This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
http://cjb.sagepub.com/ Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy, Antisocial Personality, and Criminal Lifestyle : Testing and Validating a Two-Dimensional Model
Glenn D. Walters Criminal Justice and Behavior 2008 35: 1459 originally published online 10 September 2008 DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320922 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/12/1459
On behalf of:
International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
Additional services and information for Criminal Justice and Behavior can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cjb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cjb.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://cjb.sagepub.com/content/35/12/1459.refs.html
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on September 12, 2011
SELF-REPORT MEASURES OF PSYCHOPATHY, ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY, AND CRIMINAL LIFESTYLE Testing and Validating a Two-Dimensional Model
GLENN D. WALTERS
Federal Correctional Institution, Schuylkill, Pennsylvania
This article reports results from five studies. Exploratory factor analysis was used to select indicators from the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles, Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scales, and Personality Assessment Inventory–Antisocial Features Scale. The 10 indicators were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis, the results of which show that the two-dimensional model (proactive, reactive) achieves significantly better fit than a general one-factor model and a two-factor social learning model (criminal thinking, antisocial behavior) with 521 medium-security and 116 maximumsecurity inmates. The construct validity of the two-dimensional model is confirmed in a path analysis pairing (a) proactive scales with positive outcome expectancies for crime and (b) reactive scales with hostile attribution biases. Implications for a unified theory of aggression and criminality are discussed. Keywords: Personality Assessment Inventory; Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy; Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles; proactive; reactive
hereas research and practice in forensic psychology have grown at an unprecedented rate, theory has failed to keep pace with new developments in the field. Forensic researchers and practitioners who are looking for theoretical inspiration and guidance must consequently find both in theories from related disciplines or in general psychological principles that overlook the intricacies of forensic psychology research and practice. Theory is barely mentioned in three recently published textbooks on forensic psychology (Bartol & Bartol, 2004; Goldstein, 2007; Weiner & Hess, 2006), and the two families of theory that receive the most attention in these books—personality models (Cleckley, 1976; Hare, 1996) and behavioral models (Andrews & Bonta, 1998; Robins, 1966)—are seriously flawed as general explanations of crime and forensic psychology (see Walters, 2004). From physics to psychology, it is well known that to remain viable, a field must be grounded in substantive theory. Psychopathy, antisocial personality, and criminal lifestyle are three constructs that have been offered as possible psychological explanations for criminal behavior. The similarities between these three constructs are striking and so suggest that they share structural
AUTHOR’S NOTE: I would like to thank Matthew Geyer, Charles Schlauch, and Patti Walters for their assistance in collecting and entering data for this project. The assertions and opinions contained herein are my private views and should not be construed as being official or as reflecting the views of the Federal Bureau of Prisons or the U.S. Department of Justice. Address all correspondence to Glenn D. Walters, Psychology Services, FCI-Schuylkill, PO Box 700, Minersville, PA 17954-0700; e-mail: email@example.com.
CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 35 No. 12, December 2008 1459-1483 DOI: 10.1177/0093854808320922 © 2008 International Association for Correctional and Forensic Psychology
Downloaded from cjb.sagepub.com by guest on September 12, 2011
2007) and criminal lifestyle (Walters. Walters. & Edens. but more recently conducted and more methodologically sound studies have produced results more congruent with a dimensional interpretation of the latent structure of psychopathy as measured by the PCL-R/PCL:SV (Edens. Walters & McCoy. 1994). 2000). 2000.1460 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR and content features. see appendix) showed signs of taxonic structure (Harris. 2006. Hubbard. & Diamond. 1996). Poulin & Boivin. or latent. & Mitchell-Perez. and scales that were designed to measure proactive and reactive aggression in children have a moderately high and relatively narrow range of intercorrelation—specfically. This same countervailing relationship has been observed in incarcerated juvenile delinquents (Smithmyer. If research could demonstrate that these three crime-related constructs lie along the same dimension or dimensions. then perhaps we would have the beginnings of a substantive theory of forensic psychology to guide research and practice in the field. for a reference to the abbreviations used in this article. 2007.83 (Day. Ruscio. Walters. 2007). Brinkley. 1995. and the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy scales (LSRP. & Hare. Haslam. Despite a high degree of intercorrelation between factors and a belief on the part of some investigators that the proactive–reactive breakdown has outlived its usefulness (Bushman & Anderson. Marcus. John. 2007a. 2007). The two-dimensional model of childhood aggression was replicated in a series of confirmatory factor analyses (Poulin & Boivin. & Fitzpatrick. Lilienfeld. & Duncan. Bream. Levenson. . 2002. the factors each exhibit a differential pattern of correlation with outside criteria: proactive aggression with positive outcome expectancies for aggression and reactive aggression with hostile attribution biases (Crick & Dodge. Gray. and one way to do so is with taxometric analysis. & Poythress. Diamond. 2011 . the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (Lilienfeld & Andrews. in press). Guay. Marcus. A TWO-DIMENSIONAL MODEL OF CRIMINALITY A critical first step in developing a theoretical model is to determine the underlying. Walters. Magaletta. 1987. The two-dimensional model advanced in this article holds that proactive and reactive criminality are psychological functions (motives) with developmental roots in proactive and Downloaded from cjb. & Poythress. Dodge & Coie. Duncan. Ruscio. the next step is to determine the content of these underlying dimensions. 1989). which they labeled proactive aggression and reactive aggression. The taxometric method (Meehl. and criminal lifestyle. Rice.. 2007b). and criminal lifestyle have a dimensional. 2000) and adult prison inmates (Walters. Magaletta.77 to . et al. 1992. & Ruscio. Hare. Hubbard et al. Price & Dodge.com by guest on September 12.. structure of the construct on which the model is based. Edens. antisocial personality. Kiehl. antisocial personality. Knight. 2007. Dimensional results have also been obtained when the taxometric method has been applied to measures of antisocial personality (Marcus. Dodge and Coie (1987) uncovered two factors. Walters. 2006) allows researchers to gauge whether the latent structure of a construct is categorical (taxonic) or continuous (dimensional). An early taxometric study on the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R. In a principal components analysis regarding teacher ratings of student aggression. latent structure. Lilienfeld. 2003. 1995. & Quinsey. 2004). & Simons. 2001). Research in developmental psychology may be of benefit in identifying both the number and the nature of dimensions shared by psychopathy. 2006. Geyer.sagepub. 1996. rather than taxonic. Once research has established that crime-related constructs such as psychopathy. & Pal.
Discontinuity [Ds]) Downloaded from cjb. 2011 . and Superoptimism [So]) appear to reflect proactive criminal thinking. and proactive aggression is associated with better psychological and social adjustment (Card & Little. 1973) and criminality (Akers & Jensen. antisocial personality. Although these two functions derive from different theoretical perspectives—proactive criminality/aggression from social–cognitive learning theory (Bandura. 1995) is a well-researched self-report measure of criminal thinking. McMurran. One alternate conceptualization is to assign all the criminal thinking indicators to one factor and all the antisocial behavior indicators to a second factor. Indicators from self-report measures of criminal lifestyle. As such. Richardson. it is more apt to divide indicators from selfreport measures of criminal lifestyle. and Blair (2000) label wilful criminality and lack of thoughtfulness. social learning theory provides a bridge. Cognitive Indolence [Ci]. Five core assumptions underpin social learning theory: Learning is a social process. demonstrate semidistinct patterns of association. assigned to the wilful criminality factor (Mollification [Mo]. between behavioral learning theories and cognitive learning theories (Ormrod. The twodimensional model proposes that the motives that drive childhood aggression extend into adult criminality and exist in the form of two overlapping dimensions: proactive aggression/ criminality and reactive aggression/criminality. In addition. despite a moderate to high degree of intercorrelation. 1993)—they share a great deal in common and thus overlap extensively. 1986) and reactive criminality/aggression from frustration–aggression response theory (Berkowitz. Because social learning theory focuses on the cognitive and behavioral aspects of learning. antisocial personality. and psychopathy can be organized in ways other than the proactive–reactive breakdown proposed by the two-dimensional model of criminality. behavior is directed toward particular goals. Walters. despite serving as the conceptual foundation for proactive aggression/criminality. and reinforcement and punishment have direct (behavioral) and indirect (cognitive) effects (Bandura. Power Orientation [Po]. reactive aggression is associated with emotional dysregulation and poor social adjustment. 2004). whereas the three scales that they assigned to the lack of thoughtfulness factor (Cutoff [Co]. 1986). behavior eventually becomes self-regulated. and psychopathy along cognitive and behavioral lines than along proactive and reactive lines. Sentimentality [Sn].com by guest on September 12. 2005a) that Egan. Entitlement [En]. SELECTING INDICATORS The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS. or transition. although the nature of the deficit and the actual brain pathways involved in each pattern appear to differ (Blair. 1999). 2006). however. and reactive aggression/criminality correlates with poor social–emotional adjustment and hostile attribution biases for aggression/crime. Consequently. Amygdala and orbital frontal cortex dysfunction have been implicated in both proactive and reactive aggression.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1461 reactive childhood aggression. learning is an internal process. proactive and reactive aggression are correlated with peer rejection and delinquency. one alternate model against which the two-dimensional model (proactive. reactive) is compared is a social learning alternative composed of cognitive and behavioral factors. Social learning theory has been used to explain aggression (Bandura. The five scales that Egan et al. 2006). Proactive aggression/criminality correlates with positive outcome and efficacy expectancies for aggression/crime. These two dimensions. Previous studies have shown that the PICTS can be partitioned into two general factors (see Walters.sagepub.
Worzel. 2004. In an effort to create self-report indices comparable to Factor 1 (callous and remorseless use of others) and Factor 2 (chronic antisocial lifestyle) of the PCL-R. however. like the LSRP-PP. By contrast. 1995. commonly referred to as denial of harm (Walters. The question posed by Study 2 is whether ANT-A. Levenson et al. Whereas the LSRP Secondary Psychopathy Scale (LSRP-SP) is a reasonably good index of the antisocial behavior tapped by Factor 2 of the PCL-R. 1999).. which may introduce error into the responses of individuals with lower reading skills and less motivation than that of the normative college sample. another goal of this article is to determine whether the LSRP-PP should be included in subsequent analyses. Consequently. low social anxiety. and the desire to satisfy personal goals and impulses at the expense of others. (1995) divided the 26 LSRP items into primary and secondary psychopathy scales. There are three ANT subscales: Antisocial Behaviors (ANT-A). as indicated by high levels of recklessness. Skeem. 2007). & Poythress. as opposed to reactive. thus justifying its removal from subsequent analyses. One question posed by this article is whether or not to include the Sn in the present analyses given its uncertain status with respect to the proactive–reactive dimensions and whether it loads as well onto a general criminal thinking factor as do the other seven PICTS scales. According to Morey (2007). This description suggests that ANT-E measures proactive. Egocentricity (ANT-E). 1995. Morey.1462 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR apparently reflect reactive criminal thinking. it could reflect either proactive or reactive criminality. 2002. Chief among these concerns is the absence of a meaningful relationship between (a) the LSRP-PP and low trait anxiety (Levenson et al. with the primary scale serving as a proxy for Factor 1 and the secondary scale as a proxy for Factor 2. Downloaded from cjb. HYPOTHESES Five hypotheses were tested in this article. one for each study: Hypothesis 1: Sn will be the lowest loading indicator on a general criminal thinking factor in an exploratory factor analysis of the eight PICTS scales. The LSRP scales (Levenson et al. callousness.sagepub. 2001). 2005a).com by guest on September 12. & Clements. impulsivity. 2011 . Results from several exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. and Stimulus Seeking (ANT-S).. 1995) were created to assess psychopathy in nonincarcerated populations. and novelty seeking in those who score high on this subscale (Morey. To the extent that ANT-A is a catalogue of a person’s level of prior antisocial activity. McHoskey. but they have also been used in incarcerated populations (Brinkley. questions have been raised about the construct validity of the LSRP Primary Psychopathy Scale (LSRP-PP. 1998) and (b) the scale’s tendency to correlate higher with Factor 2 of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory than with Factor 1 (Lilienfeld. & Newman. ANT-S seems to align more closely with reactive criminality. Frick. Wilson. 2006). & Szyarto. In addition. Smith. loads sufficiently well onto an antisocial behavior factor to be retained in this study. The Antisocial Features Scale (ANT) of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI. 2007) is composed of 24 items designed to assess the behavioral and personality characteristics of antisocial personality and psychopathy. Schmitt. suggest that Sn may belong to a third factor. criminality. nearly one third of the LSRP-PP items are reverse scored. elevated ANT-E scores reflect inflated self-importance. Lilienfeld & Fowler.
and widowed (1. uncertain.33 years (SD = 1. n = 70). four 10-item factor scales (Problem Avoidance.94). thus justifying their removal from subsequent analyses. n = 90). followed by married (22. En. two content scales (Current and Historical). and the average educational level was 11.1%. and disagree. Participants for this first study included 625 male federal prisoners who completed the PICTS during a routine intake procedure at a medium-security federal prison. 2005a).3%. miscellaneous offenses (11.1%. The majority of participants listed their marital status as single (65.sagepub. 2002. The mean age of the participants was 35. 1 point—except for the Defensiveness–Revised Scale.47–. Infrequency. n = 407). and one general score (General Criminal Thinking).2%.com by guest on September 12. internal consistency (α = . disagree = 4). n = 368). Aside from the two 8-item validity scales (Confusion–Revised [Cf-r] and Defensiveness–Revised). Procedure.3%.5% (n = 153). n = 107).73–.79) and validity (unweighted mean correlations of .11 years (SD = 9. The PICTS is a self-report inventory with 80 items rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale: Strongly agree responses earn a respondent 4 points. Walters. all of which have been found to possess adequate reliability (r = . STUDY 1 METHOD Participants. 15. with Whites making up 24. n = 57).54–. Hypothesis 3: Grouping the PICTS. and Denial of Harm). n = 140).86 after 10–12 weeks). n = 70). over half the sample was Black (58. 1995.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1463 Hypothesis 2: The LSRP-PP and the ANT-A will be the two lowest loading indicators on a general antisocial behavior factor in an exploratory factor analysis of the five LSRP/ANT indicators. n = 27). two composite scales (Proactive Criminal Thinking and Reactive Criminal Thinking). Co. and Asian/Native Americans. So. 2011 .4%. Self-Assertion/Deception. and ANT indicators into proactive and reactive factors (two-dimensional model) will provide a significantly better fit for data collected on a large sample of medium-security federal prisoners than will loading all the indicators onto a single factor (general model) or grouping the indicators into criminal thinking and antisocial behavior factors (social learning model). Of the 687 inmates who arrived at the institution Downloaded from cjb. Hispanics. r = .1%.20 with institutional adjustment/recidivism. n = 274). Hypothesis 5: The construct validity of the two-dimensional model will be supported in a path analysis of correlations between the proactive and reactive dimensions and the measures of positive outcome expectancies for crime and hostile attribution biases. Po. Hypothesis 4: Results from Study 3 (Hypothesis 3) will be replicated in a smaller sample of maximumsecurity federal prisoners.5% (n = 97). LSRP. n = 8). 2 points. followed by illegal weapons (17.2%. agree. divorced/separated (11.04). The PICTS is routinely administered to inmates within 2 weeks of their arrival at the institution where this study took place.1% (n = 7). Ci. The present investigation focuses on the eight thinking-style scales.8%. and Ds). which is reverse scored (strongly agree = 1.9%. robbery (14. Measure. These 625 PICTS protocols had never been included in any previous factor analyses of the PICTS (Walters. 1. violence (9. the PICTS generates scores for eight nonoverlapping 8-item thinking-style scales (Mo.93 after 2 weeks. Ethnically. Sn.4%. 2002. 3 points.12–. 2006). The modal instant offense in this sample was drugs (43. and property crimes (4.
0% (n = 323) from high-security institutions. Measures. The first factor accounted for 63. En = . Black. Eliminating these 62 individuals from the study resulted in a final sample of 625 participants. Nonetheless. with 40.795. The first 16 items measure primary psychopathy (i. 24 left more than 10 PICTS items blank. 26.1% (n = 683).com by guest on September 12. 2011 . Informed consent was not required because administration of the PICTS was a routine clinical procedure. As such. 2 refused to be tested. RESULTS A single factor was extracted from a principal-axis factor analysis of the eight PICTS scales using 625 male inmates of a medium-security federal prison..8% (n = 456).0% (n = 544). 1995. The Sn scale has not loaded particularly well onto the proactive or reactive factor in previous factor analytic research (Walters. 1. The ethnic breakdown was as follows: White.54). Factor loadings on the first factor (general criminal thinking) were as follows: Mo = . institutional review board approval was obtained for the use of these data in research. 40. n = 947).724. 32. Over a third of the sample (37.221 males.7%.823. and 1.59) with 11.799.12% of the total variance in the eight thinking styles (eigenvalue = 5. Sn= .29 years (SD = 9. it was dropped for the confirmatory factor analyses in Studies 3 and 4 and the construct validity analyses in Study 5. The LSRP is a 26-item self-report inventory designed to assess psychopathy in nonincarcerated populations. and Ds = .702 federal prisoners (n = 1.6%.sagepub.17 years of education (SD = 2. and the last 10 items measure secondary psychopathy Downloaded from cjb. the Sn scale was the weakest loading indicator in an exploratory factor analysis of the eight PICTS scales.2% (n = 639) describing their current marital status as married or common law. affective and interpersonal features). The average age of each participant was 34. Asian/Native American. 6 produced extreme scores on the Confusion–Revised Scale (T-score > 100).05). Co = . Participants included 1. n = 481 females) who completed the LSRP and PAI as part of a national mental health prevalence study conducted in 14 federal correctional institutions (Diamond & Magaletta.1464 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR during an 18-month period. LSRP-PP. DISCUSSION As predicted. A principal-axis factor analysis of a single general factor (criminal thinking) was conducted using the eight PICTS scales as indicators.765. Ci = . 2006).79). Hispanic. n = 600) had never been married. and the second factor accounted for less than 10% of the variance in the thinking-style scales (eigenvalue = 0.753. STUDY 2 METHOD Participants. with 25.4% (n = 432) emanating from medium-security institutions and 19.1% (n = 19). So = . and 9 selected the uncertain option for all 80 PICTS items.789.e. 21 could not read well enough to complete the PICTS. The majority of participants came from low-security institutions (55.7% (n = 329) as divorced or separated.5% (n = 24) as widowed. 20.628. 2005a). Po = . and in the present study it was the weakest correlating indicator when the eight PICTS scales were loaded onto a general criminal thinking factor.
