Examining the triarchic psychopathy measure and comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality in self-identified offender populations.

Abstract

Despite the clear clinical and forensic importance of psychopathy, definitions of psychopathy and the optimal measurement of the disorder are issues of continued controversy. The present research provides an empirical examination of two self-report instruments indexing recent conceptualizations of psychopathy: the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality–Self-Rating Scale (CAPP-SR) and Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM). This study provides the first examination of the convergence between the two tools, and the first investigation into the criterion-related validity of the CAPP-SR within a self-identified offender population. Our findings suggest strong support for the criterion-related validity of the CAPP-SR and the convergent validity of the CAPP-SR and the TriPM Meanness and Disinhibition domains. TriPM Boldness exhibited a clearly bifurcated pattern of association with all outcome criteria as compared with all domains in the CAPP model, and the Meanness and Disinhibition domains of the TriPM. Further, TriPM Boldness did not add incrementally or interact with Meanness or Disinhibition to predict the majority of outcomes. Findings are discussed with respect to the relevance of TriPM Boldness in the conceptualization of psychopathy, and the possible contributions of the CAPP-SR to the field of psychopathy research and assessment.

Construct Validity of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality (CAPP): Examining the Internal Structure and Generalizability of CAPP Self-Ratings Across Gender and Ethnicity

“…These findings are further supported by work demonstrating that CAPP symptoms are not only sensitive to PPD but also exhibit high levels of specificity, meaning that they are indicative of PPD in particular, and not personality dysfunction more generally (Kreis et al, 2012). Furthermore, tools utilizing the CAPP model have generally shown moderate to high levels of internal consistency at the domain and total score level within multiple relevant populations (e.g., Danish psychiatric inpatients, Canadian serious and violent offenders, American self-reported offenders, and community members; Dawson et al, 2012; Hanniball et al, 2019 Pedersen et al, 2010; Sellbom et al, 2015). Additionally, CAPP tools have demonstrated convergent validity with other established measures of PPD, such as the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and its derivatives (Pedersen et al, 2010; Sandvik et al, 2012), as well as with the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure’s (TriPM; Patrick et al, 2009) components of Meanness and Disinhibition (Hanniball et al, 2018), and also exhibit predictive capabilities for violent and nonviolent recidivism that are on par with the PCL-R (Pedersen et al, 2010).…”

Personality-based assessment of psychopathy: Comparison of the comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality and the elemental psychopathy assessment.

“…Confirmatory factor analyses and correlation studies have indicated good construct validity of the CAPP model; with large correlations seen between scores from the CAPP and other well validated measures of PPD, as well as support for a broad 'global' psychopathy factor (Hanniball et al, 2019;Kreis et al, 2012;McCuish et al, 2019;Sandvik et al, 2012;Sellbom et al, 2015;. The internal structure of the CAPP has been assessed yielding a three-factor solution with domains representing behavioral, interpersonal, and affective areas of functioning (Hanniball et al, 2021;Kavish et al, 2020).…”

Developing and validating a Chinese version of the Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality–Self-Report.

“…For the self-report assessment, the CAPP Lexical Rating Scale (CAPP-LRS) asks participants to self-report the applicability of the 33 CAPP symptoms where each symptom is appended three adjectives as descriptors (Sellbom et al, 2015). Hanniball, Gatner, Douglas, Viljoen, and Aknin (2019) reported high correlations between the CAPP-LRS and other mainstream psychopathy measures such as the TriPM and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996; see also Kavish, Schiafo, Sellbom, & Anderson, 2020). However, reliability of the measure is highly dependent on the homogeneity and accuracy of participants’ understanding of the adjectives as well as participants’ insight of their own functioning as described in the adjectives (e.g., “Lacks emotional depth”).…”