Genetic algorithms (GAs) are quantitative optimization techniques that have exclusively been utilized for scale abbreviation despite their potential application to new scale development. Here, we modeled the trait constructs of the triarchic psychopathy framework (boldness, meanness, disinhibition) as latent factors, and then applied a modified GA to select items for assessing each using model-estimated factor scores as targets. Items for the new scales were selected from a separate construct-relevant inventory, the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment, based on their ability to efficiently index each triarchic factor, with consideration given to scale intercorrelations and item polarity. Structural and item response modeling methods were then used to refine the GA-selected item sets. The resultant EPA-Triarchic scales correlated highly with their target factor scores and exhibited stronger loadings than the pre-existing scale indicators when added into the model. This work, illustrating a GA approach to devising new scales for indexing latent factors, has broad potential applications in clinical assessment.
ArbabshiraniM. R.FornwaltB. K.MongelluzzoG. J.SueverJ. D.GeiseB. D.PatelA. A.MooreG. J. (2018). Advanced machine learning in action: Identification of intracranial hemorrhage on computed tomography scans of the head with clinical workflow integration. NPJ Digital Medicine, 1, 9. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-017-0015-z
2.
BasarkodG.SahdraB.CiarrochiJ. (2018). Body image–acceptance and action Questionnaire–5: An abbreviation using genetic algorithms. Behavior Therapy, 49(3), 388–402. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2017.09.006
3.
BertoldiB. M.PerkinsE. R.TuvbladC.OskarssonS.KramerM. D.LatzmanR. D.BakerL. A.RaineA.PatrickC. J. (2022). Pursuing the developmental aims of the triarchic model of psychopathy: Creation and validation of triarchic scales for use in the USC: RFAB longitudinal twin project. Development and Psychopathology, 34(3), 1088–1103. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579420002060
4.
BrislinS. J.DrislaneL. E.SmithS. T.EdensJ. F.PatrickC. J. (2015). Development and validation of triarchic psychopathy scales from the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 27(3), 838–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000087
5.
BrislinS. J.PatrickC. J.FlorH.NeesF.HeinrichA.DrislaneL. E.YanceyJ. R.BanaschewskiT.BokdeA. L. W.BrombergU.BüchelC.QuinlanE. B.DesrivièresS.FrouinV.GaravanH.GowlandP.HeinzA.IttermannB.MartinotJ.-L., . . . FoellJ. (2019). Extending the construct network of trait disinhibition to the neuroimaging domain: Validation of a bridging scale for use in the European IMAGEN Project. Assessment, 26(4), 567–581. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191118759748
6.
Castellanos-RyanN.StruveM.WhelanR.BanaschewskiT.BarkerG. J.BokdeA. L. W.BrombergU.BüchelC.FlorH.Fauth-BühlerM.FrouinV.GallinatJ.GowlandP.HeinzA.LawrenceC.MartinotJ.-L.NeesF.PausT.PausovaZ., . . . ConrodP. J. (2014). Neural and cognitive correlates of the common and specific variance across externalizing problems in young adolescence. American Journal of Psychiatry, 171(12), 1310–1319. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2014.13111499
7.
ChalmersR. P. (2012). mirt: A multidimensional item response theory package for the R environment. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(6), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i06
8.
ClarkL. A.WatsonD. (2019). Constructing validity: New developments in creating objective measuring instruments. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1412–1427. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000626
9.
CostelloT. H.BowesS. M.StevensS. T.WaldmanI. D.TasimiA.LilienfeldS. O. (2022). Clarifying the structure and nature of left-wing authoritarianism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(1), 135–170. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000341
10.
CostelloT. H.PatrickC. J. (2023). Development and initial validation of two brief measures of left-wing authoritarianism: A machine learning approach. Journal of Personality Assessment, 105(2), 187–202. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2022.2081809
11.
DaiS.VoT. T.KehindeO. J.HeH.XueY.DemirC.WangX. (2021). Performance of polytomous IRT models with rating scale data: An investigation over sample size, instrument length, and missing data. Frontiers in Education, 6, Article 721963. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2021.721963
12.
DevliegerI.RosseelY. (2022). Using factor scores in structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.; pp. 316–328). Guilford Publications.
13.
DrislaneL. E.BrislinS. J.JonesS.PatrickC. J. (2018). Interfacing five-factor model and triarchic conceptualizations of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 30(6), 834–840. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000544
14.
