Comparing psychopathy across measurement modalities.

Area of Science:

• Psychology
• Forensic Psychology
• Personality Science

Background:

• Psychopathy is a complex construct with significant negative outcomes.
• Numerous instruments exist for psychopathy assessment, including self-reports and interviews.
• Limited research compares these modalities and their impact on psychopathy's associations.

Purpose of the Study:

• To investigate differences in psychopathy measurement across interview and self-report modalities.
• To examine how these modality differences affect associations with traits like impulsivity.
• To compare network structures of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV) and Levenson Self-Report of Psychopathy (LSRP).

Main Methods:

• Psychometric network and item response theory analyses were applied.
• Data were collected from the same sample using both the PCL:SV (interview) and LSRP (self-report).
• Network centrality and item importance were assessed for both measures.

Main Results:

• Similarities and differences emerged between interview and self-report measures.
• PCL:SV Factor 2 items were more central to psychopathy than Factor 1 items.
• LSRP Factor 1 items were more central than Factor 2 items, linking to Positive Urgency.
• Factor 2 items linked to Negative Urgency in both measures.
• Dishonesty and irresponsibility bridged factors in both networks.

Conclusions:

• Measurement modality influences the structure and associations of psychopathy.
• Interview measures emphasize Factor 2, while self-reports emphasize Factor 1.
• Integrating self-report and interview data may improve psychopathy assessment.