The current study employed both latent variable- and person-centered approaches to examine psychopathic traits in a large sample of sex offenders (N = 958). The offenders, who had committed a range of sexual crimes, had been assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). Structural equation modeling results indicated that the four-factor model of psychopathy (Hare, 2003; Neumann, Hare, & Newman, 2007) provided good representation of the dimensional nature of psychopathic traits across the sample of offenders, and that the PCL-R factors significantly predicted sexual crimes. In particular, the Affective and Antisocial psychopathy factors each predicted sexually violent crimes. Latent profile analysis results revealed evidence for a 4-class solution, with the subtypes showing distinct PCL-R facet profiles, consistent with previous research. The four subtypes were validated using sexual crime profiles. The prototypic psychopathy subtype (high on all 4 PCL-R facets) evidenced more violent sexual offenses than did the other subtypes. Taken together, the results demonstrate how variable- and person-centered approaches in combination can add to our understanding of the psychopathy construct and its correlates. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) is based on a 3-dimensional conceptual model, though few studies have directly tested a 3-factor structure. The current study used a large community sample (N ϭ 1,064, 53% males, M age ϭ 34) to test the structure of the TriPM via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, along with 4 community replication samples from North American and Europe (Ns ϭ 511-603, 33-49% males) and 1 European male offender sample (N ϭ 150). Three of these samples were also used to model the correlations between relevant external correlates and the original TriPM factors versus emergent factors to examine the cost of misspecifying TriPM structure. The model analyses did not support a 3-factor model (comparative fit index ϭ .76, root mean square error of approximation ϭ .08), revealing a number of items with limited statistical information, but uncovered a 7-factor structure (comparative fit index ϭ .92, root mean square error of approximation ϭ .04). From the majority of Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition scale items, respectively, emerged 3 factors reflecting Positive Self-Image, Leadership, and Stress Immunity; 2 factors tapping Callousness and Enjoy Hurting; and 2 factors involving Trait Impulsivity and Overt Antisociality. Further, the Enjoy Hurting and Overt Antisociality factors were more strongly correlated with one another than with the other scales from their home domains (Callousness and Impulsivity). All 7 emergent factors were differentially associated with the external correlates, suggesting that the 3 original TriPM factors do not optimally represent the conceptual model underlying the TriPM.

A group of 12 authors (GA) shared a statement of concern (SoC) warning against the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003) to assess risk for serious institutional violence in US capital sentencing cases (DeMatteo et al., 2020). Notably, the SoC was not confined to capital sentencing issues, but included institutional violence in general. Central to the arguments presented in the SoC was that the PCL-R has poor predictive validity for institutional violence and also inadequate field reliability. The GA also identified important issues about the fallibility and inappropriate use of any clinical/forensic assessments, questionable evaluator qualifications, and their effects on capital sentencing decisions. However, as a group of forensic academics, researchers, and clinicians, we are concerned that the PCL-R represents a psycholegal red herring, while the SoC did not address critical legislative, systemic, and evaluator/rating issues that affect all risk assessment tools. We contend that the SoC's literature review was selective and that the resultant opinions about potential uses and misuses of the PCL-R were ultimately misleading. We focus our response on the evidence and conclusions proffered by the GA concerning the use of the PCL-R in capital and other cases. We provide new empirical findings regarding the PCL-R's predictive validity and field reliability to further demonstrate its relevance for institutional violence risk assessment and management. We further demonstrate why the argument that group data cannot be relevant for single-case assessments is erroneous. Recommendations to support the ethical and appropriate use of the PCL-R for risk assessment are provided.

No abstract

Tested factor structure of Triarchic Psychopathy Measure using EFA and CFA across multiple samples.