an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

.002, F (1, 99) = 1.17, p = .28, and R 2 = .01, R 2 adj = -.01, F (2, 98) = .58, p = .56,
respectively. Further, all subsequent blocks were statistically nonsignificant indicating
that Facet 3, R 2 = .02, R 2 adj = -.01, F (3, 97) = .53, p = .67, and Facet 4, R 2 = .04, R 2 adj =
-.004, F (4, 96) = .90, p = .47, scores were not significantly related to the instrumentality
of the offense.
3.3.4.1 PCL:YV Factor Model and its Association with Instrumental Aggression.
Since the three-factor model was determined to be the best-fitting of all three models
using CFA, this model was employed to examine the relationship between psychopathy
and instrumental aggression (as measured by the ARF) using SEM. The three-factor
model resulted in poor model fit, X 2 (130, N = 130) = 141.25, p = .24, CFI = .87, TLI =
.84, RMSEA = .03. Neither the interpersonal or affective factors were significantly
related to the use of instrumentality. To determine the amount of variance accounted for
by the four-facet model, this model was also tested using SEM. The four-facet model
also resulted in poor model fit, X 2 (222, N = 130) = 233.12, p = .29, CFI = .87, TLI = .86,
RMSEA = .02. In comparison to the three-factor model, which accounted for 7.0% of the
variance in instrumental aggression, the four-facet model accounted for 5.0% of the
variance in instrumental aggression. Similar to the three-factor model, neither the
interpersonal or affective factors were significantly related to the use of instrumentality.
3.4 Secondary Analyses
3.4.1 Analyses Based on Bootstrapped Data
Bootstrapping is a general approach to statistical inference based not on
assumptions of normality but on empirical samples by resampling with replacement
51