Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Personality Assessment Inventory-Antisocial Features (Psychopathy) Scale: Model Fit and Convergent and Discriminant Validity

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

Abstract

The present study examined the factor structure of the Personality Assessment Inventory Antisocial Features scale (PAI-ANT) in a non-forensic sample of 1257 undergraduate students. One to four-factor models were tested using exploratory factor analysis (EFA), with a four-factor solution exhibiting the best fitting model (Bentler 1995). Next examined was the convergent and discriminant validity of the PAI-ANT. Results indicated that the PAI-ANT four-factor model was significantly related to measures of general personality, pride, impulsivity, and attachment. Comparisons between the original three-factor model (as proposed by Morey 2007) and our derived four-factor model showed that both models generally had the expected pattern of relations for their respective factors although mixed findings were found for the sensation seeking and risk-taking scales. Findings for these scales indicated that individuals could crave excitement and also have some positive characteristics. The current findings suggest that the four-factor model of the PAI is the best way to interpret the PAI psychopathy scale, but that some caution is needed in interpreting the sensation seeking and risk-taking scales.

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. It should be noted that although the PAI psychopathy model was contemporary in some ways, some also view the factors to not fit well with the Hare (2003) model. Nonetheless, some viewed as an improvement from other multiscale measures that were less centered on personality traits and potentially more focused on antisocial behavior and family problems.

References

  • Bagozzi, R. P., & Yi, Y. (1991). Multitrait-multimethod matrices in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 17, 426–439.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-On, R. (1997). The Emotional Quotient Inventory (EQ-i). Toronto, Canada: Multi-Health Systems, Inc..

    Google Scholar 

  • Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2005). Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed via self-report: A comparison of three instruments. Assessment, 12, 270–289.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. CA: Multivariate Software.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Hawes, S. W., Simpler, A., & Johnson, J. (2010). Predicting recidivism with the Personality Assessment Inventory in a sample of sex offenders screened for civil commitment as sexually violent predators. Psychological Assessment, 22, 142–148.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bowlby, J. (1982). Attachment and loss: Retrospect and prospect. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 664–678.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Buffington-Vollum, J., Edens, J. F., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, J. K. (2002). Psychopathy as a predictor of institutional misbehavior among sex offenders: A prospective replication. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 29, 497–511.

    Google Scholar 

  • Byrne, B. M., & Goffin, R. D. (1993). Modeling MTMM data from additive and multiplicative covariance structures: An audit of construct validity concordance. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 28, 67–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Caperton, J. D., Edens, J. F., & Johnson, J. K. (2004). Predicting sex offender institutional adjustment and treatment compliance using the Personality Assessment Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 16, 187–191.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S. (1997). Adult attachment and personality: Converging evidence and a new measure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 865–883.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cleckley, H. (1941/1955/1964/1976). The mask of sanity. (1st, 3rd, 5th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.

  • Costello, A. B., & Osborne, J. W. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 10(7), 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeLisi, M. (2016). Psychopathy as unified theory of crime. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. S., Guy, L. S., Edens, J. F., Boer, D. P., & Hamilton, J. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory as a proxy for the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: Testing the incremental validity and cross-sample robustness of the Antisocial Features scale. Assessment, 14, 255–270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Douglas, K. S., Lilienfeld, S. O., Skeem, J. L., Poythress, N. G., Edens, J. F., & Patrick, C. J. (2008). Relation of antisocial and psychopathic traits to suicide-related behavior among offenders. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 511–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Edens, J. F., Hart, S. D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, J. K., & Olver, M. E. (2000). Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory to assess psychopathy in offender populations. Psychological Assessment, 12, 132–139.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Frodi, A., Dernevik, M., Sepa, A., Philipson, J., & Bragesjö, M. (2001). Current attachment representations of incarcerated offenders varying in degree of psychopathy. Attachment & Human Development, 3, 269–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, B. O., Boccaccini, M. T., & Bitting, B. S. (2015). Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predictors of misconduct, recidivism, and violence: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment, 27, 534–544.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., Zeigler-Hill, V., & Meloy, J. R. (2019). Spiteful and contemptuous: A new look at the emotional experiences related to psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 10(2), 173–184.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glass, S. J., & Newman, J. P. (2006). Recognition of facial affect in psychopathic offenders. Journal Of Abnormal Psychology, 115(4), 815–820.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (1980). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implications. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1(1), 6–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harré, N., Brandt, T., & Dawe, M. (2000). The development of risky driving in adolescence. Journal of Safety Research, 31, 185–194.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hemphill, J. F. (2003). Interpreting the magnitudes of correlation coefficients. American Psychologist, 58, 78–79.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., Baker, K. L., & Morey, L. C. (2008). Extratest validity of selected Personality Assessment Inventory scales and indicators in an inpatient substance abuse setting. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90, 574–577.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hopwood, C. J., & Donnellan, M. B. (2010). How should the internal structure of personality inventories be evaluated? Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(3), 332–346.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Karpman, B. (1941). On the need of separating psychopathy into two distinct clinical types: the symptomatic and the idiopathic. Journal of Criminal Psychopathology, 3, 112–137.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kucharski, L. T., Petitt, A. N., Toomey, J., & Duncan, S. (2008). The utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory in the assessment of psychopathy. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 8, 344–357.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathic traits in non-institutional sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes. Personality Disorders: Treatment Research and Theory, 1, 153–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lester, W. S., Salekin, R. T., & Sellbom, M. (2013). The SRP-II as a rich source of data on the psychopathic personality. Psychological Assessment, 25(1), 32–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Leistico, A. R., Salekin, R. T., DeCoster, J., & Rogers, R. (2008). A large-scale meta-analysis relating the Hare measures of psychopathy to antisocial conduct. Law and Human Behavior, 32(1), 28–45.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (1991). The Personality Assessment Inventory: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory-Adolescent: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullins-Nelson, J. L., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. R. (2006). Psychopathy, empathy, and perspective-taking ability in a community sample: Implications for the successful psychopathy concept. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 5, 133–149.

