an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

4.96, p = .55, across ethnicity.
3.4.2.3 Psychopathy and Instrumentality. A multiple regression indicated that
continuous psychopathy scores and ethnicity did not contribute significantly to the
prediction of continuous instrumentality, R 2 = .03, R 2 adj = .01, F (2, 121) =1.75, p = .18.
Using the continuous psychopathy variable and ethnicity as predictors of dichotomous
instrumentality, a binary logistic regression demonstrated that this model was
nonsignficant, χ 2 (3) = 2.92, p = .40. Using the continuous psychopathy variable and
ethnicity as predictors of categorical instrumentality, a multinomial logistic regression
demonstrated that this model was nonsignficant, χ 2 (6) = 5.99, p = .42.
A 2 x 2 ANOVA revealed no significant interaction between dichotomous
psychopathy (score ≥ 25) and continuous instrumentality scores across ethnicity, F (1,
120) = .39, p = .53 with a MS for error of 31.51. A 2 x 2 ANOVA also revealed no
significant interaction between dichotomous psychopathy (score ≥ 30) and continuous
instrumentality scores across ethnicity, F (1, 120) = .02, p = .88 with a MS for error of
32.23. A 3 x 2 ANOVA revealed no significant interaction between categorical
psychopathy and continuous instrumentality scores across ethnicity, F (2, 120) = .10, p
= .91 with a MS for error of 31.60.
Three separate three-way loglinear analyses were performed to assess for the
presence of an interaction due to ethnicity between the categorical psychopathy
variable and the categorical instrumentality variable, the dichotomous psychopathy
(score ≥ 30) and categorical instrumentality variable, and the dichotomous psychopathy
(score ≥ 25) and categorical instrumentality variable. Two additional three-way loglinear
analyses were performed to assess the presence of an interaction due to ethnicity
55