Psychological Assessment

A Comparison of Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy

Among Nonforensic Samples Using Item Response
Theory Analyses
Siny Tsang, Randall T. Salekin, C. Adam Coffey, and Jennifer Cox
Online First Publication, April 13, 2017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000481

CITATION
Tsang, S., Salekin, R. T., Coffey, C. A., & Cox, J. (2017, April 13). A Comparison of Self-Report
Measures of Psychopathy Among Nonforensic Samples Using Item Response Theory Analyses.
Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000481
 Psychological Assessment © 2017 American Psychological Association
2017, Vol. 1, No. 2, 000 1040-3590/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000481

A Comparison of Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy Among

Nonforensic Samples Using Item Response Theory Analyses

Siny Tsang Randall T. Salekin, C. Adam Coffey, and

Columbia University Jennifer Cox
University of Alabama

This study investigated how well components of the psychopathy trait are measured among college
students with the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP), the Personality Assessment
Inventory–Antisocial Features Scale (PAI ANT), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Short Form
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(PPI-SF), and the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-II (SRP-II). Using Samejima (1969)’s graded response
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

model (GRM), the subscales were found to vary in their ability to measure the corresponding latent traits.
The LSRP primary psychopathy factor is more precise in measuring the latent trait than the secondary
psychopathy factor. The PAI ANT items show coherent psychometric properties, whereas the PPI-SF
factors differ in their precision to measure the corresponding traits. The SRP-II factors are effective in
discriminating among individuals with varying levels of the latent traits. Results suggest that multiple
self-report measures should be used to tap the multidimensional psychopathy construct. However, there
are concerns with respect to using negatively worded items to assess certain aspects of psychopathy.

Public Significance Statement

This study examines the item properties of 4 self-report measures of psychopathy among college
students, with results showing that the factors in the instruments differ in their ability to measure the
respective latent traits. Findings suggest that multiple measures should be used to tap the multidi-
mensional concept of psychopathy, and raise concerns regarding the use of negatively worded items
to assess certain aspects of psychopathy.

