Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • Published:
Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Craig Neumann (Personal communication on August, 2, 2011), an author of the SRP-4, reported that the SRP-III and SRP-4 have identical scales and items.

  2. Bewsey (2013, p. 48), “It is critical to note that the magnitude of the correlations between SRP-4 and PCL: SV scores are strongly influenced by the extreme group approach where only high and low scorers on the SRP-4 were selected for administration of the PCL:SV.”

  3. Unlike the PCL measures utilizing record reviews and clinical observations, these self-report measures are rely solely on the examinee’s answers for their interpretation.

  4. The data for this study are entirely original. If detainees volunteered for a second study, the PCL-R data were shared with that study.

  5. The informed consent has a Flesch-Kincaid reading grade level of 7.2.

  6. The Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scale (LSRP) is sometimes referred to the Levenson Primary and Secondary Psychopathy scale (LPSP) or the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (SRPS) across various studies.

  7. The IM scale of the PDS was used as a partial manipulation check for PIM response pattern in the genuine condition.

  8. Hare’s (2003, p. 31) original five psychopathy descriptors were “Very High, High, Moderate, Low, and Very Low.” For the purpose of this study, those groups were collapsed into three categories: High (i.e., combining the Very High and High), Moderate, and Low (combining the Low and Very Low).

  9. By design, the low psychopathy (n =5, M =12.80, SD =3.77) is poorly represented.

  10. As noted, two detainees were also excused prior to the beginning of the study.

  11. The original plan, as considered further in the Concluding Thoughts, was to focus on concurrent validity with high correlations (e.g., rs ≥ 0.70) between nearly identical constructs. When that was not possible, we resorted to construct validity as the alternative.

  12. The Ms and SDs are provided in Table 4 for the genuine condition.

  13. Interestingly, it is similar to male offenders (i.e., the 43rd percentile).

  14. We are using this term to underscore the nature of VR as a non-specific measure of PIM.

  15. With an alpha of 0.65 and SD of 5.40, the SEM =3.19 (Kelsey 2014); when measurement errors are also calculated, the total percentage or error exceeds 50 %.

  16. For VR, 30.2 % of the indeterminate group evidenced classification errors (Kelsey 2014).

  17. In an effort to minimize the exclusion of offenders, the indeterminate group was defined as ± 0.5 SEM. With an SEM of 3.04, this criterion resulted in the removal of ±2 points as indeterminate.

  18. A PsychInfo search on 7-30-14, of “psychopathy,” “forensic,” and “civil” yielded 20 empirical studies; however, most involved sex offenders.

References

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, D.J., Hart, S.D., & Logan, C. (2004). Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality - institutional rating scale (CAPP-IRS). Unpublished manuscript.

  • 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.

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Forth, A. E., Kosson, D. S., & Hare, R. D. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (1980). The Psychopathy Checklist. Vancouver: University of British Columbia. Unpublished manuscript.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (1991). The hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (2003). Manual for the hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Harlow, C. W. (2003). Special report: Education and correctional populations. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

  • Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. (2005). Manual for the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised (PPI-R). Lutz: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Paulhus Deception Scales (PDS): the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding-7, user’s manual. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (2014). Manual for the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (4th Ed.). Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler adult intelligence scale–fourth edition (WAIS-IV). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler abbreviated scale of intelligence–second edition (WASI-II). San Antonio: NCS Pearson.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

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.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dallas County Juvenile Department, 2600 Lone Star Drive, Dallas, TX, 75212, USA

    Katherine R. Kelsey

  2. University of North Texas, 1155 Union Circle, Denton, TX, 76203, USA

    Richard Rogers & Emily V. Robinson

Authors
  1. Katherine R. Kelsey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Richard Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Emily V. Robinson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard Rogers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kelsey, K.R., Rogers, R. & Robinson, E.V. Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy: What is their Role in Forensic Assessments?. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 37, 380–391 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9475-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9475-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation