an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

More documents

Recommendations

Info

antisocial items are a component of the psychopathy construct and are of essential clinical value. This model is currently employed in the second edition of the PCL – R (Hare, 2003) and in the PCL:YV (Forth et al., 2003). In the development of the PCL:YV (Forth et al., 2003), exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were used to elucidate the best underlying structure of this measure. In the manual, Forth and colleagues suggested that the three-factor model (Cooke & Michie, 2001) and the four-facet model (Hare, 2003) provided relatively good representations of the internal structure of the psychopathy ratings among their pooled, predominantly male adolescent standardization sample. The authors, however, stated that in terms of overall comprehensiveness, the four-facet model was an attractive summary of the structure of the underlying PCL:YV scores since it includes all of the three-factor model factors but also includes a robust antisocial factor. Notably, the standardization sample used to conduct these analyses was composed of 19 smaller subsamples of youth drawn from three countries (i.e., Canada, United Kingdom, and the United States) and included a mixed representation of institutionalized offenders, offenders on probation, in open custody, or arrested youth referred for outpatient evaluation, as well as youth in the community. Forth and colleagues further investigated the fit of the three-factor and the four-facet models using only the female youth that were part of the original standardization sample. As mentioned, these youth were drawn from numerous smaller subsamples across three different countries and their pooled sample was used to conduct the analyses. Their results revealed that Cooke and Michie’s (2001) three-factor model provided the best fit to their female data, however, considering the diversity of their sample, additional analysis is warranted. 9
A long line of research has demonstrated good support for the four-facet PCL – R model among adult males (e.g., Hare & Neumann, 2005; Hare & Neumann, 2008; Neumann, Vitacco, Hare, & Wupperman, 2005; Vitacco, Rogers, Neumann, Harrison, & Vincent, 2005). In contrast, studies investigating the factor structure of the PCL – R among adult female samples have been sparse. The available research has shown that the three-factor model has considerable promise in capturing the underlying dimensions of psychopathy in females (Jackson et al., 2002; Warren et al., 2003; Weizmann- Henelius et al., 2010). For instance, Weizmann-Henelius and colleagues demonstrated that the two-factor model was not a good fit, whereas the three-factor model was deemed to be the best fit of their female homicide offender data. The four-facet model was not tested among their sample. The three-factor model was also tested simultaneously alongside the two-factor model by Kosson, Cyterski, Steuerwald, Neumann, and Walker-Matthews (2002) among a sample of 115 male adolescents on probation. Using confirmatory factor analysis, they were unable to validate either factor structure conclusively; fit indices indicated that the two-factor model was a poor fit to their adolescent male data and, while some fit indices were considered good for the three-factor model, others did not meet acceptable criteria. However, these authors suggested that the construct was overall better described by a three-factor than a two- factor model. Recently, the fit of the two-factor, three-factor, and four-facet models of the PCL:YV were evaluated and compared on a sample of 122 male adolescents incarcerated in a facility for serious and chronic offenders (Vitacco, Neumann, Caldwell, Leistico, & Van Rybroek, 2006). Confirmatory factor analysis revealed good model fit for 10
Page 1 and 2: AN EXAMINATION OF THE FACTOR STRUCT
Page 3 and 4: Preface Ethics approval for this re
Page 5 and 6: 3 Results .........................
Page 7 and 8: List of Tables Table 1 Confirmatory
Page 9 and 10: Acknowledgements I owe my deepest g
Page 11 and 12: To my family and friends, Thank you
Page 13 and 14: among female youth populations, the
Page 15 and 16: Third, it has been suggested that t
Page 17 and 18: only a small proportion of conduct-
Page 19: irresponsible, and antisocial tende
Page 23 and 24: females. When a model is considered
Page 25 and 26: to do with whether the measure is w
Page 27 and 28: Understanding the factor structure
Page 29 and 30: (Leschied et al., 2001; Moretti, Ca
Page 31 and 32: psychopathic offenders were signifi
Page 33 and 34: instrumental aggression. However, w
Page 35 and 36: Given the relationships between the
Page 37 and 38: associated with self-report will be
Page 39 and 40: 1.4.1 Hypotheses The current thesis
Page 41 and 42: ecords, school records, medical rec
Page 43 and 44: 2.2.3 Instrumental-Reactive Coding
Page 45 and 46: eceiving services from YFPS. Althou
Page 47 and 48: 3 Results 3.1 Coding Reliability In
Page 49 and 50: This was followed by acquaintance v
Page 51 and 52: Figure 2. Percentage of cases by se
Page 53 and 54: index that adjusts for model comple
Page 55 and 56: Item 1 Item 2 Item 4 Item 5 Item 6
Page 57 and 58: (1-19), 38.7% scored in the moderat
Page 59 and 60: offences, 28.6% were for revenge or
Page 61 and 62: association between the dichotomous
Page 63 and 64: from the original dataset. In other
Page 65 and 66: in instrumental aggression was acco
Page 67 and 68: etween the dichotomous psychopathy
Page 69 and 70: psychopath based on a cut score of
Page 71 and 72:
the three-factor model was unable t
Page 73 and 74:
sample since violent offenders are
Page 75 and 76:
who also concluded that antisocial
Page 77 and 78:
they are less likely to use reactiv
Page 79 and 80:
more strongly related to instrument
Page 81 and 82:
Pickard, 2007; Barry, Pickard, & An
Page 83 and 84:
measure of psychopathy may be limit
Page 85 and 86:
Further, based on the relatively lo
Page 87 and 88:
score. Although this is a valid mea
Page 89 and 90:
Having access to a large sample, we
Page 91 and 92:
demonstrated, the utility of differ
Page 93 and 94:
malleable youth sample may facilita
Page 95 and 96:
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: I
Page 97 and 98:
Gender differences in mental health
Page 99 and 100:
Edens, J. F., Skeem, J. L., Cruise,
Page 101 and 102:
Frick, P. J., Cornell, A. H., Barry
Page 103 and 104:
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006
Page 105 and 106:
Jones, S., Cauffman, E., Miller, J.
Page 107 and 108:
Lynam, D. R. (1996). Early identifi
Page 109 and 110:
Murrie, D. C., Cornell, D. G., Kapl
Page 111 and 112:
of the official and self-reported h
Page 113 and 114:
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewel
Page 115 and 116:
Stockdale, K. C., Olver, M. E., Won
Page 117 and 118:
Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (200
Page 119 and 120:
Xie, H., Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B
Page 121 and 122:
Appendix B: Factor Models Table A1
Page 123 and 124:
112
Page 125 and 126:
Appendix E: Coding Scheme and Guide
Page 127 and 128:
PART A: OFFENCE CHARACTERISTICS AND
Page 129 and 130:
PART C: WOODWORTH & PORTER`S INSTRU
show all

an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?