Keywords: psychopathy, item response theory, self-report psychopathy measure

Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000481.supp

Conceptualized as a personality disorder with distinctive
interpersonal-affective and behavioral characteristics, the majority
of research on the latent trait of psychopathy was conducted
among forensic samples using the Psychopathy Checklist (PCL;
Hare, 1980) and its revision, the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
(PCL-R; Hare, 1991, 2003). Earlier factor analytic studies of the
PCL and the PCL-R among adult samples suggested the latent
psychopathy trait is underpinned by a two-factor structure, reflect-
ing interpersonal/affective traits and antisocial behavioral charac-
teristics (e.g., Hare, 1980, 1991; Harpur, Hare, & Hakstian, 1989).
However, subsequent research has suggested a three-factor model
that excluded the antisocial behavior items (Cooke & Michie,
2001), and a four-factor model (Hare, 2003; Vitacco, Roger,
Siny Tsang, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University; Ran-
dall T. Salekin, C. Adam Coffey, and Jennifer Cox, Department of Psy-
chology, University of Alabama.
This study was partially supported by the research training grant
5-T32-MH 13043 from the National Institute of Mental Health.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Siny
Tsang, Department of Epidemiology, Columbia University, New York, NY
10032. E-mail: siny.tsang@columbia.edu
1
Neumann, Harrison, & Vincent, 2005), which reincorporated an-
tisocial content. In addition to the controversies of the number of
dimensions underlying the construct of psychopathy (Neumann,
Kosson, & Salekin, 2007), concerns have been raised regarding
whether antisocial behavior should be included as a core feature of
the latent psychopathy trait (Hare & Neumann, 2010; Skeem &
Cooke, 2010).
In response to the burgeoning interest in the study of the
psychopathy trait among nonforensic populations (e.g., commu-
nity, college), a number of self-report psychopathy measures have
been developed, including the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995), the antisocial
features subscale in the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI
ANT; Morey, 2007), the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–
Short Form (PPI-SF; Lilienfeld, 1990), and the Self-Report
Psychopathy-II (SRP-II; Hare, Harpur, & Hemphill, 1989). As
self-report measures of psychopathy become more widely avail-
able, they are increasingly used in research studies. In fact, among
the psychopathy studies published between 2000 and February
2014, more than half of the studies did not include the PCL-R
and/or its variants in their abstracts or keywords, suggesting that
self-report psychopathy measures may have been used instead of
the PCL-R and its variants (Kelsey, Rogers, & Robinson, 2014). A
 2 TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX
brief review of the four self-report psychopathy measures is pro-
vided below.
Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy
The 26-item LSRP was developed to measure psychopathy in
noninstitutionalized samples; two factors were generated from
initial factor analysis, representing primary and secondary psy-
chopathy (Levenson et al., 1995). Primary psychopaths are posited
to be manipulative, callous, and extremely selfish, whereas sec-
ondary psychopaths tend to be impulsive and engage in antisocial
behavior (Karpman, 1948). However, later studies were unable to
replicate the original two-factor structure of the LSRP without
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
modification (Brinkley, Schmitt, Smith, & Newman, 2001; Ly-
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
nam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999). Recently, a three-factor structure
proposed to measure egocentricity, callousness, and antisocial
features, using 19 of the 26 LSRP items, was found to fit well
among samples of incarcerated inmates (Brinkley, Diamond,
Magaletta, & Heigel, 2008; Sellbom, 2011), college students
(Brinkley et al., 2008; Salekin, Chen, Sellbom, Lester, & Mac-
Dougall, 2014; Sellbom, 2011), and community participants
(Somma, Fossati, Patrick, Maffei, & Borroni, 2014). Despite
promising model fit indices, the convergent and discriminant va-
lidity of the three-factor model remains questionable, whereas the
convergent and discriminant validity of the two-factor model holds
some value (Salekin et al., 2014).
To the best of our knowledge, only two published studies have
examined the psychometric properties of the LSRP with an item
response theory (IRT) framework. Gummelt, Anestis, and Carbo-
