Factor Structure of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory

Abstract

The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory (YPI) assesses psychopathic traits cost-effectively while minimizing social desirability. To determine which YPI summary scores should be used, we tested (a) the factorial validity of its three scales and 10 subscales, (b) the fit of a new bifactor model, and (c) the measurement invariance of the best model across gender, age, and community/institutionalized samples. Three hundred ninety-five community adolescents (M age 15.8) and 200 institutionalized adolescents (M age 15.0) filled in the French translation of the YPI. The factorial validity of the 10 subscales was supported by confirmatory factor analysis. Model comparisons favored the new bifactor model, independent of age, gender, and community/institutionalized status. Measurement invariance was confirmed. These findings support the previous YPI validation studies conducted on the 10 subscale scores, and suggest that YPI users should rely in all samples on the simultaneous use of the total score and the three scale scores, which is a common practice.

Psychopathic traits as predictors of future criminality, intimate partner aggression, and substance use in young adult men.

“…The Impulsive-Irresponsible or Behavioral Dimension (BD) includes three subscales: Impulsiveness, Thrill-Seeking, and Irresponsibility. The YPI was designed to assess psychopathic traits in adolescence, and there is evidence that its 3-factor structure is invariant across adolescents from several ages (Pihet, Suter, Meylan, & Schmid, 2014). Importantly, several studies have supported the YPI’s factor structure (Neumann & Pardini, 2014), internal consistency and validity among young adults in their mid-20s (Campbell, Doucette, & French, 2009; Neumann & Pardini, 2014), while evidence suggests that a short version of the YPI is a suitable measure for longitudinal investigations focused on examining stability and changes in psychopathic traits during the transition into emerging adulthood (Colins & Andershed, in press ; Hawes, Mulvey, Schubert, & Pardini, 2014).…”

The Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory: A Bifactor Model, Dimensionality, and Measurement Invariance

“…Pihet et al (2014) recently showed that for the YPI, a bifactor model is superior in representing the data over a higher order model, when the 10 subscale scores of the YPI are used as the observed variables (i.e., the subscale level, see Figure 1). Pihet et al (2014) used data from a sample of 395 adolescents from the general population and 201 institutionalized adolescents and examined the factorial validity of the three dimensions and 10 subscales of the YPI. They compared six models with confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) using the 50 items of the YPI and three models using the 10 subscale scores as observed variables (i.e., subscale level).…”

“…One of few studies testing for measurement invariance found that a subscale-based correlated factor structure provided a proper fit for both Dutch and Moroccan Dutch incarcerated boys (Veen et al, 2011). Moreover, in addition to testing the bifactor model, Pihet et al (2014) also examined the measurement invariance of the bifactor model using the subscale scores as observed variables for the YPI across gender, age, and community/institutionalized samples and established measurement invariance in all of these groups.…”

“…The current study attempts to replicate the study of Pihet et al (2014) in a community sample of Dutch adolescents, adding to the cross-cultural validity and usability of the YPI. The central aim of the current study is to examine the factorial validity of the YPI, comparing correlated factor models which were presented earlier in this introduction with a bifactor model.…”

“…Studies regarding the internal consistency of the YPI based on Cronbach's alpha were systematically reviewed by Pihet, Suter, Meylan, and Schmid (2014). They found that on average, based on 11 studies, the total score and dimension scores and most of the subscales were internally consistent (mean α = .67-.87), while the internal consistency of the subscale Callousness was found to be low across studies (mean α = .54), and low to acceptable for the subscales Unemotionality, Remorselessness, and Irresponsibility (α = .60, α = .61, and α = .61, respectively).…”