Psychopathy checklist: Screening version: A bifactor structure for forensic and community samples.

Olderbak, Sally; Wilhelm, Oliver; Mokros, Andreas

doi:10.1037/pas0001056

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Next, the emotion expression and psychopathy measurement models were included in a confirmatory factor analysis model and psychopathy and emotion expression were allowed to covary. Because the traditional four factor structure of psychopathy (Hare & Neumann, 2005) showed a poor fit to the data (Olderbak et al, 2020), psychopathy was modeled in a bifactor structure, χ (45) 2 = 58.26, p > .05, RMSEA = .030, CFI = .997, SRMR = .032, with a single latent variable (psychopathy) indicated by each of the 12 PCL:SV items (ω H = .81), and two orthogonal nested group factors, representing the remaining variance shared between items. Specifically, Items 1 to 3 loaded on Interpersonal (ω H = .24) and Items 7 to 12 loaded on Lifestyle/Antisocial (ω H = .29; Olderbak et al, 2020).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion expression abilities and psychopathy.

Olderbak¹,

Geiger²,

Hauser³

et al. 2021

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ability to express emotion is considered a core socioemotional skill; however, most research is focused on receptive abilities, with little investigation of productive abilities. We present an investigation of individual differences in facial expression of emotion using observational techniques. Given descriptions of highly psychopathic persons as successful liars and manipulators, we investigate the ability to intentionally pose emotional expressions when no emotion is elicited. A mixed sample of adult men (N ϭ 316 community volunteers, prison inmates, and forensic-psychiatric patients) ranging along the psychopathy continuum were asked to facially express a nonfelt emotion, specifically anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise, through either written instructions or through imitation of a target's facial expression. Through structural equation modeling, we evaluate relations between this emotion expression ability and general mental ability, interpersonal abilities, and psychopathy. We find that psychopathy is moderately associated with poorer emotion expression ability, meaning highly psychopathic individuals are poorer at imitating the expressions of others and poorer at expressing all emotions. However, this deficit is largely attributable to deficits in general mental ability. These results challenge the view that highly psychopathic individuals have the cognitive skills to support a superior ability to deceive or manipulate others.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Emotion expression abilities and psychopathy.

Olderbak¹,

Geiger²,

Hauser³

et al. 2021

Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A particularly popular technique is structural equation modeling (SEM), allowing to express complex sets of hypotheses via relations among manifest and latent variables (MacCallum & Austin, 2000). SEM is applied across various disciplines to address research questions such as the classification of psychopathology (e.g., Kotov et al, 2011; Sharp et al, 2015), the latent structure of cognitive abilities (e.g., Karr et al, 2018; Laureys et al, 2022) and personality traits (e.g., Mann et al, 2021; Moshagen et al, 2018), or the psychometric properties of assessment instruments (e.g., Bader et al, 2021; Olderbak et al, 2021).…”

Section: Fit Assessment In Semmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the fitting propensity of factor models.

Bader¹,

Moshagen²

2022

Psychological Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Model selection is an omnipresent issue in structural equation modeling (SEM). When deciding among competing theories instantiated as formal statistical models, a trade-off is often sought between goodness-of-fit and model parsimony. Whereas traditional fit assessment in SEM quantifies parsimony solely as the number of free parameters, the ability of a model to account for diverse data patterns-known as fitting propensity-also depends on the functional form of a model. The present investigation provides a systematic assessment of the fitting propensity of models typically considered and compared in SEM, namely, exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis models positing a different number of latent factors or a different hierarchical structure (single-factor, correlated factors, higher-order, and bifactor models). Furthermore, the behavior of commonly used fit indices (CFI, SRMR, RMSEA, TLI) and information criteria (AIC, BIC) in accounting for fitting propensity was assessed. Although the results demonstrated varying degrees of fitting propensity for the models under scrutiny, these differences were mostly driven by the number of free parameters. There was little evidence for additional differences in the functional form of the compared models. Fit indices adjusting for the number of free parameters such as the RMSEA and TLI thus adequately accounted for differences in fitting propensity.

show abstract

“…Several measures have been developed to assess psychopathic traits based on Cleckley's descriptions, including the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL; Hare, 1980) and its revised version (PCL-R; Hare, 1991Hare, , 2003. Although the PCL-R was originally developed to measure psychopathy as a unitary construct, there is evidence from factor analytic-and correlational studies that its items reflect differentiable factors (Hare, 1991(Hare, , 2003Patrick & Bernat, 2009; but see: Olderbak et al, 2021) that go beyond Cleckley's concept of psychopathy (e.g., Cooke et al, 2007). Thus, from a conceptional perspective, Hare and Neumann (2005) suggested two broad, moderately correlated factors underlying the PCL-R, with each of them including two subordinate lower-order factors.…”

Section: Research On Subtypes Of Psychopathymentioning

confidence: 99%

Fearless but anxious? A systematic review on the utility of fear and anxiety levels to classify subtypes of psychopathy

Hofmann

Schneider

Mokros

2021

Behavioral Sci & The Law

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychopathic traits have been linked to anomalies in experiencing fear and anxiety. It remains unclear, however, to what extent fear and anxiety levels are useful parameters to effectively distinguish between subtypes of psychopathy. Therefore, we aimed to elucidate whether different psychopathic phenotypes (primary and secondary psychopathy) can be delineated based on fear/anxiety levels. To investigate associations between psychopathic traits and conscious experiences of fear and/or anxiety a systematic qualitative review of studies was conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines. Seventeen studies were included in the review. We found some evidence for attenuated fear/anxiety levels in primary psychopathy. In secondary psychopathy, the experience of fear/anxiety seemed rather intact. Moreover, primary psychopathy might be associated with a more positive appraisal of the conscious feeling of fear. We reason that consciously experienced fear and anxiety are distinctly related to primary and secondary psychopathy. Due to a lack of consistent and comprehensive operationalizations of fear and anxiety, however, conclusions about their potential to differentiate psychopathic subtypes should be drawn with caution.

show abstract

Psychopathy checklist: Screening version: A bifactor structure for forensic and community samples.

Cited by 5 publications

References 42 publications

Emotion expression abilities and psychopathy.

Emotion expression abilities and psychopathy.

Assessing the fitting propensity of factor models.

Fearless but anxious? A systematic review on the utility of fear and anxiety levels to classify subtypes of psychopathy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About