nell (2012) found that the LSRP items vary in their ability to
distinguish among undergraduate students with varying levels of
psychopathy, with more than half of the items demonstrating
differential item functioning (DIF) between genders. Using a Bra-
zilian community sample, Hauck-Filho and Teixeira (2014) eval-
uated the extent to which items in the primary and secondary
psychopathy subscales fit the Unidimensional Rating Scale model
(RSM; Andrich, 1978). Results showed support for the two-factor
model in this sample, with minimal DIF between genders. How-
ever, the authors did not further explore whether certain items are
better or worse at discriminating respondents with varying levels
of the latent trait.
The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991,
2007) is a multiscale self-report instrument designed to measure an
array of psychopathological constructs. Among the 11 PAI clinical
scales, the Antisocial Features Scale (ANT) consists of items that
assess features of antisocial personality, psychopathy, and crimi-
nality. Developed using Cleckley (1941) and Hare’s (1980, 1991)
conceptualizations of the disorder, the PAI ANT emphasizes the
personological features of the disorder (Morey, 2003), making the
scale a favorable choice when assessing psychopathic characteris-
tics in a nonoffending population. As with all the PAI subscales,
the ANT items were written at a relatively low reading level
(fourth grade), making it appealing for use in a wide variety of
settings (Morey, 1996), especially when assessing psychopathy
traits among community samples. Although there is limited re-
search evaluating the ANT as a measure of psychopathy, the scale
was found to have adequate psychometric properties (Morey,
2007; Siefert, Sinclair, Kehl-Fie, & Blais, 2009). Among offend-
ers, ANT was reported to be positively associated with the total
PCL-R and PPI scores, though the correlations were mainly driven
by the antisocial/lifestyle factor (Edens, Hart, Johnson, Johnson, &
Olver, 2000; Edens, Poythress, & Watkins, 2001). In addition, the
ANT subscales were found to be associated with other self-report
psychopathy measures among community samples (Benning, Pat-
rick, Salekin, & Leistico, 2005; Salekin, Trobst, & Krioukova,
2001).
Lilienfeld (1990) developed the Psychopathic Personality In-
ventory (PPI) to measure central psychopathy characteristics in
nonclinical samples. The 187 self-report items assess eight factor-
analytically developed domains of psychopathy: (a) blame exter-
nalization, (b) social potency, (c) Machiavellian egocentricity, (d)
fearlessness, (e) coldheartedness, (f) impulsive nonconformity, (g)
stress immunity, and (h) carefree nonplanfulness. Selecting the
seven items that had the highest factor loadings on each of the
eight dimensions, an abbreviated version of the PPI, the 56-item
PPI-SF, was constructed (see Lilienfeld, 1990). Subsequent studies
showed that the eight PPI-SF domains can be combined into two
higher order dimensions paralleling the two-factor structure of the
PCL-R, however, the PPI-SF two-factor models derived have not
always been consistent (e.g., Benning, Patrick, Hicks, Blonigen, &
Krueger, 2003; Lilienfeld, 1990; Smith, Edens, & Vaughn, 2011;
Wilson, Frick, & Clements, 1999). Although the PPI-SF was found
to be highly correlated with the original version with adequate to
high internal consistencies (Lilienfeld & Hess, 2001), concerns
have been raised regarding the item selection process for the
PPI-SF. For example, the underlying latent trait may be underrep-
resented by the abbreviated scales (Smith, McCarthy, & Anderson,
2000), and rarely endorsed items that are highly discriminating at
either ends of the latent trait continuum may be excluded (Tonnaer,
Cima, Sijtsma, Uzieblo, & Lilienfeld, 2012).
Adapted from the first version of the Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale (SRP; Hare et al., 1989), the 60-item SRP-II was revised to
parallel the two factors in the PCL-R (Hare, 1991), with items
designated to measure interpersonal/affective features (nine items),
social deviance characteristics (13 items), and both domains (nine
items). However, there is limited research examining the factor
structure of the SRP-II in community populations, and among
those, results have been mixed. Although some studies identified a
two-factor structure of the SRP-II, these models failed to mirror
the structure of the PCL-R from which the SRP-II was derived
(e.g., Benning et al., 2005; Williams & Paulhus, 2004). After
making substantial revisions to the SRP-II, a four-factor solution
that parallels the four-factor model of the PCL-R was proposed
(Williams, Paulhus, & Hare, 2007). More recently, Lester, Salekin,
and Sellbom (2013) proposed a rationally derived four-factor
model from exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. This
36-item four-factor SRP-II maps well onto the PCL-R’s four-
factor structure, assessing features of interpersonal, disinhibition/
impulsivity, fearlessness, and coldheartedness. Although a third
edition of the SRP has been developed (Paulhus, Neumann, &
Hare, in press), this revision focused on adding items to assess
antisocial behavior (Williams, Nathanson, & Paulhus, 2003),
which is less relevant in nonforensic samples. The SRP-II has been
found to remain useful in tapping the Cleckley psychopathic
personality among nonforensic samples (Lester, Salekin, & Sell-
bom, 2013).
Collectively, the majority of the research on self-report psy-
chopathy measures has focused on evaluating how well the self-
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT
report instruments map onto the factor structures of the PCL-R,
and investigating whether correlates of psychopathic traits are
similar among forensic and nonforensic populations. Thorough
examination of how individual items function within these self-
report measures of psychopathy has been lacking. With the excep-
tion of one study investigating the item properties of the LSRP
(Hauck-Filho & Teixeira, 2014), we are unaware of any published
IRT studies that examined the psychometric properties of the PAI
ANT, PPI-SF, or SRP-II. Thus, whether self-report items assessing
psychopathy among community populations are able to assess the
different components of the psychopathy trait remains unknown.
As these psychopathy measures rely on individuals’ self-reports,
rather than trained clinicians’ assessments, it is critical to investi-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
gate if some items are more sensitive to varying levels of the latent
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
trait than others, and whether certain items are more frequently
endorsed than others.
The Current Study
In the present study, we utilized data from a large undergraduate
student sample in which participants completed four self-report
measures of psychopathy to explore how well the underlying trait
of psychopathy is measured by each self-report instrument. Using
an item response theory (IRT) approach, we attempted to answer
two main questions:
1. Assuming the subscales within each instrument are mea-
suring components of the underlying psychopathy trait,
are the different domains of psychopathy measured
equally well by the different subscales within an instru-
ment?
2. As the four self-report instruments were developed to
assess characteristics indicative of the latent psychopathy
trait, are the latent constructs measured with different
self-report instruments similar to one another?
To answer the first question, we examined (a) whether the items
in different subscales (within the same instrument) are similarly
discriminating; and (b) the range of the latent trait in which the
items were positively endorsed. An optimal instrument for assess-
ing the features indicative of the underlying psychopathy trait
should mostly consist of items that are discriminating, as well as
items that are endorsed in a wide range on the latent trait contin-
uum. We aim to investigate whether certain subscales in the
self-report psychopathy instruments are better at assessing features
associated with the psychopathy trait, and whether the use of
subscales can tap a broad range of psychopathic tendencies among
nonforensic samples.
The second question is addressed by examining the extent to
which the subscales (within and between different instruments) are
associated with one another. For respondents who completed all
four self-report measures, we explored such relations using (a) the
total scores on each subscale computed by summing the item
scores in each corresponding subscale, and (b) the underlying
latent trait estimated from the item response theory analysis for
each subscale. We expected moderate to strong correlations be-
tween subscales from different instruments that are assessing sim-
ilar domain.
3
Method
Participants
The current study is a secondary data analysis of data collected
from 1,257 (378 men, 869 women) undergraduate students en-
rolled in a southeastern university in the United States (see Lester
et al., 2013), with ages between 17- and 51-years-old (M ⫽ 19.3,
SD ⫽ 2.3). Most participants self-identified as Caucasians
(81.54%), with 10.90% African Americans, and 5.01% of other
racial/ethnic groups. Participants received course credit in ex-
change for their participation in the initial study. The study was
approved by the Institutional Review Board at the university (IRB
#02-JCH-037).
Measures
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale (LSRP). The
LSRP (Levenson et al., 1995) is a 26-item instrument modeled
after the PCL-R items; each item was scored on a 4-point ordinal
scale (1 ⫽ disagree strongly, 2 ⫽ disagree somewhat, 3 ⫽ agree
somewhat, 4 ⫽ agree strongly). Initial factor analysis showed that
the LSRP consists of 16 items measuring the manipulative and
uncaring attitude of primary psychopathy (PP), and 10 items
assessing impulsivity and antisocial lifestyle of secondary psy-
chopathy (SP).1
Personality Assessment Inventory-Antisocial Features Scale
(PAI ANT). The 24-item PAI ANT Scale (Morey, 2007) can be
divided into three factors of eight items each, assessing antisocial
behavior (A), egocentricity (E), and stimulus seeking (S). Each
item was rated on a 4-point scale (0 ⫽ false/not at all true, 1 ⫽
somewhat true, 2 ⫽ mainly true, 3 ⫽ very true).
Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form (PPI-SF).
The 56-item PPI-SF consists of items that have the highest factor
loadings on the original PPI (Lilienfeld, 1990). The PPI-SF is
comprised of eight 7-item factors: blame externalization (BE),
social potency (SP), Machiavellian (ME), fearlessness (F), cold-
heartedness (C), impulsive nonconformity (IN), stress immunity
(SI), and carefree nonplanfulness (CN). Each item was scored on
a 4-point scale (1 ⫽ false, 2 ⫽ mostly false, 3 ⫽ mostly true, 4 ⫽
true).
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-II (SRP-II). The SRP-II
(Hare et al., 1989) includes a total of 60 items, in which each item
was scored on a 7-point scale (1 ⫽ disagree strongly, 2 ⫽ disagree
moderately, 3 ⫽ disagree slightly, 4 ⫽ neutral, 5 ⫽ agree slightly,
6 ⫽ agree moderately, 7 ⫽ agree strongly). A rationally derived
36-item four-factor model (Lester et al., 2013) was adopted in this
study. The four factors are interpersonal (IP ⫽ 16 items), disinhi-
bition/impulsivity (DI ⫽ nine items), fearlessness (F ⫽ five items),
and coldheartedness (C ⫽ six items).
IRT Model
Considering that ordinal response categories are used in all four
self-report measures of psychopathy, Samejima’s (1969) graded
1
Due to technical error, one item measuring secondary psychopathy
(Item 17: “I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time”) was
not included in this dataset. However, our findings with respect to the
LSRP would likely not be different if the missing item had been included.
 4 TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX
response model (GRM) was used. In the GRM, each item i with
mi ⫹ 1 response categories is described by a slope parameter (␣i)
and j ⫽ 1 . . . mi category threshold parameters (␤ij). The estimated
parameters can be represented graphically as category response
curves (CRCs), where the number of CRCs corresponds to the
number of response categories for each item i. The ␣i parameter
can be considered as a discrimination parameter; it reflects how
quickly the expected item score varies as a function of the latent
trait level (Embretson & Reise, 2000). An item with a larger ␣ has
more narrow and peaked CRCs, whereas the CRCs of an item with
a smaller ␣ are flatter. The category thresholds (␤ij parameters)
indicate the underlying trait levels needed to respond above the
corresponding thresholds with 50% probability, which are re-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
flected by the intersection points between two consecutive CRCs
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
for item i, at which the probability of the next response category
(mi) becomes equally likely as the previous category (mi-1).
The probability that a respondent’s score (x) on item i is at or
above a category threshold (j ⫽ 1. . . mi), conditional on the latent
trait level (␪), is computed as
exp关␣i(␪ ⫺ ␤ij)兴
*
Pix(␪) ⫽ , ent domains of the psychopathy measures. This information can
1 ⫹ exp[␣i(␪ ⫺ ␤ij)]
where x ⫽ j ⫽ 1 . . ., mi. The probabilities of a respondent scoring
in each response category conditional on the latent trait level are
estimated separately as
*
Pix(␪) ⫽ Pix
*
(␪) ⫺ Pi(x⫹1)
*
(␪).
As the LSRP, PAI ANT, and PPI-SF are scored on a 4-point
ordinal scale, three ␤ij parameters are estimated for each item in
these measures. Six ␤ij parameters are estimated for each of the
SRP-II items, corresponding to the seven response categories. All
GRM analyses were performed using Mplus version 7.4 (Muthén
& Muthén, 1998 –2012).
In IRT, the precision of measurement at different levels of the latent
trait can be estimated with information functions (Embretson, 1996).
Conceptually, item information function can be computed by taking
the inverse of the square of the standard error of estimate (Baker,
1992; Nunnally & Bernstein, 1994). The sum of the corresponding
item information functions in a scale constitutes a test information
function (TIF), which reflects the collective measurement precision
provided by the items that make up the scale (Bolt, Hare, Vitale, &
Newman, 2004). The TIFs can also be graphically presented as test
information curves (TICs), where the amount of information provided
by a scale is plotted against the latent trait continuum. Across the
latent trait continuum, locations in which the scale is precise in
measuring the latent construct are reflected by high TICs, whereas the
TICs are low in locations where the scale is not very precise. A TIC
with a narrow peak suggests that the scale is precise, or able to
distinguish respondents above or below a certain latent trait level, but
not as precise at the extremes. On the other hand, a TIC that is smooth
and flat indicates that the scale is able to measure respondents across
a wide range of latent trait level with similar precision.
Comparisons Across Measures
Mann–Whitney U tests and Kruskal-Wallis H tests are used to
compare the estimated IRT parameters (␣is and ␤ijs) across the
self-report measures. Nonparametric tests are used as there is no
underlying assumption that the residuals of the estimated IRT
parameters follow a normal distribution.
The differences in measurement precision across measures are
explored through inspection of the TIFs and TICs. We examined
the amount of information provided by different measures, as well
as the ranges of the latent trait in which various instruments are
better at assessing the respective latent traits.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive statistics of the self-report measures are presented in
Table 1. For each of the self-report psychopathy measures in this
study, a total score can be computed, with higher scores represent-
ing higher levels of psychopathy traits. Because these self-report
measures of psychopathy were initially developed with varying
factor structures to tap different components in the psychopathy
construct, factor scores can also be generated by summing the
items in each factor, reflecting strengths of endorsement in differ-
also be located in Table 1.
Unidimensionality
It should be noted that evaluating the factor structures of the
self-report measures was not the primary goal of the present study.
Although the self-report measures are all assumed to assess the
underlying psychopathy construct, all four measures have been
proposed to consist of correlated factor structures. Confirmatory
factor analyses (CFAs) were used to examine whether the unidi-
mensional models are better fit than the theoretically driven factor
models. For the LSRP, PAI ANT, and PPI-SF, the original factor
structures were tested. The factor structure of the SRP-II was
previously examined with the sample used in the current study
(Lester et al., 2013); neither Hare et al.’s (1989) original two-factor
model nor Benning, Patrick, Salekin, and Leistico (2005); 23-item
two-factor model was found to achieve adequate fit in this sample.
Thus, Lester et al.’s (2013) rationally derived 36-item four-factor
model was used to test against a unidimensional SRP-II model.
Across all four self-report measures, the factor models showed
better fit than the unidimensional model; model fit indices are
presented in supplementary material Appendix 1, Table 1.
We further examined the unidimensionality of each factor
with the self-report measures using two criteria: (a) principal
component analyses (PCAs) with polychoric correlations, and
(b) the fit of a one-factor model to the polychoric correlation
matrix. The first three eigenvalues (␭1, ␭2, and ␭3) from the
PCAs are shown in Table 2. Using the UNIDI index: (␭1 ⫺
␭2)/(␭2 ⫺ ␭3) ⬎ 5 (Martínez Arias, 1995, p. 297), all but three
of the factors (LSRP’s SP, ANT-E, and PPI-SF’s CN) showed
good support of unidimensionality. One-factor models were fit
using the diagonally weighted least squares estimator in the
“lavaan” package (Rosseel, 2012). Goodness of fit was assessed
using comparative fit index (Bentler, 1990), Tucker-Lewis in-
dex (Tucker & Lewis, 1973), and root-mean-square error of
approximation index (Steiger, 1990). With the exception of
three factors (LSRP’s SP, ANT-E, and PPI-SF’s CN), all factors
achieved good fit on at least two of the fit indices. Subsequent
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT 5

