Advertisement

Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy: What is their Role in Forensic Assessments?

  • Katherine R. Kelsey
  • Richard Rogers
  • Emily V. Robinson
Article

Abstract

Psychopaths have long been characterized as having a remarkable disregard for the truth, to the extent that deceit is often regarded as a defining characteristic of the syndrome (Porter and Woodworth 2006). Although the PCL-R is considered the general standard for evaluating psychopathy, self-report measures have become more widely available and researched. The current study evaluated the ability of jail detainees with moderate and high levels of psychopathy to successfully engage in Positive Impression Management (PIM) on three self-report measures (i.e., SRP-4, LSRP, and PPI–R). Overall, detainees were successfully able to mask their psychopathy, achieving average scores that are even lower than college and community samples. Predictably, detainees with higher levels of psychopathy were generally able to achieve larger decreases than others on psychopathy measures. To identify PIM, we investigated the PPI-R Virtuous Responding (VR) Scale and a modified Social Desirability–Psychopathy (SDP) index for the SRP-4. Overall, self-report measures of psychopathy evidence only modest convergence with the PCL-R and have proven to be highly susceptible to PIM.

Keywords

Psychopathy Psychopathy-Checklist Revised PCL-R Positive impression management SRP-4 LSRP PPI-R 

Notes

Conflict of interest

Katherine R. Kelsey, Richard Rogers, and Emily V. Robinson declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Experiment Participants

The study was approved by the University of North Texas IRB, and it followed the approved procedures.

References

  1. Bewsey, K. (2013). Exploring psychopathic personality traits and moral development in a non-criminal sample. Unpublished dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of North Texas, Denton, TX.Google Scholar
  2. Book, A. S., Quinsey, V. L., & Langford, D. (2007). Psychopathy and the perception of affect and vulnerability. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(4), 531–544. doi: 10.1177/0093854806293554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001). Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: does Levenson’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as Hare’s psychopathy checklist-revised? Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1021–1038. doi: 10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00178-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Campbell, D. T., & Fiske, D. W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin, 56, 81–105. doi: 10.1037/h0046016.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cooke, D.J., Hart, S.D., & Logan, C. (2004). Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality - institutional rating scale (CAPP-IRS). Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  6. Copestake, S., Gray, N. S., & Snowden, R. J. (2011). A comparison of a self-report measure of psychopathy with the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in a UK sample of offenders. The Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 22(2), 169–182. doi: 10.1080/14789949.2010.545134.
  7. Edens, J. F., Buffington, J. K., & Tomicic, T. L. (2000). An investigation of the relationship between psychopathic traits and malingering on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Assessment, 7(3), 281–296. doi: 10.1177/107319110000700307.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Edens, J., Buffington, J., Tomicic, T., & Riley, B. (2001). Effects of positive impression management on the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Law and Human Behavior, 25(3), 235–256. doi: 10.1023/A:1010793810896.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  10. Hare, R. D. (1980). The Psychopathy Checklist. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Hare, R. D. (1985). Comparison of procedures for the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 53, 7–16. doi: 10.1037/0022-006X.53.1.7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  13. Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  14. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2006). The PCL-R assessment of psychopathy: development, structural properties, and new directions. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 58–88). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217–246. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091452.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., & Hemphill, J. F. (1989). Scoring pamphlet for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: SRP-II. Vancouver: Simon Fraser University. Unpublished document.Google Scholar
  17. Harlow, C. W. (2003). Special report: Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  18. Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  19. Hoff, H., Rypdal, K., Hystad, S. W., Hart, S. D., Mykletun, A., Kreis, M. F., & Cooke, D. J. (2014). Cross-language consistency of the comprehensive assessment of psychopathic personality (CAPP) model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment. doi: 10.1037/per0000069. Online publication.Google Scholar
  20. Kelsey, K. R. (2014). The vulnerability of self-report measures of psychopathy to positive impression management: A simulation study with inmates. Denton: Department of Psychology, University of North Texas. Unpublished dissertation.Google Scholar
  21. Lanyon, R. I., & Carle, A. C. (2007). Internal and external validity of scores on the balanced inventory of desirable responding and the paulhus deception scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 859–876. doi: 10.1177/0013164406299104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Fowler, K. A. (2006). The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems, pitfalls, and promises. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. (2005). Manual for the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  25. Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: a validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73(1), 110–132. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA730108.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Malterer, M. B., Lilienfeld, S. O., Neumann, C. S., & Newman, J. P. (2010). Concurrent validity of the psychopathic personality inventory with offender and community samples. Assessment, 17(1), 3–15. doi: 10.1177/1073191109349743.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-7, user’s manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  28. Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2014). Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (4th Ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, S., & Woodworth, M. (2006). Psychopathy and aggression. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 107–132). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  30. Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L., Douglas, K. S., Edens, J. F., Epstein, M., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Using the PCL-R to help estimate the validity of two self-report measures of psychopathy with offenders. Assessment, 17, 206–219. doi: 10.1177/1073191109351715.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ray, J. V., Hall, J., Rivera-Hudson, N., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Morano, M. (2012). The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: a meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4(1), 1–14. doi: 10.1037/a0026482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rogers, R., & Bender, S. D. (2013). Evaluation of malingering and related response styles. In R. K. Otto (Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of psychology: Forensic psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 11, pp. 517–539). Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  33. Rogers, R., & Cruise, K. R. (1998). Assessment of malingering with simulation designs: threats to external validity. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 273–285. doi: 10.1023/A:1025702405865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rogers, R., Vitacco, M. J., Jackson, R. L., Martin, M., Collins, M., & Sewell, K. W. (2002). Faking psychopathy? An examination of response styles with antisocial youth. Journal of Personality Assessment, 78(1), 31–46. doi: 10.1207/S15327752JPA7801_03.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Rogstad, J. E., & Rogers, R. (2008). Gender differences in contributions of emotion to psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1472–1484. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2008.09.004.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist – Revised: predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 3, 203–215. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.1996.tb00071.x.Google Scholar
  37. Sandvik, A. M., Hansen, A. L., Kristensen, M., Johnsen, B., Logan, C., & Thornton, D. (2012). Assessment of psychopathy: inter-correlations between Psychopathy Checklist Revised, Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality—Institutional Rating Scale, and Self-Report of Psychopathy Scale–III. The International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 11(4), 280–288. doi: 10.1080/14999013.2012.746756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Seibert, L., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2010). An examination of the structure of self-report psychopathy measures and their relations with general traits and externalizing behaviors. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 2(3), 193–208. doi: 10.1037/a0019232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Stein, L. R., & Rogers, R. (2008). Denial and misreporting of substance abuse. In R. Rogers (Ed.), Clinical assessment of malingering and deception (3rd ed., pp. 87–108). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  40. Stevens, G. W., Deuling, J. K., & Armenakis, A. A. (2012). Successful psychopaths: are they unethical decision-makers and why? Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), 139–149. doi: 10.1007/s10551-011-0963-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition (WAIS-IV). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
  42. Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence–second edition (WASI-II). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.Google Scholar
  43. Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–219. doi: 10.1080/00223890701268074.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Katherine R. Kelsey
    • 1
  • Richard Rogers
    • 2
  • Emily V. Robinson
    • 2
  1. 1.Dallas County Juvenile DepartmentDallasUSA
  2. 2.University of North TexasDentonUSA

Personalised recommendations