Downloaded from cjb.63. 80 or higher on the PICTS Infrequency Scale. Internal consistency (as measured by the alpha coefficient [α]) and test–retest reliability (as measured after 24–28 days [r]) are satisfactory for the ANT-A (α = . and ANT-S (α = . and institutional review board approval was sought and obtained for the use of these data in research. 2001.702 participants because they achieved T-scores of 80 or higher on the PAI Inconsistency Scale. ANT-E (α = . & Brandon. The first factor accounted for 50. with seven of the items being reversed scored to control for various response style or test-taking sets.77.702 male and female inmates from 14 federal facilities.84). LSRP-SP = . 2005). chronic antisocial lifestyle). The LSRP and PAI were normally administered during a single testing session. disagree somewhat. 2011 .69–. A principal-axis factor analysis of a single general factor (antisocial behavior) was conducted using the two LSRP scales and three ANT subscales.681. and ANT-S = . Poythress. and the second factor accounted for 17. r = .721. ANT-S. only the three 8-item nonoverlapping subscales of the ANT were employed: ANT-A.63) and validity (correlations with the PCL-R and passive avoidance errors) have been found to be satisfactory (Brinkley et al..Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1465 (i.574.562. 3 = slightly true.78–. The results support this hypothesis and suggest that the LSRP-PP and the ANT-A could be removed from subsequent analyses because their status as proactive or reactive measures is uncertain and they do not load particularly well onto the antisocial behavior factor of the social learning model. 2 = mainly true. ANT-A = . Informed consent was obtained from the inmates who participated in the original national mental health prevalence study. LSRP-SP: α = .79). agree strongly).86). although one test was occasionally administered several days after the rest of the test battery. Procedure.88).73–. RESULTS A single factor was extracted from the five LSRP/ANT indicators in a sample of 1. Reliability (LSRP-PP: α = .70–. r = . or 92 or higher on the PAI Negative Impression Scale.554. There were 225 inmates from the national mental health prevalence study who completed both the LSRP and PAI but were not included in the final sample of 1. Spanish versions of each test were available for Spanish-speaking inmates who could not read English.com by guest on September 12. In this study. Epstein. ANT-E = . The PAI is a 344-item self-report measure in which each item is rated on a 4-point scale (1 = very true.82. Factor loadings on the first factor (general antisocial behavior) were as follows: LSRP-PP = .80–. 2006). 2006). 4 = false).e.. r = . ANT-E.66% of the total variance in the eight thinking styles (eigenvalue = 2. agree somewhat.53). although concerns have been raised about the construct validity of the LSRP-PP (Lilienfeld & Fowler.80. and there is evidence for both the reliability and the validity of the ANT in correctional and forensic samples (Edens & Ruiz. such as social desirability. LSRP-SP. Each LSRP item is rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale (disagree strongly. DISCUSSION The hypothesis for Study 2 was that the LSRP-PP and the ANT-A would be the two weakest loading indicators on a general antisocial behavior factor when the five indicators from the LSRP and ANT were subjected to an exploratory factor analysis in a large group of federal prisoners.sagepub.64% of the variance in the PICTS scales (eigenvalue = 0.
Co. 0. LSRP (Walters et al. and ANT were administered in random order to all participants during a single testing session. internal consistency (α = . robbery (13.02) and ANT-S (. n = 68).86 after 10–12 weeks).9% (n = 390). precision of α = . although in 10% to 15% of cases. r = 47−. married.0%. 16. ANT-E and ANT-S. and 74 inmates participated in the testing but were excluded from the final sample because of reading. et al.02) is adequate.1% (n = 355). followed by miscellaneous offenses. Seven of the eight 8-item PICTS scales (Mo. A group of 521 male inmates from a medium-security federal prison located in the northeastern United States served as participants in this study.54−. Unidimensionality. 2011 . n = 15). 13. n = 171). n = 38). The ethnic breakdown was as follows: Black.03).5% (n = 86). and validity is reasonable (Brinkley et al.. 8.01−. En. 2007). 2001. 4 inmates refused to be tested. Each participant produced a complete and valid PICTS (no more than 10 unanswered items and a Confusion–Revised Scale T-score of 100 or less).8% (n = 4). 16. and Asian/Native American. Two of three ANT subscales. Measures. Research indicates that PICTS scales possess adequate to good reliability (r = . and widowed. The modal confining offense was drugs (45.3%.97). random responding (n = 7).. and property crimes (2. Overall. missing data (n = 26). Walters & McCoy. also served as indicators in this study.0% (n = 10). The 10-item LSRP-SP was the eighth indicator employed in this study. in press).. n = 31). Po. Diamond. 2006).20 with institutional adjustment/recidivism. was satisfactory in the present sample of participants: ANT-E (. Internal consistency (α = . the 24 ANT items were administered as a 24-item inventory rather than as part of the full PAI. and ANT (no more than 2 unanswered items). The present sample was independent of previous samples used to test the taxometric structure of the PICTS (Walters. The PICTS. divorced.1% (n = 84). LSRP (no more than 2 unanswered items). Walters. or achievement of a T-score of greater than 100 on the PICTS Confusion–Revised Scale (n = 3). and ANT (Walters. such as firearms and fraud (32. all of which were administered routinely within 2 weeks of an inmate’s arrival at the institution. and education difficulties (less than 6 years of formal schooling.79).46). language.64 years (SD = 9. The average age of inmates in this sample was 34.1 and validity (unweighted mean correlations of . n = 236). Ci. In this study.4% (n = 70). 1998) for the LSRP-SP. as measured by the precision of the alpha coefficient.42 years (SD = 1. McHoskey et al.03). White.sagepub.93 after 2 weeks.12−.9%. 2007).73−..com by guest on September 12.1466 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR STUDY 3 METHOD Participants.3% (n = 43). PICTS protocols with no more than 10 missing items and LSRP and ANT protocols with no more than 2 missing items were included in this investigation. So. violence (6. unidimensionality (precision of α = . 74. LSRP.1%. Only inmates who could read English were included in the investigation. Procedure.67. 2007a. 2. Marital status was as follows: single.8%. Validity indices for the PAI were unavailable because the 24 ANT items were administered separately as a single instrument rather than imbedded in the larger 344-item PAI. Hispanic. Ds) served as indicators in this study. Valid protocols with missing items were prorated by (a) calculating an average item Downloaded from cjb. 68. and the mean educational level was 11. one of the measures was completed several days after the other measures.
All such indicators showed signs of significant univariate skew (CR > 1. Po. Table 1 lists the means. Fit statistics employed in the present investigation included the model chi-square. All analyses were conducted with a structural equation modeling (SEM) program (Amos 4. and ANT-E onto a proactive latent factor and Co. MLE assumes that the models have been validly specified. LSRP-SP.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1467 score for the items that were completed and (b) adding this number (or 2 times this number. Browne. Heteroscedasticity was assessed by constructing a multiple linear regression in which Mo was arbitrarily selected as the outcome variable and the other 9 indicators served as predictor variables. As such. Ds. 1987). and ANT-S onto a reactive latent factor. the comparative fit index (CFI. Arbuckle & Wothke. using a power analysis (MacCallum. So. Akaike. institutional review board approval was obtained from the Bureau of Prisons for the use of these data in research. Maximum likelihood estimation (MLE) is the most common method for estimating the coefficients in SEM analysis. standard deviations. En. although several assumptions must be met before this estimation approach can be used. Finally. En. 2005). and Levene’s (1960) Test for the Equality of Variances was run on each indicator. the sample size must be adequate. Critical ratios (CRs) for the unstandardized regression coefficients and standardized residual covariances were consequently computed. and metrics were set at 1. data were fit to three models: The one-factor model (M1) loaded all 10 indicators onto a single latent factor. Nonetheless. First. skew. divided at the median into a high-scoring group and a low-scoring group.96 denoting a significant effect at the .com by guest on September 12. the social learning model (MSL) loaded Mo. as well as homoscedasticity (homogeneity of covariance matrices). the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA. MLE assumes multivariate normality because highly nonnormal data can lead to inflated-model chi-square values and downwardly biased parameter standard errors (Bentler & Chou. Co. and kurtosis of the 10 indicator variables. Third. the sample covariance matrix that MLE attempts to reproduce assumes linearity (Klein. Po. because testing was a routine clinical procedure at the institution where this study took place. and Mardia’s (1974) coefficient of multivariate kurtosis revealed the presence of significant multivariate kurtosis (CR = 14. 1996). ANT-E. So.000 bootstrapped trials. 1990).96). Second. With a procedure described by Pryce (2005). & Sugawara. the two-dimensional (proactive–reactive) model (M2) loaded Mo. sample size was determined to be adequate. RESULTS Normality and homoscedasticity.sagepub. 1987). 2011 . and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the standardized regression coefficients were calculated with 2. Ci. and ANT-S onto an antisocial behavior latent factor. and the Akaike information criterion (AIC. were tested to determine whether data should be transformed.0. Bentler.05 level). Ci. CR values were calculated by dividing the regression or factor estimate by the standard error of the estimate (with scores above 1. Following approval.00 for the first pathway between a latent factor and an observed variable (indicator) and between each error term and observed variable. 1999). Each model was estimated with maximum likelihood. 1993). Browne & Cudeck. Informed consent was not required. in the case of 2 missing items) to the raw total for the scale. A Downloaded from cjb. ranges. the unstandardized residuals of the multiple regression were saved. and Ds onto a criminal thinking latent factor and LSRP-SP. Univariate and multivariate normality.68).
under conditions of nonnormality and heteroscedasticity.34 0.44 21.13 0.01 0.11 0.20 −1. the standardized coefficient.20 13.11.28 4. Regression weights and residual covariances.02 0. 2011 .21 −1. 2005).15 0.84 4.00 0.24). A square root transformation. see Table 1) is a consequence of the rectangular nature of the percentile distribution.94 0. 8 heteroscedastic indicators.04 0.001 level. Downloaded from cjb. and a significant coefficient of multivariate kurtosis (CR = 3.14 4. the CR.12 3. ranking methods and transformations are useful (Zwick.00 0.02 15. all CRs in the one-factor and social learning models were significant at the .01 13.20 −1.60). The first column of Table 2 reproduces the unstandardized regression weights for the coefficient pathways in a confirmatory factor analysis of percentile-rank transformation indicators organized into the two-dimensional model.08 4. based on the presence of significantly different group variances.12 3.86 1.87 0. Accordingly.04 –0. Three data transformations were examined in an effort to determine which did the best job of normalizing the distribution and homogenizing the sample covariances.01 6.25 12.71 0. b.02 0. Standard error of skew was .20 −1.57 1. 1986). and a percentileranking transformation may be a particularly powerful and reliable method for transforming nonnormal and heteroscedastic data (Zimmerman & Zumbo.20 −1. All CRs in the two-dimensional model were significant at the . Heteroscedasticity was observed in all 10 indicators.82 0.55 13.35 –0. however. 1 heteroscedastic indicator.02 5.58 0.sagepub. a. See appendix for all abbreviations used in the article. A base-e logarithmic transformation of the data produced significant univariate skew on 10 indicators.1468 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Descriptive Statistics for the 10 Indicators in Study 3 TABLE 1: Raw Scores Indicator PICTS Mo Co En Po So Ci Ds LSRP-SP ANT-E ANT-S Percentile Ranks Skew a Range 8-26 8-31 8-29 8-29 8-28 8-32 8-32 10-37 0-22 0-22 M SD Kurtosis b Skewa Kurtosisb −1.76 5. nonnormality and heteroscedasticity were characteristic of the indicators used in this study.23 −1. although this feature of the percentile-rank transformation does not impede its ability to serve as an effective proxy for statistical analysis (Zimmerman & Zumbo. produced 8 skewed indicators. no heteroscedastic findings. Hence.14 –0.00 16.11 4.93 0. likewise. The platykurtotic distribution produced by the percentile-rank transformations (negative kurtosis.12 5. significant Levene F test was interpreted as a sign of heteroscedasticity.88 3.24 −1.03 0.01 Note.com by guest on September 12.96).03 0.24 −1. and the 90% bootstrapped CI of the standardized coefficient. N = 521.001 level. Standard error of kurtosis was .27 −1.60 0.34 1.00 0.49 15. and a significant coefficient of multivariate kurtosis (CR = 5.21.33 0. According to research.86 0. The percentilerank transformation was the only data transformation procedure to yield no skewed indicators. percentile-rank transformations were employed in this study.18 0. 2005).26 1. and a nonsignificant coefficient of multivariate kurtosis (CR = 1. followed by the standard error of estimate.
*** p < .811 1.52 0.67*** 13.012 1. Set to 1.000 0. M2 = two-dimensional model (proactive and reactive). a.74 .56–.001.101) .059 0.85 ΔAIC 140.100–. Discrepancies were defined by a CR significant at the .043 0.79–. M1 = one-factor model (general dimension).sagepub.0000000 .12*** 17.57 .05 level (CR > 1. 7-10.65 are therefore highly significant and so indicate very strong evidence that the two-dimensional model provides a significantly better fit for the data than either the one-factor model or the social learning model.63*** β (90% CI) .76*** 17. respectively—that is. with the lowest value set at 0.66) (.80–. Model = type of model based on number and configuration of factors.935 0. divided by the sample covariance standard deviation.61 . 2002). strong.71–.57 CR — 17.62) (.088 (.78) (. no CR possible.76 .136) . An AIC difference (ΔAIC) of less than 2 is considered nonsignificant. Results produced by the goodness-of-fit indices are listed in Table 3.56*** — 22. 4-7.000).075–. wAIC = Akaike weight.79) (.20*** 259. the one-factor and social learning models displayed borderline to poor fit. antisocial behavior).987 0.com by guest on September 12.042 0.52 and 89.51–. and very strong evidence. and two significant discrepancies in the social learning model.059 0.57 SE — 0.76–.82) (.665 448. Downloaded from cjb.95 .88) Note.80) (.96).060 — 0.82 . Estimate = unstandardized regression coefficient. Differences of 140. Direct comparisons between models using the AIC statistic (final two columns of Table 3) reveal a highly significant difference in relative fit between the individual models.001.00 89.88) (.24*** 13.61*** 21.9999999 .0000000 Note.84 (.72 212.90 .Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES TABLE 2: Regression Weights Obtained With the Two-Dimensional Model: Study 3 1469 Regression Path Mo ← Proactive En ← Proactive Po ← Proactive So ← Proactive ANT-E ← Proactive Co ← Reactivea Ci ← Reactive Ds ← Reactive LSRP-SP ← Reactive ANT-S ← Reactive Proactive ↔ Reactive a Estimate 1.126) AIC 352.75 .046 0.000 1. TABLE 3: Goodness-of-Fit Statistics: Study 3 Model M1 M2 MSL χ2 (N = 521) 312.83) (. 2011 .74*** 11.20 301.70–. the model with the lower AIC value is superior to the model with the higher AIC value (Burnham & Anderson.92 RMSEA (90% CI) .72*** 170.83–.113 (. definite.68 .040 0.65 wAIC . whereas differences of 2-4. *** p < . Whereas the two-dimensional model displayed adequate fit on the CFI and RMSEA.63–.795 0. Standardized residual covariances measure the difference between the sample covariance matrix and the implied covariance matrix. and more than 10 provide weak. five significant discrepancies in the one-factor model. β (90% CI) = standardized coefficient and 90th-percentile biased corrected confidence interval of the standardized coefficient (B = 2. MSL = social learning model (criminal thinking. Goodness-of-fit indices.72–.66*** 16.959 0. There were two significant discrepancies in the two-dimensional model (between ANT-E and ANT-S and between So and LSRP-SP).86 .78 . ΔAIC = difference between AIC values obtained by the different models.75–.059 0.111–.124 (.85*** df 35 34 34 CFI .72) (.80 .85) (.048 38.
Over three quarters of the sample characterized their marital status as single (n = 94. scores on the PAI Inconsistency Scale. federal penitentiary in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. PICTS protocols with more than 10 omitted items. and the PAI Negative Impression Scale were available to assess protocol validity. Ethnically. antisocial personality. The modal confining offense was robbery (27. Asian/Native American. LSRP.2% (n = 6). informed consent was not sought. n = 31). The average participant in this study was 35. As in Study 3.2%) participants.44). White. the results of this study support the hypothesis that self-report measures of psychopathy.8%) and divorced (n = 6. or a Confusion–Revised Scale T-score of more than 100.1470 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR DISCUSSION The results of this third study furnish preliminary support for the hypothesis that two correlated dimensions—proactive and reactive criminality—underpin popular crime-related constructs. it was completed as part of the full PAI in the present study. 30. a PAI Negative Impression Scale T-score of 92 or more. firearms (18. 5. however.22 years of education (SD = 1. n = 2).6%. 5. When direct nonnested comparisons were made (ΔAIC). a PAI Inconsistency Scale T-score of 80 or more. given the clinical nature of the data collection procedures.0%). 13. drugs (22.7%. property crimes (3. 2011 . the two-dimensional model proved superior to both alternate models. n = 26). antisocial personality. Consequently. 62. LSRP. n = 21). and criminal lifestyle. a PICTS Infrequency Scale T-score of 80 or more.S. although institutional review board approval was obtained for the use of these data in research. Hispanic. followed by violent crimes (26. 81. Downloaded from cjb. Whereas the ANT was administered as a stand-alone procedure in Study 3. the PICTS Infrequency Scale.4%. Whether these two dimensions reflect proactive and reactive criminality. STUDY 4 METHOD Participants.03 years of age (SD = 8.7% (n = 2). requires further investigation. with the remainder of the sample being composed of married (n = 16.001) paths between each indicator and its assigned factor (proactive or reactive) and (b) modest to poor absolute fit for the two alternate models (one-factor model.com by guest on September 12. n = 4).4%.2% (n = 35). and lifestyle criminality share two general dimensions. The following were screened out of the sample: PAI protocols with more than 20 omitted items.sagepub. The 10 indicators from the PICTS.1%. and miscellaneous offenses (1. Measures. and ANT of the previous study were employed as indicators in the present investigation.9% (n = 73) of the participants were Black. and ANT as part of the standard intake procedure for a unit-based psychology program held in a U. Results are consistent in showing (a) fair to modest absolute fit for the two-dimensional model and highly significant (p < . and 1. n = 32). although there was one noteworthy administrative difference between the two studies. These criteria resulted in the elimination of two protocols from the present study.49) and had accumulated 11. social learning model) with which the two-dimensional model was compared. Overall. such as psychopathy.7%. in terms of cross-validating these preliminary findings and testing the construct validity of the 10 indicators as measures of proactive and reactive criminality. Participants were 116 maximum-security male inmates who were administered the PICTS.
20 Note. there was evidence of modest fit for the two-dimensional model and generally poor fit for the one-factor and social learning models (see Table 6). skew. Po.09 16. So.20 –1.26 3. Mardia’s (1974) coefficient of multivariate kurtosis reveals significant multivariate kurtosis (CR = 4.17 0. Regression weights and residual covariances.02 0.33 –0. Procedure.20 –1.16 0.20 –1.24 –1.56).34 15.54 0.20 3. however.92 0.02 0. 2011 . standard deviations.44 0.83 5.12 3.05). multivariate kurtosis (CR = 1. one significant standardized residual covariance in the one-factor model.34 14.93 3.01 0. and social learning models were significant at the . and two indicators (Ds.00 0. Eight indicators (Mo.21 –1.84 3.50 3. instead of male inmates from a medium-security federal correctional institution. ANT-S) show signs of significant univariate skew (CR > 1.35 1. The standardized regression coefficients for each path in the two-dimensional model and the 90% bootstrapped CI are also reported. Standard error of skew was . ranges.26 0. display no signs of univariate skew. except that the sample was composed of male inmates from a maximumsecurity penitentiary. or heteroscedasticity.56 0.22 –1.00 0. Standard error of kurtosis was .33 4. standard errors. N = 116.sagepub. b. Goodness-of-fit indices.91 16.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES TABLE 4: Descriptive Statistics for the 10 Indicators in Study 4 1471 Raw Scores Indicator PICTS Mo Co En Po So Ci Ds LSRP-SP ANT-E ANT-S Percentile Ranks Skew a Range M SD Kurtosis b Skewa Kurtosisb 8–24 8–29 8–25 8–24 8–26 8–32 8–30 10–37 0–19 0–17 13. The procedure for the present investigation was identical to that utilized in the first study.02 0.82 20.73 0.41). and no significant standardized residual covariances in the social learning model. Direct comparisons (ΔAIC) between the two-dimensional model and the two competing models indicate strong and very strong Downloaded from cjb.02 –1.00 0.95 13.50 0.82 –0. and CRs for the regression and covariance paths of the 10 indicators. Percentile-rank transformations.53 17.22.23 5. Co.96).89 –0.com by guest on September 12. RESULTS Normality check.30 4. LSRP-SP) dichotomized at the median display significant heteroscedasticity (p < . All CRs in the one-factor.01 0.89 4.36 –0.001 level.86 –0. Table 5 lists the unstandardized regression estimates.19 –1.22 –1. ANT-E.22 –1.56 –0. and kurtosis of the 10 indicator variables.40 –0. Ds. There was one significant standardized residual covariance in the two-dimensional model (between ANT-E and ANT-S).02 0. When goodness-of-fit indices were applied to the three models.00 0. Table 4 lists the means. En.45.00 0. two-dimensional.44 –0.87 5.94 5. Percentile-rank transformations were employed accordingly in this study. a.
9860960 .44 .90 RMSEA (90% CI) .75) (. the absolute fit of the two-dimensional model to the data in this study was less impressive than the relative fit of the two-dimensional model. these findings confirm the hypothesis that a two-dimensional model with proactive and reactive latent dimensions may have value in explaining criminality as assessed by offender self-report.62–.131 — 0.94) Note.34 123.92 .21–.79 . a fifth study was conducted to test the construct validity of the proactive and reactive dimensions of the two-dimensional model.04*** df 35 34 34 CFI .527 448.000 0.41*** β (90% CI) .0127206 Note.60–.80*** 4.067–. Set to 1. 2011 .45 . it still did not answer one very important question: namely.079–. β (90% CI) = standardized coefficient and 90th-percentile biased corrected confidence interval of the standardized coefficient (B = 2. how can we be sure that the two latent factors in the two-dimensional model actually represent proactive and reactive criminality? To answer this question.945 0.55) (. evidence that the two-dimensional model provides a significantly better fit for the data than that of the social learning and one-factor models. where the power to accept models with close fit and reject models with not-close fit both exceeded 0.85 .130 0.113 0.99 SE — 0.71 .60*** 3.1472 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Regression Weights Obtained With the Two-Dimensional Model: Study 4 TABLE 5: Regression Path Mo ← Proactive En ← Proactive Po ← Proactive So ← Proactive ANT-E ← Proactive Co ← Reactivea Ci ← Reactive Ds ← Reactive LSRP-SP ← Reactive ANT-S ← Reactive Proactive ↔ Reactive a Estimate 1.0018332 .085–. respectively.76–. ΔAIC = difference between AIC values obtained by the different models. Estimate = unstandardized regression coefficient.68*** 5. M1 = one-factor model (general dimension).sagepub.76 .85*** — 9.76 114.com by guest on September 12.86 (.78) (.42 0. Even though the present study successfully crossvalidated the relationships observed in Study 3 using a small group of penitentiary inmates.113 82.50–.90.129 0.505 1.131) .57) (. Model = type of model based on number and configuration of factors.129 0.929 0. DISCUSSION The modest shrinkage in absolute goodness-of-fit from Study 3 to Study 4 may have more to do with reduced power than weak theory.110 (. Taken as a whole.141) AIC 127.20*** 6.945 1. Like that of Study 3.70 wAIC . *** p < .001.34*** 81.001.70 .89 . MSL = social learning model (criminal thinking.856 0.38 .145) . no CR possible. a.27–.61–.91) (.114 (.100 0.04 ΔAIC 13.22) than that of the sample in Study 3.69–.00 8. TABLE 6: Goodness-of-Fit Statistics: Study 4 Model M1 M2 MSL χ2 (N = 236) 87. M2 = two-dimensional model (proactive and reactive).76*** 72.541 0. Downloaded from cjb.38*** 4.86) (.76–.80) (.58) (.85) (.36) and reject models with not-close fit (0.099 (. antisocial behavior).95 CR — 7. in comparison to the one-factor and social learning models.90) (.73–.017 0.000 0.29–.000).30*** 7. *** p < .83 . The reason is that the sample in Study 4 had much less power to accept models with close fit (0. with the lowest value set at 0.45*** 10.098 0.64 . wAIC = Akaike weight.
38). 3 left more than 2 items blank on the ANT scale.4% for a miscellaneous offense.4% for violence. respectively. divided into 12 anticipated positive outcomes (acceptance. 68. Of this number. LSRP. 2003) and the Hostile Attribution Bias (HAB) measure. 20 could not read English. the OEC and HAB were administered. The HAB consists of three vignettes similar to situations used in previous studies on hostile attribution biases in children (Dodge. and Asian/Native American. Price. power.26) and mean educational level of 11.90). The second and third vignettes involve being struck in the back with a basketball and being reprimanded by a lieutenant (supervisory staff member) for having one’s shirt Downloaded from cjb. 7 = always). 6. and 3 left 1 or more items blank on the HAB. 2011 . The ethnic breakdown for the sample was as follows: Black. purpose.” A 7-point rating scale is used with the OEC.7%). Participants for the fifth study were male inmates who completed testing during the second half of the year. approval. if they were living in the community and committed the crime “right now. 13. & Newman.0% stating that they were married. the respondent signifies the degree to which he believes the bump was intentional (1 = definitely unintentional. White. freedom. Respondents are each instructed to rate a crime they have committed (i. and ANT.56 years (SD = 9..9%.7%. 23 left more than 2 items blank on the OEC. jail/prison. The OEC lists 16 potential outcomes for crime.e. Walters. when data were being collected for the third study and when a change in policy added two new measures to the standard intake test battery: the Outcome Expectancies for Crime Inventory (OEC. Nearly half the sample was serving time for a drug offense (45. The sum of the ratings from the 12 positive outcome expectancy items constitutes the OEC-POS score (range = 12-84).Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1473 STUDY 5 METHOD Participants. Hispanic. 15.sagepub. 1990) but which take place in an adult correctional facility. and 34. Over three quarters of the sample (77. 3. 2. 3.5%.1%. divorced.48 years (SD = 1. This resulted in a final sample of 291 male inmates. the confining offense or some other criminal act) on the basis of the outcomes they would currently anticipate receiving—that is. There were 356 inmates who were processed into the institution during this 6-month period. 3 produced invalid PICTS protocols (2 left more than 10 items unanswered and 1 had a T-score of more than 100 on the Confusion–Revised Scale). respect. The first vignette asks respondents to interpret the intentions of an inmate who bumps into them as he passes the respondent in the commissary line. and previous research indicates that scores on the OEC-POS fall precipitously as a consequence of an inmate’s involvement in a therapeutic intervention designed to reduce positive outcome expectancies for crime (Walters. security. control. status) and four anticipated negative outcomes (death. and widowed. 3 refused to be tested. love. and 1. In addition to the PICTS. with a mean age of 33. with another 15. 8 experienced significant reading problems or had fewer than 6 years of education.7%. excitement.1% for a property crime. loss of job).com by guest on September 12. 5 = definitely intentional). Measures.4% serving time for robbery. Internal consistency for the OEC-POS was strong in the present sample (α = . reflecting degree of belief in which the outcome will occur across similar situations (1 = never. loss of family.0%. with 13. Using a 5-point Likert-type scale.0%) listed their marital status as single. Bachorowski. 2003). 2 left more than 2 items blank on the LSRP. prestige.
31). Unstandardized regression coefficients and the standardized residual covariances of the comparison between the sample and the implied covariance matrices were computed as CRs in which the regression estimate was divided by the standard error of the estimate (with scores above 1. and ANT-S correlates of HAB-TOT. Po. 2007b). Percentile-rank converted scores on the PICTS.27−. These two vignettes were also rated using the 5-point Likert-type scale previously described. Goodness-of-fit indices.com by guest on September 12. LSRP-SP. RESULTS Regression weights. Po. and ANT-S → HAB-TOT. Internal consistency in the present sample was modest when using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient (α = 54) but moderate when interitem correlations were calculated (r = . Procedure. LSRP. with higher scores indicating greater hostile attributional bias. the AIC was used to assess the relative fit of the two models. and the AIC. it fails to correlate with a putative measure of proactive criminal thinking (En. the CFI. Whereas the CFI and RMSEA were used to assess the absolute fit of the theory-congruent and theoryincongruent models. So. the RMSEA. Ci. The total score for the three vignettes (HAB-TOT) served as an outcome measure in this study (range = 3−15). Initial validation of the HAB shows that although it correlates with a putative measure of reactive criminal thinking (Co). and ANT-S correlates of OEC-POS.0. Ds → HAB-TOT (a negative relationship. MLE was used to estimate the coefficients in an SEM recursive path analysis of proactive and reactive predictors and outcome expectancy and hostile attribution bias outcomes. but whereas the RMSEA value for the theory-incongruent model indicated modest fit. The theory-incongruent model made Mo. denoting better fit for the latter. Four principal fit indices were also calculated: the model chi-square. Moreover. OEC-POS. contrary to predictions). The chi-square was significant for the theory-incongruent model but not for the theory-congruent model. So. four of which were in the predicted direction and one of which was in the opposite direction: So → OEC-POS.1474 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR untucked (when other inmates with untucked shirts are seemingly ignored). En.sagepub. 2011 . and HAB-TOT were fit to two models: a theory-congruent model and a theory-incongruent model. The theory-congruent model made Mo. Walters. Ci. Ds. and ANT-E correlates of OECPOS and Co. ANT. Ds. Co → HAB-TOT. Both models achieved CFI values in the good-fit range. LSRP-SP. En. There were no significant pathways in the theory-incongruent model. Table 8 lists the unstandardized and standardized regression weights for pathways between the predictor variables and the two outcome measures in the theory-incongruent model. and ANT-E correlates of HAB-TOT and Co. Table 9 lists the goodness-of-fit results for the two models. Covariance curves were drawn between each of the predictor variables given the intercorrelated nature of proactive and reactive criminal thinking and behavior.96 denoting a significant effect at the . Table 7 lists the unstandardized and standardized regression weights for the pathways between the predictor variables (five proactive and five reactive) and the two outcome measures in the theory-congruent model. ANT-E → OEC-POS. as computed by Amos 4.05 level). The prediction was that the theory-congruent model would demonstrate significantly better fit than that of the theory-incongruent model. the RMSEA value for the theory-congruent model displayed good fit. the Downloaded from cjb. The results indicate five significant CRs in the theory-congruent model.