DrislaneL. E.BrislinS. J.KendlerK. S.AndershedH.LarssonH.PatrickC. J. (2015). A triarchic model analysis of the Youth Psychopathic Traits Inventory. Journal of Personality Disorders, 29(1), 15–41. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2014_28_144
15.
DrislaneL. E.PatrickC. J. (2017). Integrating alternative conceptions of psychopathic personality: A latent variable model of triarchic psychopathy constructs. Journal of Personality Disorders, 31(1), 110–132. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2016_30_240
16.
DrislaneL. E.PatrickC. J.ArsalG. (2014). Clarifying the content coverage of differing psychopathy inventories through reference to the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 350–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035152
17.
DrislaneL. E.SicaC.LowmanK. L.ColpizziI.JoynerK. J.BottesiG.PatrickC. J. (2022). Latent variable model of triarchic psychopathy constructs in an incarcerated offender sample: Factor reliability and validity. Psychological Assessment, 34(10), 899–911. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001158
18.
EichenbaumA. E.MarcusD. K.FrenchB. F. (2021). Item response theory analysis of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Psychological Assessment, 33(8), 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001022
19.
EisenbarthH.LilienfeldS. O.YarkoniT. (2015). Using a genetic algorithm to abbreviate the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R). Psychological Assessment, 27(1), 194–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000032
20.
FoxK. R.HuangX.LinthicumK. P.WangS. B.FranklinJ. C.RibeiroJ. D. (2019). Model complexity improves the prediction of nonsuicidal self-injury. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 87(8), 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000421
21.
GonzalezO. (2020). Psychometric and machine learning approaches to reduce the length of scales. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 56(6), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2020.1781585
22.
GonzalezO. (2021). Psychometric and machine learning approaches for diagnostic assessment and tests of individual classification. Psychological Methods, 26(2), 236–254. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000317
23.
GötzF. M.MaertensR.LoombaS.van der LindenS. (2024). Let the algorithm speak: How to use neural networks for automatic item generation in psychological scale development. Psychological Methods, 29(3), 494–518. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000540
24.
HallJ. R.DrislaneL. E.PatrickC. J.MoranoM.LilienfeldS. O.PoythressN. G. (2014). Development and validation of triarchic construct scales from the Psychopathic Personality Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 447–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035665
25.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
26.
InselT.CuthbertB.GarveyM.HeinssenR.PineD. S.QuinnK.SanislowC.WangP. (2010). Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): Toward a new classification framework for research on mental disorders. American Journal of Psychiatry, 167(7), 748–751. https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.09091379
27.
JiangS.WangC.WeissD. J. (2016). Sample size requirements for estimation of item parameters in the multidimensional graded response model. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 109. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00109
28.
JoynerK. J.RobertsK.WattsA. L.LowmanK. L.LatzmanR. D.LilienfeldS. O.PatrickC. J. (2024). Locating triarchic model constructs in the hierarchical structure of a comprehensive trait-based psychopathy measure: Implications for research and clinical assessment. Psychological Assessment, 36(8), 472–487. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0001321
29.
KilmenS.BulutO. (2023). Scale abbreviation with recursive feature elimination and genetic algorithms: An illustration with the Test Emotions Questionnaire. Information, 14(2), 63. https://doi.org/10.3390/info14020063
30.
KimonisE. R.FrickP. J.SkeemJ. L.MarseeM. A.CruiseK.MunozL. C.AucoinK. J.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(3), 241–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2008.04.002
31.
KotovR.KruegerR. F.WatsonD.AchenbachT. M.AlthoffR. R.BagbyR. M.BrownT. A.CarpenterW. T.CaspiA.ClarkL. A.EatonN. R.ForbesM. K.ForbushK. T.GoldbergD.HasinD.HymanS. E.IvanovaM. Y.LynamD. R.MarkonK., . . . ZimmermanM. (2017). The Hierarchical Taxonomy of Psychopathology (HiTOP): A dimensional alternative to traditional nosologies. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(4), 454–477. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000258
32.
KramerM. D.PatrickC. J.KruegerR. F.GasperiM. (2012). Delineating physiologic defensive reactivity in the domain of self-report: Phenotypic and etiologic structure of dispositional fear. Psychological Medicine, 42(6), 1305–1320. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291711002194
33.
