Factorial and convergent validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory‐Short Version in Ghana

Abstract

Studies have shown the existence of psychopathy construct in Western cultures. However, there is a general lack of research on this topical issue in non-Western countries, specifically sub-Saharan Africa. Consequently, this study investigated the factorial and convergent validity of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory-Short Version (YPI-S) in 327 adolescents in Ghana. Confirmatory factor analysis supported a three-factor structure (interpersonal, behavioural and affective) of psychopathy that was invariant across gender. These results were replicated in a cross-validation sample comprising 363 adolescents. The YPI-S factors correlated significantly and positively with reactive and proactive aggression, thus bolstering its construct validity. The YPI-S and Big-Five domains were related differently, and where significant correlations were observed, their directions generally confirmed and extended previous studies. All in all, the result generally suggested the existence of psychopathy construct among Ghanaian youth which can be described along interpersonal, affective and behavioural domains. However, the alterations made to the YPI-S, coupled with its relatively low factor loadings and internal consistency largely, indicate cultural influences on the assessment of cross-cultural traits. This study illuminated the problem of exporting Western-based measures and their findings to non-Western contexts.

Psychometric properties of the German version of the Youth Psychopathic traits Inventory – short version

“…In addition, juveniles with high scores on all three dimensions of the YPI-S (psychopathic-like juveniles) showed more conduct problems and offenses than their non-psychopathic-like counterparts. In line with the original 50-item YPI, these results were found in both the general population and offender samples of both genders [ 1 , 16 , 18 , 27 , 30 , 47 – 50 , 58 , 62 ].…”

“…Items are rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from 1 = does not apply at all to 4 = applies very well. As mentioned in the introduction, the reliability and validity of the YPS-S are promising and seem to be in line with the original 50-item YPI [ 1 , 14 , 16 , 18 , 27 , 30 , 47 – 50 , 58 , 62 ].…”

“…In recent years, in addition to Sweden, the YPI-S has been validated in Belgium [ 16 , 18 ], China [ 62 ], Ghana [ 1 ], Italy [ 27 ], Portugal [ 48 , 50 ], Spain [ 47 ], the Netherlands [ 58 ] and the United States [ 30 ]. In line with the YPI, a similar three-factor structure was found for the YPI-S (although there are also some indications for a bi-factor model, including a fourth general psychopathic traits factor [i.e., the total score], [ 62 ], a point of discussion that is also occasionally raised with the YPI [ 41 , 62 – 64 ]).…”

Predicting delinquency by self‐reported impulsivity in adolescents in Ghana

“…Each item is rated on a 4‐point Likert scale (0 = does not apply at all , to 4 = applies very well ). The factor structure of the YPI‐S has been investigated in Ghana and a three‐factor structure (interpersonal, behavioural and affective) was confirmed (Adjorlolo and Watt, in press). The interpersonal factor includes grandiosity and ‘manipulativeness’, the behavioural domain consists of irresponsible and sensation seeking behaviours and the affective factor measures ‘callous‐unemotional’ traits and lack of remorse.…”

Validating mental health assessment in Kenya using an innovative gold standard

“…This has been referred to as an etic criterion: use of a specific "outsider" set of criteria as universally valid and reliable (Kaiser, Kohrt, Keys, Khoury, & Brewster, 2013). In Kenya and other lowand middle-income countries (LMICs), studies have largely focused on this etic approach, validating screening tools developed in the US to detect common mental disorders (Adjorlolo & Watt, 2017;Ali, Ryan, & De Silva, 2016). However, studies in African contexts have shown mixed results in terms of validity, highlighting limitations of relying solely on etic criteria (Ali et al, 2016).…”