Predicting recidivism with the Psychopathy Checklist: Are factor score composites really necessary?

Abstract

In two previous studies on general and violent recidivism (Walters & Heilbrun, 2010; Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008), the summed composite antisocial facet of the Psychopathy Checklist displayed incremental validity relative to the other 3 facets (interpersonal, affective, lifestyle), whereas the other 3 facets generally failed to demonstrate incremental validity relative to the antisocial facet. Because summed composite scores do not account for ordinal item distributions, the 6 Walters et al. (2008) samples were reanalyzed with factor score composites derived from a 4-factor confirmatory factor analysis. The results, however, showed little change from what had been obtained earlier with summed composite scores. Two additional samples not previously included in any incremental validity analyses of the Psychopathy Checklist evidenced a 3-factor structure, with the lifestyle and antisocial facets merged into a single factor. This single factor displayed incremental validity relative to the interpersonal and affective facets, but the reverse was not true regardless of whether summed composite scores or factor score composites were used. A comparison of zero-order correlations from all 8 samples revealed that the antisocial summed composite score predicted significantly better than the summed composite scores for the other 3 facets and that a superordinate factor failed to improve on the performance of either the antisocial summed composite score or the antisocial factor score composite.

Fearless Dominance and Self-Centered Impulsivity Interact to Predict Predatory Aggression among Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients

“…More recent research suggests these two factors can be further parsed into three components (interpersonal, affective, and behavioral [Cooke & Michie, 2001]), although some studies suggest that criminal history items represent a fourth Downloaded by [Florida International University] at 05:54 22 December 2014 "antisocial" component of this scale (Hare, 2003). Metaanalytic research has robustly implicated the "old" Factor 2 as the driving force for the association between psychopathy and violence (Kennealy, Skeem, Walters, & Camp, 2010), and recent large-scale, multi-group analyses have indicated that it is the Antisocial facet that is primarily responsible for the predictive validity of Factor 2 (see, e.g., Walters, Wilson, & Glover, 2011).…”

A multi-wave cross-lagged regression analysis of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory and Self-Reported Offending

“…In essence, the key and now long standing validity concern of the PCL-R and PCL-YV has been that its key personality dimensions have not been predictive of central measures of criminality. More recently, in a series of studies encompassing ten different samples and nearly 2900 subjects, Walters and colleagues confirmed that the antisocial facet of the PCL consistently predicted general and violent recidivism above and beyond the contributions of the first three facets (interpersonal, affective, and lifestyle), but the first three facets consistently failed to display incremental validity relative to the antisocial facet in predicting these same two outcomes (Walters & Heilbrun, 2010;Walters, Knight, Grann, & Dahle, 2008;Walters, Wilson, & Glover, 2011). Walters (2012) subsequently reported that the first three facets of the PCL-R, which according to the results of factor and IRT analysis constituted the optimal model for PCL-R psychopathy in a group of Canadian offenders, failed to predict general or violent recidivism above and beyond the contributions of age and criminal history.…”

Risk reduction treatment of psychopathy and applications to mentally disordered offenders

“…24 Further statistical analyses to determine the relative contributions of the 4 facets to predicting recidivism using 8 international samples of male and female adults showed that "… the antisocial facet is the most trustworthy and powerful predictor of future recidivism on the PCL-R and PCL: SV" and "… to maximize the predictive power … we need the antisocial facet … supported perhaps by the lifestyle facet and supplemented, on occasion, by the interpersonal and affective facets" (p. 556). 25 A separate meta-analysis showed no interaction effects of F1 and F2. 26 As F1 does not appear to predict violent reoffending, treatment aimed at changing F1, the core personality feature of psychopathy, is not expected to significantly impact future violence.…”

“…These studies include a group of male Canadian aboriginal and non-aboriginal offenders, 21 a group of male Canadian offenders followed up prospectively for 24 years, 22 a group of male learning-disabled offenders from Belgium, 23 and a group of male and female forensic treatment patients and offenders (about 66%/34% respectively) from Sweden assessed with the PCL-Screening Version 24 . Further statistical analyses to determine the relative contributions of the 4 facets to predicting recidivism using 8 international samples of male and female adults showed that “… the antisocial facet is the most trustworthy and powerful predictor of future recidivism on the PCL–R and PCL:SV” and “… to maximize the predictive power … we need the antisocial facet … supported perhaps by the lifestyle facet and supplemented, on occasion, by the interpersonal and affective facets” (p. 556) 25 . A separate meta-analysis showed no interaction effects of F1 and F2 26 .…”