This study examined item and scale functioning in the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R) using an item response theory analysis. PPI-R protocols from 1,052 college student participants (348 male, 704 female) were analyzed. Analyses were conducted on the 131 self-report items comprising the PPI-R’s eight content scales, using a graded response model. Scales collected a majority of their information about respondents possessing higher than average levels of the traits being measured. Each scale contained at least some items that evidenced limited ability to differentiate between respondents with differing levels of the trait being measured. Moreover, 80 items (61.1%) yielded significantly different responses between men and women presumably possessing similar levels of the trait being measured. Item performance was also influenced by the scoring format (directly scored vs. reverse-scored) of the items. Overall, the results suggest that the PPI-R, despite identifying psychopathic personality traits in individuals possessing high levels of those traits, may not identify these traits equally well for men and women, and scores are likely influenced by the scoring format of the individual item and scale.
AndersonJ. L.SellbomM.WygantD. B.EdensJ. F. (2013). Examining the necessity for and utility of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory—Revised (PPI–R) validity scales. Law and Human Behavior, 37, 312-320.
2.
BakerF. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory (2nd ed.). College Park, MD: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
3.
BenningS. D.PatrickC. J.HicksB. M.BlonigenD. M.KruegerR. F. (2003). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory: Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 15, 340-350.
4.
BoltD. M.HareR. D.VitaleJ. E.NewmanJ. P. (2004). A multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16, 155-168.
5.
CaleE. M.LilienfeldS. O. (2002). Sex differences in psychopathy and antisocial personality disorder: A review and integration. Clinical Psychology Review, 22, 1179-1207.
6.
ClauserB. E.MazorK. M. (1998). Using statistical procedures to identify differentially functioning test items. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 17(1), 31-44.
7.
CleckleyH. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality. Oxford, England: Mosby.
8.
ColinsO. F.FantiK. A.SalekinR. T.AndershedH. (2016). Psychopathic personality in the general population: Differences and similarities across gender. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31, 49-74.
9.
CookeD. J.KossonD. S.MichieC. (2001). Psychopathy and ethnicity: Structural, item, and test generalizability of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R) in Caucasian and African American participants. Psychological Assessment, 13, 531-542.
10.
CookeD. J.MichieC. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. Psychological Assessment, 9, 3-14.
11.
DillardC. L.SalekinR. T.BarkerE. D.GrimesR. D. (2013). Psychopathy in adolescent offenders: An item response theory study of the Antisocial Process Screening Device–Self-report and the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 101-120.
12.
DrasgowF.LevineM. V.TsienS.WilliamsB.MeadA. D. (1995). Fitting polytomous item response theory models to multiple-choice tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 19, 143-166.
13.
EdensJ. F.McDermottB. E. (2010). Examining the construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised: Preferential correlates of Fearless Dominance and Self-Centered Impulsivity. Psychological Assessment, 22, 32-42.
14.
EisenbarthH.LilienfeldS. O.YarkoniT. (2015). Using a genetic algorithm to abbreviate the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R). Psychological Assessment, 27, 194-202.
15.
ForouzanE.CookeD. J. (2005). Figuring out la femme fatale: Conceptual and assessment issues concerning psychopathy in females. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 23, 765-778.
16.
ForthA. E.KossonD. S.HareR. D. (2003). The Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
17.
FrenchB. F.MallerS. J. (2007). Iterative purification and effect size use with logistic regression for differential item functioning detection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67, 373-393.
18.
FrickP. J.HareR. D. (2001). The Antisocial Process Screening Device. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
19.
GummeltH. D.AnestisJ. C.CarbonellJ. L. (2012). Examining the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale using a graded response model. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1002-1006.
20.
HambletonR. K.JonesR. W. (1993). Comparison of classical test theory and item response theory and their applications to test development. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 12(3), 38-47.
21.
HareR. D. (2003). Manual for the revised psychopathy checklist (2nd ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
22.
HareR. D.HartS. D.HarpurT. J. (1991). Psychopathy and the DSM-IV criteria for antisocial personality disorder. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 100, 391-398.
23.
HareR. D.NeumannC. S. (2008). Psychopathy as a clinical and empirical construct. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 4, 217-246.
24.
HarrisD. (1989). Comparison of 1-, 2-, and 3-parameter IRT models. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 8(1), 35-41.
25.
KimonisE. R.FrickP. J.SkeemJ. L.MarseeM. A.CruiseK.MunozL. C.. . . MorrisA. S. (2008). Assessing callous-unemotional traits in adolescent offenders: Validation of the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 31, 241-252.