012 –0.73 0.056 0.98 RMSEA (90% CI) .15) (–.e.14) (–. There were three discrepancies (CR > 1.98* 0.057 0.073 0.058 0.083 0. **p < .30) (.12–.05.05–. So.26*** df 11 11 CFI 1.73 0.07–. . wAIC = Akaike weight.06.16 –1. Downloaded from cjb.086 0.064 CR 0.19 .046 0.e.67** β (90% CI) . ANT-S.02 .73 1.248 0.00–.162 0.079 0.015 0. . p < .02 .072 0.125 0.000 (.09 .92** 0.095 0.06 172.000).11 (.125) SRC 0 3 AIC 142. .97** 2.25 .0000003 Note.000–. .000).10.19) (–.082 0. SRC = number of significant discrepancies in the standardized residual covariances (p < .19) (–.23) (–. Ci.064 0.114 SE 0.12 .085 0.08.27) Note.24) (. M2 = two-dimensional model in which Mo.55 1.24) (–. ANT-E → OEC-POS.21) (–.126 0. .05.29. En..01. TC = theory congruent (i.21) (.075 0.97 2.02–.047) . β (90% CI) = standardized coefficient and 90th-percentile biased corrected confidence interval of the standardized coefficient (B = 2.074 0.86 1.171 SE 0.19–. .080 0.080 0.11 –.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES TABLE 7: Regression Weights for the Theory-Congruent Model: Study 5 1475 Regression Path Mo → OEC-POS En → OEC-POS Po → OEC-POS So → OEC-POS ANT-E → OEC-POS Co → HAB-TOT Ci → HAB-TOT Ds → HAB-TOT LSRP-SP → HAB-TOT ANT-S → HAB-TOT Estimate 0.com by guest on September 12.02) (–. CR > 1.06 . Po.00–.03–. Estimate = unstandardized regression coefficient.062–. and LSRP-SP make up the reactive dimension.19) (.074 0.05) in the theory-incongruent model (So → OEC-POS.066 0.17 (–..065 CR 1.30) (. .106 –0.08 . TABLE 9: Goodness-of-Fit Statistics: Study 5 Model M2-TC M2-TI χ2 (N = 291) 8.04. TI = theory incongruent (i. * p < .083 0.25) (–.06–.10 1. proactive scales predict OEC-POS and reactive scales predict HAB-TOT).16 .08. TABLE 8: Regression Weights for the Theory-Incongruent Model: Study 5 Regression Path Mo → HAB-TOT En → HAB-TOT Po → HAB-TOT So → HAB-TOT ANT-E → HAB-TOT Co → OEC-POS Ci → OEC-POS Ds → OEC-POS LSRP-SP → OEC-POS ANT-S → OEC-POS Estimate 0.06 .076 0. proactive scales predict HAB-TOT and reactive scales predict OEC-POS).13* 2.05 .078 0.33 –0.001. β (90% CI) = standardized coefficient and 90th-percentile biased corrected confidence interval of the standardized coefficient (B = 2.11. Estimate = unstandardized regression coefficient.05.00 0.13) (–.06 38.97 2. .20 wAIC .190 0.01 –. Ds.17) (–. AIC = Akaike Information Criterion.015 0.39) (–. –. *** p < .20 0.13.75 β (90% CI) .072 0.00 30. ANT-S → HAB-TOT) but no discrepancies in the theory-congruent model.06–. ΔAIC = difference between AIC values obtained by the TC and TI models.26 ΔAIC 0.06 .076 0. upper limit of the 90% RMSEA CI fell in the poor-fit range for the theory-incongruent model and in the good-fit range for the theory-congruent model.92 0.96.13 . and ANT-E make up the proactive dimension and Co.sagepub.07 .96).092 (. .22) Note.10) (–. 2011 .03.079 0.16 .08 .9999997 .19 0.68 0.077 0.163 0.
It was reasoned that if all three constructs are dimensional. antisocial personality. antisocial personality.. reveal that theory-congruent pairings (proactive with outcome expectancies and reactive with hostile attribution biases) achieve significantly better fit than that of theory-incongruent pairings (proactive with hostile attribution biases and reactive with outcome expectancies). 2000). latent structure (Edens et al. Walters. and criminal lifestyle have a dimensional. whereas reactive criminal thinking and behavior are differentially associated with hostile attribution biases. The present results consequently indicate that a two-dimensional model comprising proactive and reactive latent factors may underpin crime-related constructs like psychopathy. The analysis also revealed that the two-dimensional model is superior to the one-factor and social learning models in direct comparisons using the AIC relative fit measure.. the difference between the model AIC values must be calculated. The results of an SEM analysis of self-report data evaluating all three constructs (psychopathy. none of these procedures permit direct model comparison. RMSEA. Marcus et al.1476 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Although the standardized pathway coefficients.com by guest on September 12. and standardized residual covariance results imply that the theory-congruent model fit the data better than the theory-incongruent model. proactive criminal thinking and behavior are differentially associated with positive outcome expectancies for crime. and goodness-of-fit indices.20) furnishes very strong evidence (ΔAIC > 10) that the theory-congruent model fit the data better than the theory-incongruent model. a two-dimensional model with proactive and reactive latent factors was constructed and compared to a one-factor model in which all three constructs were loaded onto a single latent factor and a social learning model composed of two latent factors: criminal thinking and antisocial behavior. 2007a). chi-square. Consistent with prior research on childhood aggression (Crick & Dodge.sagepub. 2011 .. rather than taxonic. 2006. DISCUSSION The results of Study 5 furnish support for the construct validity of a two-dimensional model of crime-related cognition and behavior. To compare the models directly. To test this possibility. classified as proactive or reactive and regressed onto selfreported positive outcome expectancies for crime and hostile attribution biases. criminal lifestyle) in a reasonably sized sample of medium-security male prison inmates and a small cross-validation sample of maximum-security male prison inmates show modest to adequate fit for the two-dimensional model from an analysis of regression weights. 2007b). and ANT. residual covariances. 2006. and adult criminality (Walters. Downloaded from cjb. The difference between AIC values obtained in the present investigation (ΔAIC = 30. juvenile delinquency (Smithmyer et al. and criminal lifestyle while casting doubt on alternate one-factor and social learning models. antisocial personality. A path analysis of 10 predictor variables from the PICTS. These findings furnish preliminary support for the construct validity of the proactive–reactive breakdown proposed by the two-dimensional model. LSRP. GENERAL DISCUSSION The studies described in this article were inspired by research indicating that crimerelated constructs such as psychopathy. 1996). then perhaps they also share one or more dimensions.
from childhood aggression to adult criminality. Correctional assessment and classification should consider both proactive and reactive criminality when evaluating inmates. I would contend that it does not fully account for this correlation. Because reactive criminality leads to more overt and obvious forms of acting-out behavior. Below this would be the proactive and reactive functions of aggression/criminality and. the specific attributions. 1989.90). 2006. it is more likely to be disruptive to the orderly running of a correctional institution. Dodge & Coie. as well as in previous studies on aggressive children (Crick & Dodge. and adult prisoners (Walters. Dodge & Coie. the two dimensions have correlated differentially with positive outcome expectancies for aggression/crime and hostile attribution biases in ways that are consistent with theory and congruent with the construct validity of the individual measures. 1987. 1996). Besides the fact that childhood aggression and adult criminality are dimensional rather than taxonic (Dodge.77 and . Second. 1997. although the majority of correlations cluster between .Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1477 A principal implication of this study is that it provides support for a unified theory of antisocial behavior. however.. antisocial personality. 2007a). in the present study. 1996. The current results also have implications for clinical practice. Price & Dodge. and sociological processes. with a general tendency to aggress against others and violate the rules of society at the top of the hierarchy. Walters & Mandell. Hubbard et al. 2011 . 2007b). First. 2000) and adult criminality (Walters. Grounded in similar neurobiological. Some might argue that this level of intercorrelation makes the dimensions redundant.. Lochman.60 to . Results from the current investigation indicate that the general tendency toward aggression/criminality does not adequately explain the overlap among psychopathy. 2002. and criminal lifestyle and that we need to look to lower levels in the hierarchy (proactive. 1987. values. Whereas there is a strong likelihood that shared method variance is partially responsible for the height of the correlation between proactive and reactive aggression/criminality. 2007b) than that of a one-factor model and a social learning model with cognitive and behavioral factors. Intercorrelations between the PICTS proactive and reactive composite scales. Poulin & Boivin. Dodge et al.com by guest on September 12. Card and Little (2006) assert that correlations between proactive and reactive aggression are largely a consequence of the restricted range of the methods used (i. rating scales in childhood aggression research and self-report measures in the present study). 2000). Walters. there are at least three other points on which the two constructs converge. below that..72 (Walters. Yet whereas reactive criminality did a better job of predicting the total number of disciplinary Downloaded from cjb. expectancies. & Pettit.41 to . However. reactive) to gain a better understanding of the relationships between these three crime-related constructs. 2007). range from .. confirmatory factor analyses indicate that two dimensions—what Dodge and colleagues (Crick & Dodge. The rating scales that have been used to classify children as proactive or reactive have been found to correlate with each other (. and thinking styles that facilitate aggression and criminality. The two-dimensional model being advocated in this article can be considered one level of a larger theory in which aggression and criminality are hierarchically organized. 1992.e.sagepub. juvenile delinquents (Smithmyer et al. proactive and reactive aggression/criminality are structurally. goals. psychological.. 1997) and Walters (2007b) refer to as proactive and reactive— do a better job of accounting for childhood aggression (Poulin & Boivin. and developmentally related. these two dimensions are highly correlated.83 (Day et al. Harnish. Bates. functionally. 2000).