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L.K. and Muthén, B.O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

  • Patrick, C. J. (2010). Conceptualizing the psychopathic personality: Disinhibited, bold,…Or just plain mean?. In R. T. Salekin, D. R. Lynam, R. T. Salekin, D. R. Lynam (Eds.) , Handbook of Child and Adolescent Psychopathy (pp. 15-48). New York, NY, US: Guilford Press.

  • Persson, B. N., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2019). Social status as one key indicator of successful psychopathy: An initial empirical investigation. Personality and Individual Differences, 141, 209–217.

    Google Scholar 

  • RoadSafe Auckland. (2000). RoadSafe Auckland annual driver survey. Auckland, New Zealand: Auckland Regional Transport Authority.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robins. (1966). Deviant children grown up: A sociological and psychiatric study of sociopathic personality. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salekin, R. T. (2008). Psychopathy and recidivism from mid-adolescence to young adulthood: Cumulating legal problems and limiting life opportunities. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 386–395.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salekin, R. T., Chen, D. R., Sellbom, M., Lester, W. S., & MacDougall, E. (2014). Examining the factor structure and convergent discriminant validity of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: Is the two-factor model the best fitting model. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research and Treatment, 5, 289–304.

  • Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1997). Construct validity of psychopathy in a female offender sample: A multitrait-multimethod evaluation. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 106, 576–585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., Ustad, K. L., & Sewell, K. W. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism among female inmates. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 109–128.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Salekin, R. T., Trobst, K. K., & Krioukova, M. (2001). Construct validity of psychopathy in a community sample: A nomological net approach. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 425–441.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Seibert, L. A., Miller, J. D., Few, L. R., Zeichner, A., & Lynam, D. R. (2011). 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, M., & Pease, K. (2002). Minor crimes, trivial incidents: The cumulative impact of offending. Issues in Forensic Psychology, 3, 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skopp, N. A., Edens, J. F., & Ruiz, M. A. (2007). Risk factors for institutional misconduct among incarcerated women: An examination of the criterion-related validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 106–117.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, S. T., Edens, J. F., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Assessing the external correlates of alternative factor models of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form across three samples. Journal of Personality Assessment, 93, 244–256.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Streiner, D. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tangney, J. P., Dearing, R., Wagner, P. E., & Gramzow, R. (2000). The Test of Self-Conscious Affect—3 (TOSCA-3). Fairfax, VA: George Mason University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tomarken, A. J., & Waller, N. J. (2003). Potential problems with “well fitting” models. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 578–598.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Trapnell, P., & Wiggins, J. S. (1991). Extension of the Interpersonal Adjectives Scales to the Big Five dimensions of personality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781–790.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsang, S., Salekin, R. T., Coffey, C. A., & Cox, J. (2018). A comparison of self-report measures of psychopathy among nonforensic samples using item response theory analyses. Psychological Assessment, 30(3), 311–327.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Vize, C. E., Lynam, D. R., Lamkin, J., Miller, J. D., & Pardini, D. (2016). Identifying essential features of juvenile psychopathy in the prediction of later antisocial behavior: Is there an additive, synergistic, or curvilinear role for fearless dominance? Clinical Psychological Science, 4(3), 572–590.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Vize, C. E., Miller, J. D., & Lynam, D. R. (2018). FFM facets and their relations with different forms of antisocial behavior: An expanded meta-analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 57, 67–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (2007a). Predicting institutional adjustment with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening form and the Antisocial Features and Aggression scales of the PAI. Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 99–105.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D. (2007b). Using Poisson class regression to analyze count data in correctional and forensic psychology: A relatively old solution to a relatively new problem. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1659–1674.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walters, G. D., & Duncan, S. A. (2005). Use of the PCL-R and PAI to predict release outcome in measures in inmates undergoing forensic evaluation. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology, 16, 459–476.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westen, D., & Rosenthal, R. (2005). Improving construct validity: Cronbach, Meehl, & Neurath’s ship. Psychological Assessment, 17, 409–412.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Alabama, Box 870348, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35487, USA

    Kimberly M. Sokolowski, Blair D. Batky, Andrea L. Glenn & Randall T. Salekin

  2. Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA

    Jaime L. Anderson

Authors
  1. Kimberly M. Sokolowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Blair D. Batky
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaime L. Anderson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Andrea L. Glenn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Randall T. Salekin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Randall T. Salekin.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional review board and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

The article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 44 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sokolowski, K.M., Batky, B.D., Anderson, J.L. et al. The Personality Assessment Inventory-Antisocial Features (Psychopathy) Scale: Model Fit and Convergent and Discriminant Validity. J Psychopathol Behav Assess 42, 203–221 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-020-09784-w

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10862-020-09784-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation