Development and Initial Validation of an Inconsistent Responding Scale for the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory

Abstract

The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) is widely used in research, but there currently exist no means to identify potentially invalid protocols resulting from careless or random responding. We describe the development of an inconsistent responding scale for the YPI using three archival samples of youths, including two from the United States (juvenile justice and middle school) and one from Germany (vocational training school). We first identified pairs of correlated YPI items and then created a total score based on the sum of the absolute value of the differences for each item pair. The resulting scale strongly differentiated between genuine protocols and randomly generated YPI data (n = 1,000) across samples (AUC values = .88-.92). It also differentiated between genuine protocols and those same protocols after 50% of the original YPI items were replaced with random data (AUCs = .77-.84). Scores on this scale also demonstrated fairly consistent patterns of association with theoretically relevant correlates.

Self‐ and informant perceptions of psychopathic traits in relation to the triarchic model

“…Nonetheless, the potential influence of psychopathic traits on valid reporting is troubling, especially in situations with heightened motivation for manipulating responses (e.g., forensic assessments or employment‐eligibility evaluations). Although validity scales designed to identify inconsistent responding are increasingly available for self‐report psychopathy measures (e.g., Kelley et al, ; Mowle et al, ; Penson et al, ), only the Psychopathic Personality Inventory‐Revised (PPI‐R; Lilienfeld & Widows, ) and Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (Lynam et al, ) originally contained indicators of positive impression management (e.g., consciously or unconsciously portraying oneself in an unrealistically favorable light; Paulhus, ). Moreover, few studies have examined the utility of these scales in detecting problematic response styles on self‐report psychopathy measures (Anderson, Sellbom, Wygant, & Edens, ; Kelley et al, ; Marcus, Church, O'Connell, & Lilienfeld, ; Nikolova, Hendry, Douglas, Edens, & Lilienfeld, ).…”

Detecting Inconsistent Responding on the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory–Short Form

“…This research relies on multiple archival samples to identify and cross-validate a new inconsistency scale for the YPI-S. Three of these samples were used in the initial construction of the aforementioned SPICIE (Penson et al, 2017), which was developed for the full 50-item version of the instrument. We restricted our analyses across all samples to only those 18 items included in the short-form.…”

“…The Alcohol/Drug Use scale (MIC = .33) contains eight items assessing characteristics and consequences of substance use and the Angry-Irritable scale (MIC = .24) consists of nine items capturing the extent of cognitive, affective, and behavioral experiences of anger and frustration. Additionally, we examined a short index of distractibility and inattention developed by Penson et al (2017) composed of three items from the MAYSI-2 (MIC = .22). Findings from principal components analysis suggested these items were representative of a common dimension (i.e., difficulties with concentration).…”

“…Because no validity scales were originally included in the development of the full-length YPI, Penson et al (2017) recently constructed a measure of inconsistent responding for this instrument. The authors applied procedures resembling those used to construct inconsistency scales for more comprehensive personality inventories (e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2, Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989; Personality Assessment Inventory, Morey, 1991), as well as for measures of psychopathy, including the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), the abbreviated PPI-R-40 (Kelley et al, 2016), and the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Mowle et al, 2017).…”

“…The authors applied procedures resembling those used to construct inconsistency scales for more comprehensive personality inventories (e.g., Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory–2, Butcher, Dahlstrom, Graham, Tellegen, & Kaemmer, 1989; Personality Assessment Inventory, Morey, 1991), as well as for measures of psychopathy, including the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R; Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005), the abbreviated PPI-R-40 (Kelley et al, 2016), and the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (Mowle et al, 2017). The resulting inconsistency scale, the Screening Procedure for Inconsistent or Careless Item Endorsement (SPICIE), appeared to satisfactorily distinguish between conscientious and random or partially random responding on the YPI (Penson et al, 2017).…”