Accordingly. 2005b). are highly correlated dimensions. 2007). it will be important to avoid using a categorical scheme in which inmates are classified as proactive or reactive.1478 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR reports received by prisoners in one study (Walters. Therefore. but few programs address the criminogenic features of proactive criminal thinking.sagepub. the similarities are more apparent than real.and maximum-security federal prisons who were administered a series of self-report questionnaires. Moreover.com by guest on September 12. the two models should not be confused. 2007). & Geyer. and criminal Downloaded from cjb. Ustad. Although the proactive–reactive breakdown that defines the two-dimensional model may seem to parallel the Factor 1–Factor 2 structural breakdown of the PCL-R. In fact. Another practical implication of the present findings is that proactive and reactive criminality may require different forms of intervention. Rogers. 2007). the one original indicator from the present investigation that seems to share the most in common with Factor 1 of the PCL-R (the LSRP-PP) failed to load sufficiently onto the general antisocial behavior factor of the social learning model and demonstrate unambiguous allegiance to either the proactive or reactive factors of the two-dimensional model to justify including it in this series of five studies. Duncan. both forms of criminality should be taken into account. 2002. then perhaps it would indicate that the proactive–reactive differentiation has value in describing behaviors and motivations beyond childhood aggression and adult criminality. the behavioral or chronic antisocial lifestyle component of psychopathy. when evaluating an inmate for programming or classification purposes. Dembo. proactive and reactive scales from both the PICTS (Walters. & Henderson. including the PICTS (see Walters & McCoy. like proactive and reactive childhood aggression. 2011 . Consequently. 2003) consistently correlate better with Factor 2 of the PCL-R/PCL:SV than Factor 1 of the PCL-R/ PCL:SV. All three measures have been used in nonoffender samples. In classifying inmates using the proactive–reactive model. than with Factor 1. most individuals will be high or low on both dimensions. in fact. despite superficial similarities between the proactive and reactive factors of the two-dimensional model and Factors 1 and 2 of the PCL-R. Walters & Mandell. The issue of whether indicators from the PICTS. 1998. Many correctional programs address skill deficits by providing inmates with anger and stress management training (Young. If it can be shown that the present findings generalize to nonoffender populations. proactive criminality will probably require more cognitively oriented interventions in which outcome expectancies for crime and criminal goals are targeted. It will also be important to know whether the current findings generalize to non-self-report measures of psychopathy. The LSRP. Walters. & Sewell. Both components of the two-dimensional model share more in common with Factor 2. antisocial personality. 2008). proactive criminality did a better job of predicting prison-based aggressive behavior in another study (Walters & Mandell. A potential limitation of the current set of studies is that they were conducted on male inmates from medium. Whereas reactive criminality appears to respond to behaviorally oriented skill development techniques and programs (Walters. LSRP. was developed for the express purpose of creating a self-report measure that could be used with nonincarcerated participants (Levenson et al. because research indicates that proactive and reactive criminality.. the personality or callous and remorseless use-of-others component of psychopathy. and ANT apply to nonoffenders is neither moot nor trivial. 1995). 2007) and the ANT (Salekin. A reasonable question at this juncture is whether these results generalize to female offenders and to both male and female nonoffenders.
Such studies.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1479 lifestyle. 1991) as a measure of criminal lifestyle may shed additional light on the validity of the proactive–reactive model. and by creating alternative explanatory models against which the proactive–reactive model can be evaluated. will take decades to complete. Retrospective behavioral measures. Accounting for all the covariances between the predictor variables may have artificially elevated certain fit measures such as the CFI. domestic violence). appraisal. 2011 . researchers can contribute to the development and evaluation of theoretical paradigms such as the two-dimensional model by expanding the focus to other offender and nonoffender populations. White.30. burglary) and reactive crimes (assault. and refinement of theoretical models form the essence of science. however. There is no reason why psychopathy. A study with 291 participants and 11 degrees of freedom has modest power to accept close-fitting models (≈ 0. but once again. the theory-congruent and theory-incongruent models had equivalent power. and criminal lifestyle received moderate support in the present investigation. and the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form (Walters. Gibbon. Conducting a confirmatory factor analysis of individuals administered the PCL-R as a measure of psychopathy. and Study 5 had to be computed with 11 degrees of freedom.41) and reject not-close-fitting models (≈ 0. such as proactive and reactive disciplinary reports. the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II Personality Disorders (First. However. because covariance curves were drawn between each predictor to account for the high degree of intercorrelation between predictors in the two-dimensional model. Diminished power is a limitation shared by Studies 4 and 5. and prospective behavioral measures. were unavailable for a large portion of the participants in this study. requires longitudinal research. Alternate models and explanations—such as a general factor model and a social learning model composed of cognitive and behavioral factors—were evaluated and found to be lacking. Study 5 was also limited by the fact that the outcome measures were exclusively selfreport. Furthermore.com by guest on September 12. & Denney.. A two-dimensional model of criminality believed to underlie such popular crimerelated concepts as psychopathy. such as prior arrests for proactive crimes (robbery. further research is required to determine the generalizability of the present findings. results obtained with male inmates of a medium-security federal prison were cross-validated on a group of male inmates of a maximum-security federal prison. MacCallum et al. & Benjamin. The theoretical value of the two-dimensional model in clarifying the connection between childhood aggression and adult criminality. Study 4 had a sample size of 118. although these measures may be incapable of generating a sufficient number of proactive indicators to conduct the analyses. have proved unreliable and thus require more information about the offense than what is normally available. In short. and the theory-congruent model achieved significantly better fit than that of the theory-incongruent model in direct comparisons between the two models. if they are not already being done. In the meantime. by using validated behavioral outcome measures. and criminal lifestyle cannot individually contribute to our understanding of criminal behavior now that it has been shown that proactive and reactive criminality may account for a certain portion of the variance shared by each. Spitzer. Williams. antisocial personality. with modest shrinkage in model fit. The development.sagepub. 1997) as a measure of antisocial personality. Downloaded from cjb. and the theory-congruent model was clearly the better-fitting model. the theory-congruent and theory-incongruent models shared this same advantage. antisocial personality. 1996).
52. Andrews.). Arbuckle. NJ: Transaction Books. NJ: Prentice Hall. & Mitchell-Perez. (1986). D. (1973). REFERENCES Akaike. Cincinnati. J. 2011 . A. 2007). A. Bandura. Walters. 37-76). Cullen. & Bonta. J. & Jensen. Blevins (Eds. 317-332. Wright. R. Englewood Cliffs. Psychometrika. H. N = 409.com by guest on September 12. T. Duncan. NJ: Prentice Hall. OH: Anderson. Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (Vol. & K. with higher standard errors suggesting a greater likelihood of multidimensionality.02) and facet scores (. AMOS 4. The precision of alpha values for the rationally derived Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles scales are comparable to the precision of alpha values obtained for the factorially derived Psychopathy Checklist–Revised factor (. Precision of alpha is calculated as the standard error of item intercorrelations (Cortina. New Brunswick.sagepub. R. W. L. 1993). Social foundations of thought and action. G. (2006). Englewood Cliffs. present. In F. Empirical status of social learning theory of crime and deviance: The past.05. Factor analysis and AIC. The psychology of criminal conduct (2nd ed. J. (1998)..02–. pp. Bandura. L. (1987). & Wothke. F. Downloaded from cjb.0 user’s guide. Aggression: A social learning analysis.).1480 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Appendix: Abbreviations AIC: Akaike information criterion ANT: Antisocial Features Scale ANT-A: Antisocial Features Scale–Antisocial Behaviors subscale ANT-E: Antisocial Features Scale–Egocentricity subscale ANT-S: Antisocial Features Scale–Stimulus Seeking subscale CFI: comparative fit index CI: confidence intervals CR: critical ratio HAB: Hostile Attribution Bias HAB-TOT: Hostile Attribution Bias–total score from three vignettes LSRP: Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale LSRP-PP: Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–Primary Psychopathy LSRP-SP: Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale–Secondary Psychopathy MLE: maximum likelihood estimation OEC: Outcome Expectancies for Crime Inventory OEC-POS: Outcome Expectancies for Crime Inventory–positive outcome expectancy items PAI: Personality Assessment Inventory PCL-R: Psychopathy Checklist–Revised PCL:SV: Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version PICTS: Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (eight scales) Mo: Mollification Scale Co: Cutoff Scale En: Entitlement Scale Po: Power Orientation Scale Sn: Sentimentality Scale So: Superoptimism Scale Ci: Cognitive Indolence Scale Ds: Discontinuity Scale RMSEA: root mean square error of approximation NOTE 1. 15. Chicago: SPSS/SmallWaters. A. Akers. (1999). and future. P...