KruegerR. F.MarkonK. E.PatrickC. J.BenningS. D.KramerM. D. (2007). Linking antisocial behavior, substance use, and personality: An integrative quantitative model of the adult externalizing spectrum. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116(4), 645–666. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.4.645
34.
KruegerR. F.McGueM.IaconoW. G. (2001). The higher-order structure of common DSM mental disorders: Internalization, externalization, and their connections to personality. Personality and Individual Differences, 30(7), 1245–1259. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00106-9
35.
LilienfeldS.PatrickC.BenningS.BergJ.SellbomM.EdensJ. (2012). The role of fearless dominance in psychopathy: Confusions, controversies, and clarifications. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 3(3), 327–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026987
36.
LilienfeldS. O. (2014). The Research Domain Criteria (RDoC): An analysis of methodological and conceptual challenges. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 62, 129–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2014.07.019
37.
LilienfeldS. O.WidowsM. (2005). Professional manual for the psychopathic personality inventory-revised (PPI-R). Psychological Assessment Resources.
38.
LynamD. R.GaughanE. T.MillerJ. D.MillerD. J.Mullins-SweattS.WidigerT. A. (2011). Assessing the basic traits associated with psychopathy: Development and validation of the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment. Psychological Assessment, 23(1), 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021146
39.
LynamD. R.MillerJ. D.DerefinkoK. J. (2018). Psychopathy and personality: An articulation of the benefits of a trait-based approach. In PatrickC. J. (Ed.), Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.; pp. 259–280). Guilford Press.
40.
MillerG. A. (2010). Mistreating psychology in the decades of the brain. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(6), 716–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610388774
41.
MillerJ. D.LynamD.LeukefeldC. (2003). Examining antisocial behavior through the lens of the five factor model of personality. Aggressive Behavior, 29(6), 497–514. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.10064
42.
MillerJ. D.LynamD. R. (2015). Psychopathy and personality: Advances and debates. Journal of Personality, 83(6), 585–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12145
43.
MiyakeA.FriedmanN. P.EmersonM. J.WitzkiA. H.HowerterA.WagerT. D. (2000). The unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0734
44.
MowleE. N.KelleyS. E.EdensJ. F.DonnellanM. B.SmithS. T.WygantD. B.SellbomM. (2017). Development of an inconsistent responding scale for the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure. Psychological Assessment, 29(8), 990–1000. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000395
45.
NoetelM.CiarrochiJ.SahdraB.LonsdaleC. (2019). Using genetic algorithms to abbreviate the Mindfulness Inventory for Sport: A substantive-methodological synthesis. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 45, 101545. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2019.101545
46.
OlaruG.WitthöftM.WilhelmO. (2015). Methods matter: Testing competing models for designing short-scale Big-Five assessments. Journal of Research in Personality, 59, 56–68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.09.001
47.
PalumboI. M.PatrickC. J.LatzmanR. D. (2020). Triarchic neurobehavioral correlates of psychopathology in young children: Evidence from the Healthy Brain Network initiative. Journal of Personality Assessment, 103(5), 588–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2020.1814311
PatrickC. J.CurtinJ. J.TellegenA. (2002). Development and validation of a brief form of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. Psychological Assessment, 14, 150–163. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.14.2.150
50.
PatrickC. J.FowlesD. C.KruegerR. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21(3), 913–938. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000492
51.
PatrickC. J.IaconoW. G.VenablesN. C. (2019). Incorporating neurophysiological measures into clinical assessments: Fundamental challenges and a strategy for addressing them. Psychological Assessment, 31(12), 1512–1529. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000713
52.
PatrickC. J.JoynerK. J.WattsA. L.LilienfeldS. O.SommaA.FossatiA.DonnellanM. B.HopwoodC. J.SellbomM.DrislaneL. E.EdensJ. F.VeronaE.LatzmanR. D.SicaC.BenningS. D.MoreyL. C.HicksB. M.FantiK. A.BlonigenD. M., . . . KruegerR. F. (2021). Latent variable modeling of item-based factor scales: Comment on Triarchic or septarchic?—Uncovering the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure’s (TriPM) structure, by Roy et al.Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 12(1), 16–23. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000424
53.
PatrickC. J.KramerM. D.KruegerR. F.MarkonK. E. (2013). Optimizing efficiency of psychopathology assessment through quantitative modeling: Development of a brief form of the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1332–1348. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034864
54.
PatrickC. J.KramerM. D.VaidyanathanU.BenningS. D.HicksB. M.LilienfeldS. O. (2019). Formulation of a measurement model for the boldness construct of psychopathy. Psychological Assessment, 31(5), 643–659. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000690
55.
PolyakS. T.von DavierA. A.PeterschmidtK. (2017). Computational psychometrics for the measurement of collaborative problem solving skills. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 2029. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02029
56.
R Core Team. (2024). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
57.
RosseelY. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36.
58.
SahdraB. K.CiarrochiJ.ParkerP.ScruccaL. (2016). Using genetic algorithms in a large nationally representative American sample to abbreviate the Multidimensional Experiential Avoidance Questionnaire. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, Article 189. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00189
59.
SandyC. J.GoslingS. D.KoelkebeckT. (2014). Psychometric comparison of automated versus rational methods of scale abbreviation. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(4), 221–235. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000144
60.
SchroedersU.WilhelmO.OlaruG. (2016). Meta-heuristics in short scale construction: Ant colony optimization and genetic algorithm. PLOS ONE, 11(11), Article e0167110. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0167110
61.
ScruccaL.SahdraB. (2015). GAabbreviate: Abbreviating questionnaires (or other measures) using genetic algorithms (version 1.0): R package. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=GAabbreviate
62.
SellbomM. (2018). The triarchic psychopathy model: Theory and measurement. In DeLisiM. (Ed.), Routledge international handbook of psychopathy and crime (pp. 241–264). Routledge.
63.
SellbomM.AndersonJ. L.GoodwinB. E.KastnerR. M.RockR. C.JohnsonA. K.MeierB. P.SalekinR. T. (2022). Evaluation of the moderated-expression and differential configuration hypotheses in the context of “successful” or “noncriminal” psychopathy. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 13(5), 542–556. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000498
64.
SellbomM.DrislaneL. E.JohnsonA. K.GoodwinB. E.PhillipsT. R.PatrickC. J. (2016). Development and validation of MMPI-2-RF scales for indexing triarchic psychopathy constructs. Assessment, 23(5), 527–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191115590853
65.
ShouY.SellbomM.XuJ. (2018). Psychometric properties of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: An item response theory approach. Personality Disorders, 9(3), 217–227. https://doi.org/10.1037/per0000241
66.
SommaA.BorroniS.DrislaneL. E.PatrickC. J.FossatiA. (2019). Modeling the structure of the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure: Conceptual, empirical, and analytic considerations. Journal of Personality Disorders, 33(4), 470–496. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi_2018_32_354
67.
TellegenA.WallerN. G. (2008). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In BoyleG. J.MatthewsG.SaklofskeD. H. (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of personality theory and assessment: Volume 2—Personality measurement and testing (pp. 261–292). Sage. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781849200479
68.
TrognonA.CherifiY. I.HabibiI.DemangeL.PrudentC. (2022). Using machine-learning strategies to solve psychometric problems. Scientific Reports, 12, 18922. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-23678-9
69.
TylkaT. L.LinardonJ.Wood-BarcalowN. L.DaníelsdóttirS.Fuller-TyszkiewiczM. (2022). Short forms of the Body Appreciation Scale-2 (BAS-2SF): Item selection and psychometric evaluation. Body Image, 41, 308–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2022.04.001
70.
VenablesN. C.FoellJ.YanceyJ. R.KaneM. J.EngleR. W.PatrickC. J. (2018). Quantifying inhibitory control as externalizing proneness: A cross-domain model. Clinical Psychological Science, 6(4), 561–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702618757690
71.
WalshC. G.RibeiroJ. D.FranklinJ. C. (2017). Predicting risk of suicide attempts over time through machine learning. Clinical Psychological Science, 5(3), 457–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/2167702617691560
72.
WuM.-J.MwangiB.BauerI. E.PassosI. C.SanchesM.Zunta-SoaresG. B.MeyerT. D.HasanK. M.SoaresJ. C. (2017). Identification and individualized prediction of clinical phenotypes in bipolar disorders using neurocognitive data, neuroimaging scans and machine learning. NeuroImage, 145, 254–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.02.016
73.
YarkoniT. (2010). The abbreviation of personality, or how to measure 200 personality scales with 200 items. Journal of Research in Personality, 44(2), 180–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.01.002
74.
YarkoniT.WestfallJ. (2017). Choosing prediction over explanation in psychology: Lessons from machine learning. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 12(6), 1100–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691617693393
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.