26.
LevensonM. R.KiehlK. A.FitzpatrickC. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151-158.
27.
LilienfeldS. O.PatrickC. J.BenningS. D.BergJ.SellbomM.EdensJ. F. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 327-340.
28.
LilienfeldS. O.WidowsM. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R): Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
29.
LittleR. J. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83, 1198-1202.
30.
MagisD.BélandS.TuerlinckxF.De BoeckP. (2010). A general framework and an R package for the detection of dichotomous differential item functioning. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 847-862.
31.
MarcusD. K.ChurchA. S.O’ConnellD.LilienfeldS. O. (2016). Identifying careless responding bias with the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised validity scales. Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1073191116641507
32.
MarcusD. K.FultonJ. J.EdensJ. F. (2013). The two-factor model of psychopathic personality: Evidence from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 4, 67-76.
33.
MattickR. P.ClarkeJ. C. (1998). Development and validation of measures of social phobia scrutiny fear and social interaction anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 455-470.
34.
MillerJ. D.LynamD. R. (2012). An examination of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory’s nomological network: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3, 305-326.
35.
MillerJ. D.LynamD. R. (2015). Psychopathy and personality: Advances and debates. Journal of Personality, 83, 585-592.
36.
MillerJ. D.WattsA.JonesS. E. (2011). Does psychopathy manifest divergent relations with components of its nomological network depending on gender?Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 564-569.
37.
NeumannC. S.MaltererM. B.NewmanJ. P. (2008). Factor structure of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): Findings from a large incarcerated sample. Psychological Assessment, 20, 169-174.
38.
PatrickC. J.EdensJ. F.PoythressN. G.LilienfeldS. O.BenningS. D. (2006). Construct validity of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory two-factor model with offenders. Psychological Assessment, 18, 204-208.
39.
PenfieldR. D. (2014). An NCME instructional module on polytomous item response theory models. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 33(1), 36-48.
40.
RajuN. S. (1990). Determining the significance of estimated signed and unsigned areas between two item response functions. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 197-207.
41.
RayJ. V.FrickP. J.ThorntonL. C.SteinbergL.CauffmanE. (2016). Positive and negative item wording and its influence on the assessment of callous-unemotional traits. Psychological Assessment, 28, 394-404.
42.
RodebaughT. L.WoodsC. M.HeimbergR. G. (2007). The reverse of social anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse-scored items of the Social Interaction Anxiety Scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy, 38, 192-206.
43.
RussellJ. A.CarrollJ. M. (1999). On the bipolarity of positive and negative affect. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 3-30.
44.
SamejimaF. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern of graded scores. ETS Research Report Series, 1968(1), i-169. doi:10.1002/j.2333-8504.1968.tb00153.x
45.
SamuelD. B.SimmsL. J.ClarkL. A.LivesleyW. J.WidigerT. A. (2010). An item response theory integration of normal and abnormal personality scales. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 1, 5-21.
46.
SchrumC. L.SalekinR. T. (2006). Psychopathy in adolescent female offenders: An item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth version. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 24, 39-63.
47.
SteinbergL.ThissenD. (2006). Using effect sizes for research reporting: Examples using item response theory to analyze differential item functioning. Psychological Methods, 11, 402-415.
48.
SuzukiT.SamuelD. B.PahlenS.KruegerR. F. (2015). DSM-5 alternative personality disorder model traits as maladaptive extreme variants of the five-factor model: An item-response theory analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 124, 343-354.
49.
ThissenD. (2001). IRTLRDIF v. 2.0 b: Software for the computation of the statistics involved in Item Response Theory likelihood-ratio tests for differential item functioning [Computer software]. Chapel Hill, NC: LL Thurstone Psychometric Laboratory.
50.
TsangS.PiqueroA. R.CauffmanE. (2014). An examination of the Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version (PCL: YV) among male adolescent offenders: An item response theory analysis. Psychological Assessment, 26, 1333-1346.
51.
TsangS.SchmidtK. M.VincentG. M.SalekinR. T.MorettiM. M.OdgersC. L. (2015). Assessing psychopathy among justice involved adolescents with the PCL: YV: An item response theory examination across gender. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 6, 22-31.
52.
VeronaE.VitaleJ. (2006). Psychopathy in women: Assessment, manifestations, and etiology. In PatrickC. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (pp. 415-436). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
