure of the PCL:SV in a Danish forensic sample

“…For psychopathic personality, the debate more specifically concerns to what degree antisocial and criminal behavior should be included in the conceptualization of the construct (Boduszekab & Debowskac, ; Storey, Hart, Cooke & Michie, ). There seems to be a general agreement that antisocial behavior is a part of psychopathic personality (Hare, Neumann & Mokros, ; Neumann, Hare & Pardini, ), however, the disagreement specifically concerns if criminal behavior is a core feature of psychopathy or should be considered a secondary or related feature (CAPP, ; Skeem & Cooke, , ).…”

“…() found more than 10 four‐factor models, including a four‐factor correlated model, a four‐factor hierarchical model and a two‐factor with four‐facet hierarchical model. Some models have parceled a subset of items and used these to indicate an overall psychopathy factor, and other studies have failed to report sufficient model fits to determine the most appropriate latent structure of the psychopathy construct (Boduszekab & Debowskac, ). The research literature suggests empirical support for superiority of the three‐factor (e.g., Cooke & Michie, ; Skeem, Mulvey & Grisso, ) and the four‐factor model, respectively (e.g., Bolt, Hare, Vitale & Newman, ; Hare & Neumann, ; Hare, )(Hare et al ., ).…”