Validating latent profiles of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised with a large sample of incarcerated men.

There is a long tradition of theory and research on putative variants of psychopathic and other antisocial clinical presentations. However, using different samples, psychopathy measures, terminologies, and analytic methods makes interpretation of the findings difficult. Emerging research suggests that the validated four-factor model of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) provides a consistent and empirically robust framework for identifying psychopathic variants and antisocial subtypes (Hare et al., 2018; Neumann et al., 2016). The current study employed latent profile analysis (LPA) of the full range of PCL-R scores in a large sample of incarcerated men (N = 2,570) to replicate and extend recent LPA research on PCL-R-based latent classes. Consistent with previous research, a four-class solution emerged as optimal, with the following antisocial subtypes: Prototypic Psychopathic (C1), Callous-Conning (C2), Externalizing (C3), and General Offender (C4). We validated the subtypes by examining their differential associations with theoretically meaningful external correlates: Child conduct disorder symptoms; adult nonviolent and violent offenses; Self-Report Psychopathy; Psychopathic Personality Inventory; Symptom Checklist-90 Revised; and behavioral activation system and behavioral inhibition system scores. The discussion focused on conceptions of the PCL-R-based subgroups and their potential application to risk assessment and treatment/management programs. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Triarchic or septarchic?-Uncovering the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure's (TriPM) structure.

The Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM) is based on a 3-dimensional conceptual model, though few studies have directly tested a 3-factor structure. The current study used a large community sample (N = 1,064, 53% males, Mage = 34) to test the structure of the TriPM via exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis, along with 4 community replication samples from North American and Europe (Ns = 511-603, 33-49% males) and 1 European male offender sample (N = 150). Three of these samples were also used to model the correlations between relevant external correlates and the original TriPM factors versus emergent factors to examine the cost of misspecifying TriPM structure. The model analyses did not support a 3-factor model (comparative fit index = .76, root mean square error of approximation = .08), revealing a number of items with limited statistical information, but uncovered a 7-factor structure (comparative fit index = .92, root mean square error of approximation = .04). From the majority of Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition scale items, respectively, emerged 3 factors reflecting Positive Self-Image, Leadership, and Stress Immunity; 2 factors tapping Callousness and Enjoy Hurting; and 2 factors involving Trait Impulsivity and Overt Antisociality. Further, the Enjoy Hurting and Overt Antisociality factors were more strongly correlated with one another than with the other scales from their home domains (Callousness and Impulsivity). All 7 emergent factors were differentially associated with the external correlates, suggesting that the 3 original TriPM factors do not optimally represent the conceptual model underlying the TriPM. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

The perils of untested assumptions in theory testing: A reply to Patrick et al. (2020).

We respond to a critique by Patrick et al. (2020) of our recent study (Roy et al., 2020) that raised questions regarding the three-factor model of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM). Roy et al. demonstrated that a replicable model involving seven unidimensional factors accounted for the TriPM items across North American and European general population samples, as well as European male offenders. Despite having access to large TriPM datasets, the Patrick et al. critique relied on tangential analyses of general personality traits, using a single college sample with TriPM data as supplemental. Thus, Patrick et al. ignored findings highlighting multidimensional TriPM scales and the uncertainty they introduce with respect to the larger nomological network of psychopathy. In our reply, we demonstrate additional problems with the three-factor TriPM model and show that the seven-factor model out-performs the three-factor model in predicting correlates of psychopathy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Using latent variable- and person-centered approaches to examine the role of psychopathic traits in sex offenders.

The current study employed both latent variable- and person-centered approaches to examine psychopathic traits in a large sample of sex offenders (N = 958). The offenders, who had committed a range of sexual crimes, had been assessed with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). Structural equation modeling results indicated that the four-factor model of psychopathy (Hare, 2003; Neumann, Hare, & Newman, 2007) provided good representation of the dimensional nature of psychopathic traits across the sample of offenders, and that the PCL-R factors significantly predicted sexual crimes. In particular, the Affective and Antisocial psychopathy factors each predicted sexually violent crimes. Latent profile analysis results revealed evidence for a 4-class solution, with the subtypes showing distinct PCL-R facet profiles, consistent with previous research. The four subtypes were validated using sexual crime profiles. The prototypic psychopathy subtype (high on all 4 PCL-R facets) evidenced more violent sexual offenses than did the other subtypes. Taken together, the results demonstrate how variable- and person-centered approaches in combination can add to our understanding of the psychopathy construct and its correlates. (PsycINFO Database Record