Factor Structure and Construct Validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP): A Replication and Extension in Dutch Nonclinical Participants

Abstract

The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy (LSRP) scale is widely used to assess psychopathic traits in noninstitutionalized samples. Recent studies suggest that a three-factor structure measuring Egocentricity, Callousness, and Antisocial factors outperformed the original two-factor structure of the LSRP. This study replicated and extended these findings by examining the factor structure and construct validity of a Dutch version of the LSRP in a community sample (N ¼ 856, subsamples ranging between 140 and 572 participants). Confirmatory factor analysis results corroborated the superiority of the three-factor model of the LSRP, using 19 of the 26 LSRP items. Limitations included the need to specify correlated residuals for some indicators, although these were largely in line with prior studies. Across three subsamples, we found evidence for construct validity of the LSRP subscales. Egocentricity and Antisocial showed a pattern of differential associations with external correlates in accordance with theoretical expectations. Callousness shared some correlates with Egocentricity, others with Antisocial, and uniquely predicted low morality and high physical aggression. Few exceptions to the hypothesized associations were observed, mostly concerning Callousness. Overall, the LSRP three-factor model received further support in a Dutch sample, and is thus recommended in future research, possibly adding items to improve the performance of the Callousness factor.

Validation of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in Bulgarian Substance-Dependent Individuals

“…Finally, we examine potential gender differences and group differences in psychopathy in individuals dependent on different classes of drugs [heroin-dependent individuals (HDIs), amphetaminedependent individuals (ADIs), and polysubstance-dependent individuals (PDIs)], and the patterns of associations between psychopathy and theoretically related external variables. Based on the majority of studies of the psychometric characteristics of the LSRP (Brinkley et al, 2008;Sellbom, 2011;Salekin et al, 2014;Somma et al, 2014;Shou et al, 2017;Garofalo et al, 2018;Wang et al, 2018), we expect to find three factors in our Bulgarian sample, which will be correlated with theoretically related variables and will distinguish between substance-dependent and non-dependent groups. We also hypothesize that HDIs, ADIs, and PDIs will score significantly higher on the LSRP than nonsubstance-dependent participants.…”

“…Research reveals inconsistencies across samples and studies with regards to the latent factor structure of the LSRP, with some studies supporting the original two-factor structure (Levenson et al, 1995;Lynam et al, 1999), whereas others report a better fit for a three-factor model of psychopathy (Brinkley et al, 2008;Sellbom, 2011;Somma et al, 2014;Shou et al, 2017;Garofalo et al, 2018). In line with previous research (e.g., Lynam et al, 1999;Brinkley et al, 2008;Sellbom, 2011;Shou et al, 2017;Garofalo et al, 2018), we did not replicate the original two-factor structure of the LSRP, even when we included the inter-correlating errors, as suggested by Lynam et al (1999). This was not surprising because the use of multiple modifications in confirmatory factor analysis based on empirical and not theoretical grounds may lead to overfitting and difficulty replicating in other samples (MacCallum, 1986;Silvia and MacCallum, 1988).…”

“…More recently, Brinkley et al (2008) extracted a different factor structure through an exploratory factor analysis, which identified three factors -egocentric, callous, and antisocial. The 3-factor structure of the LSRP is the most widely accepted in the literature and has been successfully replicated by Salekin et al (2014) in the United States; by Sellbom (2011) in England; by Somma et al (2014) in Italy; by Garofalo et al (2018) in the Netherlands; and by Shou et al (2017) and Wang et al (2018) in China. Our research team has evaluated the psychometric properties of the LSRP in a Bulgarian sample, including a subset of participants in the current study (Popov et al, 2015), which, to our knowledge, is the only study with the LSRP in SDIs.…”

“…Although the LSRP was designed to measure psychopathy in the general population, its psychometric properties have been examined primarily in samples of criminal offenders and college students (Levenson et al, 1995;Brinkley et al, 2001Brinkley et al, , 2008Sellbom, 2011;Salekin et al, 2014;Shou et al, 2017;Wang et al, 2018), with only few existing studies with community volunteers (Somma et al, 2014;Popov et al, 2015;Garofalo et al, 2018). Psychometric studies of the LSRP report acceptable internal consistency and adequate convergent and discriminant validity (Brinkley et al, 2001(Brinkley et al, , 2008Sellbom, 2011;Shou et al, 2017;Garofalo et al, 2018). However, one of the major limitations of the LSRP is that its validity as a diagnostic tool for psychopathy has not been rigorously examined.…”

Personality functioning and psychopathic traits in child molesters and violent offenders

“…These three factors capture the interpersonal (Egocentricity), affective (Callousness), and behavioral (Antisociality) features of psychopathy. The Dutch translation of the LSRP replicated its three-factor structure and demonstrated adequate psychometric properties (Garofalo, Noteborn, Sellbom, & Bogaerts, 2018;Uzieblo, Verschuere, & Crombez, 2006). In the present study, internal consistency coefficients for the LSRP scales were .84 (total score), .83 (Egocentricity),…”