Table 1
Descriptive Statistics of Four Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy and Their Subscales

Scale Measure Items Mean (SD) Min Max

LSRP Primary psychopathy 16 29.44 (8.07) 16 60

Secondary psychopathyⴱ 9 19.77 (4.46) 9 35
Total 25 49.20 (10.74) 25 89
PAI ANT Antisocial behavior 8 7.53 (5.22) 0 24
Egocentricity 8 5.49 (3.80) 0 24
Stimulus seeking 8 8.18 (4.72) 0 24
Total 24 21.23 (11.33) 0 71
PPI-SF Blame externalization 7 14.60 (4.48) 7 28
Social potency 7 20.15 (4.18) 7 28
Machiavellian 7 14.94 (3.64) 7 27
Fearlessness 7 15.64 (5.04) 7 28
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Coldheartedness 7 13.84 (3.19) 7 27

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Impulsive nonconformity 7 13.80 (3.69) 7 27

Stress immunity 7 18.15 (4.28) 7 28
Carefree nonplanfulness 7 12.89 (3.12) 7 24
Total 56 124.04 (14.88) 84 187
SRP-II Interpersonal 16 62.57 (15.72) 20 109
Disinhibition/Impulsivity 9 22.38 (9.51) 9 61
Fearlessness 5 19.82 (6.54) 5 35
Coldheartedness 6 14.55 (6.37) 6 36
Total 36 119.31 (28.52) 45 233
Note. LSRP ⫽ Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; PAI ANT ⫽ Personality Assessment Inventory—
Antisocial Features Scale; PPI-SF ⫽ Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; SRP-II ⫽ Self- Report
Psychopathy Scale-II.
ⴱ
Item 17: “I find myself in the same kinds of trouble, time after time” is missing from the dataset.

IRT analyses were conducted separately for each of the factors results for ANT-E and PPI-SF’s CN are included in the sup-
in the corresponding instrument. Adopting a conservative ap- plementary material (Appendix 1, Tables 2, and 3) for refer-
proach, we refrained from conducting IRT analyses on the ences only. However, IRT results for LSRP’s SP are presented
subscales that did not meet the unidimensionality criteria. IRT for comparison with LSRP’s PP.

Table 2
Results From PCA and CFA Each of the Four Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy

Scale ␭1 ␭2 ␭3 UNIDI CFI TLI RMSEA WRMR

LSRP
Primary psychopathy 5.05 1.42 .98 8.16 .97 .96 .07 2.07
Secondary psychopathy 2.36 1.33 1.09 4.11 .83 .77 .13 2.91
PAI ANT
Antisocial behavior 3.14 1.08 .85 8.88 .96 .90 .10 3.15
Egocentricity 2.53 1.28 .95 3.90 .91 .88 .13 2.82
Stimulus seeking 3.32 1.10 .84 8.45 .99 .99 .06 1.49
PPI-SF
Blame externalization 3.41 .78 .75 76.78 .99 .99 .08 1.61
Social potency 3.15 .93 .75 12.36 .97 .96 .12 2.38
Machiavellian 2.54 .97 .93 36.17 .97 .96 .07 1.50
Fearlessness 2.95 .96 .74 9.06 .99 .99 .05 1.20
Coldheartedness 2.03 1.06 .96 9.78 .93 .90 .07 1.50
Impulsive nonconformity 2.33 1.06 .97 13.78 .94 .91 .08 1.75
Stress immunity 3.15 .83 .79 68.00 .99 .99 .05 1.13
Carefree nonplanfulness 2.26 1.25 .95 3.46 .88 .81 .14 2.92
SRP-II
Interpersonal 4.92 1.45 1.10 9.73 .96 .95 .08 2.06
Disinhibition/Impulsivity 3.30 .98 .96 139.75 .99 .99 .05 1.08
Fearlessness 2.21 .86 .84 64.91 .99 .99 .06 .75
Coldheartedness 2.74 .86 .75 17.30 1.00 .99 .05 .82
Note. ␭1, ␭2, ␭3 ⫽ first three eigenvalues of the polychoric correlation matrix from principal component analyses (PCAs); UNIDI ⫽ UNIDI index, where
UNIDI index ⬎ 5 shows good support of unidimensionality (Martínez Arias, 1995, p. 297); CFI ⫽ comparative fit index; TLI ⫽ Tucker-Lewis Index;
RMSEA ⫽ root-mean-square error of approximation; WRMR ⫽ weighted root-mean-square residual; LSRP ⫽ Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale;
PAI ANT ⫽ Personality Assessment Inventory—Antisocial Features Scale; PPI-SF ⫽ Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; SRP-II ⫽ Self-
Report Psychopathy Scale-II.
 6 TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX

