Psychopathy is often described as a constellation of personality characteristics encompassing features such as impulsivity and antisociality, and a lack of empathy and guilt. Although the use of self-reports to assess psychopathy is still debated, there are distinct advantages to such measures and recent research suggests that they may not be as problematic as previously thought. This study further examined the reliability and validity of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) in a community sample (N = 496) and forensic psychiatric patient sample (N = 217). Results indicated excellent internal consistencies. Additionally, the TriPM total and subscale scores related as expected to different subscales of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory –Revised (PPI-R) and to the Reactive and Proactive Aggression Questionnaire, reflecting good construct validity. Most importantly, ROC curve analyses showed that the TriPM evidenced better discrimination between the community sample and forensic psychiatric patients than the PPI-R. The current study extends the existent evidence demonstrating that the TriPM can be used as an efficient self-report instrument.

No abstract

The Externalizing Spectrum Inventory aims at assessing personality features that underlie externalizing disorders such as substance abuse and antisocial behaviors. The objective was to replicate the psychometric properties of the 160-item Externalizing Spectrum Inventory in Dutch clinical and non-clinical samples. First, Cronbach's alpha, test-retest reliability and the factor structure were analyzed on a mixed sample of inpatients (n ¼ 149), undergraduates (n ¼ 227), and community participants (n ¼ 178). The factor structure was evaluated through confirmatory and exploratory factor analyses; for the latter Parallel Analysis was used, based on Minimum Rank Factor Analysis. Next, the criterion validity was analyzed using the Aggression Questionnaire and the NEO-Five Factor Inventory as external measures. The Dutch Externalizing Spectrum Inventory subscales showed sufficient reliability (a¼.68-.94; ICC¼.68-.91), except in the undergraduate sample . The factor structure of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory was not confirmed and the exploratory analysis yielded different factor solutions across samples. The criterion validity was supported with regard to trait aggression and partly supported with regard to the Five Factor Model. The results suggest that the ESI-160 and its original factor model can be used for prediction purposes. However, further research of the factor structure is strongly recommended. ARTICLE HISTORY

Although the externalizing spectrum model is a promising angle for future research and treatment, extending research on this model in a higher diversity of populations is recommended to enhance the understanding and applicability of the externalizing spectrum model.

Impulsivity is strongly associated with aggression and antisocial conduct. Although self-report measures are a time-efficient means to assess impulsivity, they may be susceptible to socially desirable responding, particularly in forensic psychiatry. The current study aimed to investigate the predictive validity of three measures of impulsivity in predicting self-and informantreported antisocial behavior: the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale, the Self-Centered Impulsivity scale of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised and the general Disinhibition factor of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory. Next, the mediating role of a measure of self-deception, the Virtuous Responding scale, was examined in these associations. Participants (N = 94) were inpatients from addiction care and forensic psychiatry. Two regression analyses were conducted using self-reported antisocial behavior in the first, and informant-reported antisocial behavior in the second analysis as outcome variables. In addition, a mediated regression analysis was conducted, using the Virtuous Responding scale as a mediator. The impulsivity measures showed a substantially lower predictive validity when informant-reported behavior was predicted. The Virtuous Responding scale appeared to be unreliable in the current sample and showed no mediation effect. The results showed insufficient support for the predictive validity of the three measures of impulsivity. Alternative time-efficient assessments for impulsivity are needed, such as informantbased measures.

No abstract