Psychopathy, DSM-5, and a caution.

Abstract

Recently developed models of psychopathy include such traits as fearlessness, boldness, and invulnerability. Section III of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) includes as well a psychopathy specifier that is modeled after these traits. The purpose of the current study was to test empirically the convergent and discriminant validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R), the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM), the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment (EPA), and the Personality Inventory for DSM-5 (PID-5) with respect to their relationship to one another, with traditional measures of psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder, and with a measure of the 5-factor model. Participants were 2 samples of community adults (280 and 196) who indicated that they have engaged in criminal activities. The results indicated good convergent and discriminant validity for the PPI-R, TriPM, EPA, and the PID-5 psychopathy specifiers, as well as relationships with a measure of the 5 factor model that were quite distinct from the relationships obtained for traditional measures of antisocial personality disorder and psychopathy. However, concerns are raised with respect to a reliance on reverse-coded items for the assessment of components of psychopathy.

A comparison of self-report measures of psychopathy among nonforensic samples using item response theory analyses.

“…Our finding that these reverse-scored items may have limited ability in distinguishing among respondents with varying levels of the latent trait adds to the growing body of literature reporting problems with negatively worded items in personality assessment (e.g., Crego & Widiger, 2014; Ebesutani et al, 2012; Lindwall et al, 2012; Ray, Frick, Thornton, Steinberg, & Cauffman, 2016; Rodebaugh, Woods, & Heimberg, 2007; Stansbury, Ried, & Velozo, 2006). These results raise two practical questions.…”

“…First, is the absence of a trait (e.g., empathy) the same as the endorsement of its supposedly opposing trait (e.g., coldheartedness)? As both traits are latent constructs, it is unclear how well the absence of one indicates the presence of the other (Crego & Widiger, 2014). Second, to what extent is the different discrimination ability between regular- and reverse-scored items a method bias?…”

Reliability and Hierarchical Structure ofDSM-5Pathological Traits in a Danish Mixed Sample

“…Remarkably, four of these items (Items 7, 58, 90, and 142) are reverse scored; a similar tendency of problems with reversed items was detected by Broeck and colleagues (2013) in a small Dutch sample of older adults. This issue with reverse-keyed items has also been described in Crego and Widiger (2014). Thus, in future evaluations it would be useful to detect common dysfunctional items across international samples, whether they are explained by poor constructs, difficulties in finding appropriate translation, or cultural differences.…”

Comparing the lexical similarity of the triarchic model of psychopathy to contemporary models of psychopathy

“…Using latent statistical approaches among undergraduate students, multi‐inventory structural models yielded three‐factor support (Drislane & Patrick, ), and an item response theory (IRT) approach reported unidimensional TriPM Meanness and Disinhibition scales, but a multidimensional Boldness scale (Shou, Sellbom, & Xu, ). Support for the legitimacy of the triarchic model is perhaps best represented by its overlap with the diagnostic criteria for the antisocial personality disorder (APD) psychopathy specifier (Crego & Widiger, ) in the emerging models section of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders ( DSM‐5 ; American Psychiatric Association, ).…”