Concurrent validity of the psychopathic personality inventory with offender and community samples.

The Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R) is a frequently used and well-validated measure of psychopathy but is relatively time-intensive and expensive to administer. The Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI) is a self-report measure that provides a less time-intensive and less expensive method for identifying psychopathic individuals. Using three independent samples and two different versions of the PCL (i.e., PCL-R, PCL:SV), the authors evaluated the extent to which the PPI and PCL overlap in their measurement of the psychopathy construct. Across three studies, PPI total and Factor 2 scores correlated moderately to strongly with PCL total and Factor 2 scores. Results for PPI and PCL Factor 1 scores were less positive. These findings raise important questions concerning the integration of results obtained using alternative psychopathy assessments.

Mapping Gray's BIS and BAS Constructs onto Factor 1 and Factor 2 of Hare's Psychopathy Checklist - Revised.

Reinforcement Sensitivity Theory (RST; Gray, 1987; Gray & McNaughton, 2000) has proven to be a valuable tool for understanding psychopathy (e.g., Fowles, 1980, 1988; Newman & Malterer, 2009; Poythress, Edens, Landfield, Lilienfeld, Skeem, & Douglas, 2008). Recent research has linked two RST constructs, the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS) and the Behavioral Activation System (BAS), to individuals with primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy (Lykken, 1995; Newman, MacCoon, Vaughn, & Sadeh, 2005): Primary psychopaths manifest low BIS reactivity and secondary psychopaths manifest high BAS reactivity. In the present study, we examine the relationships between the BIS/BAS constructs and Factors 1 and 2 of the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R) in a sample of 472 incarcerated male offenders. Paralleling their relationships with primary and secondary psychopathy, the BIS/BAS constructs were differentially related to the two PCL-R factors. Specifically, the influence of the BIS was found to be more prominent than the influence of the BAS for Factor 1, and the influence of the BAS was more prominent than that of the BIS for Factor 2.

Problems with the BIS/BAS scales or Lykken's model of primary psychopathy? A reply to.

Citing a dearth of research on the Carver and White (1994) BIS scale in offender samples, its limited coverage of the psychological functions attributed to the BIS construct, and the fact that the BIS scale has a stronger association with measures of negative emotionality than with fear sensitivity, Poythress, Edens, Landfield, Lilienfeld, Skeem, and Douglas (2008) "recommend a moratorium on the use of the BIS scale to test Lykken's theory of primary psychopathy" (p. 269). In this response, we: 1) present evidence that supports the reliability and validity of the BIS scale in a large offender sample involving multiple prison sites, 2) challenge unfounded assertions regarding the inadequate coverage of the BIS, 3) propose that the problems cited by Poythress et al. are as much a function of Lykken's model as Carver and White's measure, and 4) conclude that further research is needed to clarify the distinction between primary and secondary psychopathy and that the BIS/BAS scales may play a valuable role in this regard.

Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): findings from a large incarcerated sample.

Exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI; S. O. Lilienfeld, 1990; S. O. Lilienfeld & B. P. Andrews, 1996) with a community sample has suggested that the PPI subscales may comprise 2 higher order factors (S. D. Benning, C. J. Patrick, B. M. Hicks, D. M. Blonigen, & R. F. Krueger, 2003). However, substantive and structural evidence raises concerns about the viability of this 2-factor model, particularly in offender populations. The authors attempted to replicate the S. D. Benning et al. 2-factor solution using a large (N = 1,224) incarcerated male sample. Confirmatory factor analysis of this model resulted in poor model fit. Similarly, using the same EFA procedures as did S. D. Benning et al., the authors found little evidence for a 2-factor model. When they followed the recommendations of J.-W. van Prooijen and W. A. van der Kloot (2001) for recovering EFA solutions, model fit results provided some evidence that a 3-factor EFA solution could be recovered via confirmatory factor analysis.

A meta-analysis of psychotherapy and medication in unipolar depression and dysthymia.

BACKGROUND: There remains considerable disagreement regarding the relative efficacy of psychotherapy and medication across types of depression. METHOD: We used random effects meta-analysis to examine the relative efficacy of psychotherapy vis-à-vis medication at post-treatment and follow-up. We also estimated the relative efficacy of continued medication versus discontinued psychotherapy. As twenty-eight studies (39 effects, n=3,381) met inclusion criteria, we were able to conduct an adequately powered test of between-study heterogeneity and examine if the type of depression influenced relative efficacy. RESULTS: Psychotherapy and medication were not significantly different at post-treatment, however effect sizes were not consistent. Although there was no association between severity and relative efficacy, a small but significant advantage for medications in the treatment of dysthymia did emerge. However, psychotherapy showed a significant advantage over medication at follow-up and this advantage was positively associated with length of follow-up. Moreover, discontinued acute phase psychotherapy did not differ from continued medication at follow-up. LIMITATIONS: Limitations included relatively fewer studies of severe and chronic depression, as well as dysthymia. In addition, only a minority of studies reported follow-up data. CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicated that both psychotherapy and medication are viable treatments for unipolar depression and that psychotherapy may offer a prophylactic effect not provided by medication. However, our analyses diverged from previous findings in that effects were not consistent and medication was significantly more efficacious than psychotherapy in the treatment of dysthymia.

Psychopathy and Trait Emotional Intelligence.

Psychopathic individuals are infamous for their chronic and diverse failures of social adjustment despite their adequate intellectual abilities. Non-cognitive factors, in particular trait emotional intelligence (EI), offer one possible explanation for their lack of success. This study explored the association between psychopathy and EI, as measured by the Psychopathy Checklist - Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and Trait Meta-Mood Scale (TMMS, Salovey, Mayer, Golman, Turvey & Palfai, 1995). Consistent with the Response Modulation (RM) model of psychopathy (Newman & Lorenz, 2003), low-anxious psychopathic individuals had significantly lower scores on TMMS Repair and Attention compared to controls. Consistent with proposals by Patrick and Lang (1999) regarding PCL-R factors, these EI deficits related to different aspects of the psychopathy construct. Correlations revealed significant inverse associations between PCL-R factor 1 and Attention and PCL-R factor 2 and Repair. We propose that the multi-dimensional EI framework affords a complementary perspective on laboratory-based explanations of psychopathy.