).. 131-144.). A. 198-208. A. A. CA: Sage. R. Washington. Bream. C. & Little. S. Ontario. & Bartol. J. P. Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review. G. (1987). 55. J. (2001). Browne. J. C.. P. Sociological Methods and Research. Harnish. & Newman. J. O.. Gibbon. A. Assessment. Palo Alto. A. 107. Ramsden. Levene. The Short-Form Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ-SF): A validation study with federal offenders. Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Hare. (2006). 16. B. E. Kiehl. Hostile attributional biases in severely aggressive adolescents. S. N. Brain and Cognition. D. M. Journal of Applied Psychology. & Cudeck. Lochman. W. P. L. New York: John Wiley. N. & Quinsey. L. J. (2002). J. G. & Magaletta. Downloaded from cjb. Smithmyer. J. Proactive and reactive aggression: An analysis of subtypes based on teacher perceptions.. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. H. A. J. 98-104.. 385-392. & Ruiz.. Ruscio. In I. C. K. T. C. 116. K. (2000). Psychopathy as a taxon: Evidence that psychopaths are a discrete class. 37-51. P. A. D.. G. (2004). J. Dodge. S. (2007). 78-117..com by guest on September 12. consequences. Levenson. M. Canada: Multi-Health Systems. Aggression: Its causes. Crick. P. M. R. Lutz. Harris. 68. A. Marcus. & Coie. Olkin (Ed. Price. The mask of sanity (5th ed. Reactive and proactive aggression in school children and psychiatrically impaired chronically assaultive youth. M. G. (2003). Criminal cognitions and personality: What does the PICTS really measure? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. & Poythress.. Newbury Park.. R. M. (1993). Long (Eds. J. 62. 197-207. K. The Self-Report Psychopathy Scale and passive avoidance learning: A validation study of race and gender effects. J. 23. A. M. C. (1997).). 466-480. Williams. L.. V. P.. 278-292). Social-information processing factors in reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Hubbard. Psychopathic. A. (1996). Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.. B. 73. F. E. Criminal Justice and Behavior. St. 227-240.. (1976). 701-716. Burnham. (1993). (2005). (1996)... & Newman. A taxometric analysis of the latent structure of psychopathy: Evidence for dimensionality. 30. Model selection and multi-model inference: A practical–information–theoretic approach (2nd ed. Diamond. Richardson. B. 238-246.. Smith. (1994). 210-217. R. A. 106.. 13. 99. D. First.sagepub. Assessment. A. 993-1002. M. & Anderson. Practical issues in structural modeling. R. D. & Fitzpatrick. 115. Contributions to probability and statistics: Essays in honor of Harold Hotelling (pp. J.. M. et al. 13. K. CA: Sage. Cortina. P. In K. not psychopath: Taxometric evidence for the dimensional structure of psychopathy. 136-162). & Pal. V. Edens. & Anderson.. S. K.. A.. M. 151-158. R. Child Development. Edens. & Benjamin. J. W. Bollen & J. DC: American Psychiatric Press. Introduction to forensic psychology. R. Dodge. (2006). M. 25-54. (1990). International Journal of Behavioral Development.. M. Parker. J. L. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2011 . and self-report measures of children’s anger: Relations to reactive versus proactive aggression. R. B. 170-184. M. R. O... 273-279. M. (2002). Epstein. Alternative ways of assessing model fit... Day.). J. Psychological Bulletin. R. What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. (2001).. & Hare. (2006). Card. F.. (1960). Robust tests for the equality of variance. D.. New York: Guilford. R. K. (2005). The roles of orbital frontal cortex in the modulation of antisocial behavior.. (Ed. Hare. Toronto.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1481 Bartol. Thousand Oaks. A. D. Psychopathy: A construct whose time has come.. M. C.. K. (1997). L. Poythress. Spitzer. 108. R. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. E. Goldstein. Observational.. K.. 31. Testing structural equation models (pp. Knight..).. T. J. Social information-processing mechanisms in reactive and proactive aggression. M.). Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Klein.. 53. Dearing. Louis: Mosby. Schmitt. Blair. D. K. 10. 21. K. (1992). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.. R. Berkowitz. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. D. M... N. R. & Blair. Bentler. M. 78. Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy Scale measure the same construct as Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist–Revised? Personality and Individual Differences. Child Development. Bates. R. (2006). 1021-1038.. K. Bushman. & Brandon. Proactive and reactive aggression in childhood and adolescence: A meta-analysis of differential relations with psychosocial adjustment. 1101-1118. Rice. Dodge. Brinkley. E. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.. Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Axis II personality disorders (SCID-II). Cleckley.). A. & Chou. Lilienfeld. Egan.. Bentler. C. The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised manual (2nd ed. D. (1993). M. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Forensic psychology: Emerging topics and expanding roles. 387-397. M. & Pettit.. Flanagan. New York: Springer-Verlag. & Dodge. S. 67. CA: Stanford University Press. A.. (2007). (1987).-P. D. A. J. 1146-1158. (2004). (1995). Bachorowski. H. (1990). PAI Interpretive Report for Correctional Settings (PAI-CS) professional manual. A. physiological. McMurran. F. H. P. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. Guay. and control.. N. S. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.
John. G. Pryce. (1998). R. Criminal Justice and Behavior. (1995). 35. 12. M. K. S. J.. (2005a).. D. W. FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. (2003). D. (2006). R. How many factors are there on the PICTS? Criminal Behaviour and Mental Health. (2007b). & Sugawara. (2007). Personality and Individual Differences. K. S. M. Law and Human Behavior. G. Taxometric analysis of the Levenson SelfReport Psychopathy scale. Deviant children grown up.. D. A. & Fowler. M. 17. The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles: Part I. W. & Andrews. 4. G. (2002). P. J. (2008). 382-393. 626-635. 48. D. Walters.).. Geyer. G.. The trouble with psychopathy as a general theory of crime. Marcus. 115-128. & Poythress. 133-148. Lilienfeld. 86-93. Poulin. 1571-1582. 50. Inference and statistics in SPSS. (1999). and promises. P.. Lutz.sagepub. Magaletta. & Szyarto. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychology and Law Society. G. 74. Upper Saddle River. D. (2006). A. K. J. UK: GeeBeyJey. K. Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. Brinkley. Ruscio.. G. O. 107-132). The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS): A review and meta-analysis. & Duncan. & Geyer.). Price. S. (2004. Walters. D. New York: Guilford. (2006). Lilienfeld. G. Psychological Methods. & Simons. Journal of Personality Assessment. 1623-1637. 15. (2005b). G. Marcus. Psychometric properties of self-report psychopathy measures. J. A. Smithmyer. M. F. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2000). Criminal Justice and Behavior. S. V. Walters. & Poythress. K. A.. Assessment. Is antisocial personality disorder continuous or categorical? A taxometric analysis. 371-385. Journal of Forensic Psychiatry and Psychology. 29. PA: Center for Lifestyle Studies. Walters. Glasgow. Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. 455-471. Anger management training in incarcerated male offenders: Differential impact on proactive and reactive criminal thinking. & Diamond. Walters. (2007a). Mardia. K... N. N. G. 113. N. P.. 22. Taxometric analysis of the Antisocial Features Scale of the Personality Assessment Inventory in federal prison inmates. (2004). Journal of Abnormal Psychology. Walters. 307-325.. D. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology. Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of psychopathic personality traits in noncriminal populations. J. (2003). Introduction to the taxometric method: A practical guide. 691-701.. E. A. Reactive and proactive aggression in childhood: Relations to peer status and social context dimensions.. Edens. (1996). A. D. 266-275. (1995). Predicting disciplinary adjustment in inmates undergoing forensic evaluation: A direct comparison of the PCL-R and PAI. 351-360.. Psychological Medicine. K. 14. Applications of some measures of multivariate skewness and kurtosis in testing normality and robustness studies. March). D. The self-report assessment of psychopathy: Problems. J. Psychopathy and recidivism among female inmates. G. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. (2006). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Walters. N. Worzel... & Boivin. P. Hubbard. D. L. G. Skeem. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. R. S. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins. Psychological Assessment. (2000). T.. R.. O. NJ: Prentice Hall. P. G. G. Allentown. J. Changes in outcome expectancies and criminal thinking following a brief course of psychoeducation. (1998). Ustad.. Reliability and preliminary validity. Human learning (3rd ed.. 2011 . F. Manuscript submitted for publication. F. Ormrod. D. Robins. AZ. In C. Magaletta. (in press). 130-149.. Duncan. F. & Sewell. Browne. H. Lilienfeld. 192-210. P. 109-128. & Edens. pitfalls. O. L. (2004). 34. E.. (1996). MacCallum.com by guest on September 12.1482 CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND BEHAVIOR Lilienfeld. Haslam. D. B. Scottsdale. L. G. Reactive and proactive aggression: Evidence of a two-factor model. G. Mahwah. D. J. S. Rogers. C. 9. C. 1. A. D. G. 22. M. M. (2005).. 278-291. C. J. (1974). 22. The latent structure of the criminal lifestyle: A taxometric analysis of the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. M.. A taxometric analysis of psychopathic personality. McHoskey. The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): Professional manual (2nd ed. Walters. W. Walters. Walters. L. C. Diamond. The Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles (PICTS) professional manual. R. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology. L. S. Handbook of psychopathy (pp. Salekin. (1989). D. Measuring proactive and reactive criminal thinking with the PICTS: Correlations with outcome expectancies and hostile attribution biases. M... Predicting institutional adjustment with the Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form and Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles. 273-283.. 14. 66. Sankhya. O.. 36. Walters. R. (2007). (1966). M. Journal of Interpersonal Violence.). Journal of Personality Assessment. Downloaded from cjb. D. Walters. 63-70. C... American Psychologist. D. 488-524. Meehl. W. 36B. Patrick (Ed. Assessment. Walters. Proactive and reactive aggression in delinquent adolescents: Relations to aggression outcome expectancies. Morey. M. 115-122. & Ruscio. & Dodge.
Gender. & Henderson. Pennsylvania. He has published more than 180 articles and book chapters and is the author of 14 books. A taxometric analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version (PCL:SV): Further evidence of dimensionality. Psychological Assessment. S. Can percentiles replace raw scores in the statistical analysis of test data? Educational and Psychological Measurement. A. Downloaded from cjb. D. Frick. New York: John Wiley. Multivariate Behavioral Research. (1986). G. W. D. Criminal Justice and Behavior. Gray. (2007). The handbook of forensic psychology (3rd ed. 2011 . 32. G. (1999). D. R. R. Zwick.. Walters. (2007). Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment. The latent structure of psychopathy: A taxometric investigation of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised in a heterogeneous sample of male prison inmates. 781-793. T. 19. Young. W. and development of an overarching theory of criminal behavior. Walters. including The Criminal Lifestyle (1990). C. currently serves as drug program coordinator at the Federal Correctional Institution. D. P... W. Law and Human Behavior. & Mitchell-Perez.. Rank and normal scores alternatives to Hotelling’s T2. Walters. Rogers. K. 14.. J. 406-418. D. Criminal Belief Systems (2002). D. Jackson.. Wilson. 221-235. Taylor. 255-266.. & McCoy... E.. 65. Assessment. L.. R.Walters / FACTOR AND PATH ANALYSIS OF SELF-REPORT MEASURES 1483 Walters. G. 18. D. Zimmerman. J. & Mandell. substance abuse. I. Dembo. Walters. C. (2005). His research interests fall into three areas: the genetic correlates of crime. Present. and Lifestyle Theory: Past. 330-339. and psychopathic traits in a college sample. B. K. G.. The Lifestyle Criminality Screening Form: Preliminary data.. Duncan. & Hess. & Denney. Glenn D. (2006).. and problem gambling. G. Incremental validity of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles and Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version in predicting disciplinary outcome. D. L. et al. & Zumbo. with an emphasis on criminal thinking and psychopathy.sagepub. (1991).). socialization.com by guest on September 12. Walters. and Future (2006). Taxometric analysis of the Psychological Inventory of Criminal Thinking Styles in incarcerated offenders and college students. 169-186. Criminal Justice and Behavior. N.. D. (2007). (2007). (2007). W. 21. Sewell. 616-638. B. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment. Weiner. R. Schuylkill. (Eds. 21. PhD. 141-157. 270-278. W. K. 34.. D. & Clements. K.. S. White. A. psychological assessment of offenders..). 31. A national survey of substance abuse treatment for juvenile offenders. B.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?