an examination of the factor structure of the psychopathy checklist

sample since violent offenders are most likely to receive assessments with this
instrument.
Considering that the four-facet model is nearly identical to the three-factor model,
apart from the inclusion of the antisocial items in the former model, it was expected that
the four-facet model might also be considered a good model. In fact, findings from
factor-analytic studies using adolescent samples have suggested that both the three-
factor and four-facet models have provided good fit (Jones et al., 2006; Neumann,
Kosson, Forth, & Hare, 2006; Salekin et al., 2006). Among female youth in particular,
Jones et al. (2006) demonstrated that a modified four-facet structure was an adequate
fit. However, in the current study, the three-factor and four-facet models did not
generate similar fit indices. In fact, neither of the relative fit indices for the four-facet
model met requirements for adequate model fit. Rather, these indices – which compare
the specified model to a null or independence model (i.e., a very poor fitting model) –
suggested that this model was a poor fit. It is also noteworthy that the RMSEA fit index
– which measures how well a model fits the data in a population given the number of
free parameters and, thus, is a good measure of a model’s parsimony – was slightly
larger for Hare’s (2003) four-facet model (.032) compared with Cooke and Michie’s
(2001) three-factor model (.026) suggesting the latter model is more parsimonious.
Based on this and our other CFA results, the three-factor model appears to be the
best model to reflect the disorder of psychopathy specifically in female youth, which is
consistent with the female adult literature (Jackson et al., 2002; Warren et al., 2003;
Weizmann-Henelius et al., 2010) and the two initial studies at the youth level (Jones et
al., 2006; Sevecke et al., 2009). Importantly, the 13 criteria delineated by Cooke and
62