Estimated Item Parameters with different levels of latent trait traits, with similar frequencies at
which the items are endorsed.
LSRP. Item parameters for the LSRP were estimated sepa-
PPI-SF. The estimated item parameters of the eight factors
rately for the PP and SP factors (see Table 3). Items assessing
in the PPI-SF are presented in Table 5. On average, the esti-
primary psychopathy had, on average, higher ␣ parameters, than
mated ␣ parameters vary across the seven factors, H (6) ⫽
those assessing secondary psychopathy (U ⫽ 120, p ⫽ .007). The
15.05, p ⫽ .02. The ␣ parameters were higher for items loading
higher ␣ parameters in the PP factor suggest that primary psy-
on BE and SP than those on ME, C, and IN; items in the SI and
chopathy features are more discriminating than characteristics
F factors had higher ␣ parameters than those in the C factor.
associated with secondary psychopathy. That is, items assessing
There were also differences in the estimated ␤ parameters
primary psychopathy features are better at differentiating between
individuals with varying levels of psychopathic traits than items across the eight factors, H (6) ⫽ 28.47, p ⬍ .001; H (6) ⫽
measuring secondary psychopathy features. Items in the PP factor 29.86, p ⬍ .001; H (6) ⫽ 23.64, p ⬍ .001, for ␤1, ␤2, and ␤3,
had, on average, higher ␤ parameters than those in the SP factor respectively. Items in the SP and SI factors had, on average,
(U ⫽ 118, p ⫽ .008; U ⫽ 119, p ⫽ .007; U ⫽ 133, p ⬍ .001, for lower ␤1 parameters, indicating lower category thresholds, than
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

␤1, ␤2, and ␤3, respectively). With higher category thresholds, items in the other factors. On the other hand, items in the C and
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

items assessing primary psychopathy are rarely endorsed, espe-
cially among individuals with lower levels of the latent trait. On
the other hand, items tapping secondary psychopathy are fre-
quently endorsed even among respondents with low levels of the
latent trait.
PAI ANT. Two GRMs were performed to estimate the item
parameters for the ANT-A and ANT-S factors of the PAI (see
Table 4). There were no differences in the averaged item param-
eters between different factors, H (1) ⫽ 0.04, p ⫽ .83; H (1) ⫽
0.89, p ⫽ .34; H (1) ⫽ 0.54, p ⫽ .46; H (1) ⫽ 1.10, p ⫽ .29, for
␣, ␤1, ␤2, and ␤3, respectively. Results suggest that the PAI ANT
items in the two factors are similar at differentiating individuals
ME factors had, on average, higher ␤3 parameters, than those in
the other factors. Taken together, results suggest that social
potency and stress immunity features are frequently endorsed,
whereas characteristics indicative of coldheartedness and Ma-
chiavellian are rarely endorsed among these participants.
SRP-II. The estimated item parameters of the four factors in
the SRP-II are presented in Table 6. As the SRP-II items consist of
seven response categories, six ␤ parameters were estimated to
indicate the threshold for each transition between response cate-
gories. There were no differences between items from different
factors with respect to the ␣ parameters, H (3) ⫽ 4.00, p ⫽ .26,
suggesting items loaded on different factors are similar in discrim-

Table 3
LSRP Estimated Parameters From GRM

Factor Item ␣ ␤1 ␤2 ␤3

Primary psychopathy 1 1.14 (.07) ⫺1.24 (.08) .36 (.07) 2.53 (.11)
2 2.74 (.17) .46 (.12) 2.99 (.17) 5.53 (.27)
3 2.62 (.16) .02 (.11) 2.48 (.15) 5.14 (.25)
4 1.71 (.11) .23 (.09) 1.88 (.11) 3.75 (.16)
5 1.16 (.08) ⫺.94 (.08) .34 (.07) 2.74 (.12)
6 1.16 (.08) ⫺.26 (.07) 1.43 (.08) 3.33 (.14)
7 1.25 (.08) ⫺.20 (.07) 1.58 (.09) 3.39 (.14)
8 1.12 (.07) ⫺1.24 (.08) .18 (.07) 2.32 (.10)
9 1.68 (.10) ⫺.47 (.09) 1.55 (.10) 4.14 (.18)
10 .87 (.07) ⫺.17 (.07) 1.47 (.08) 3.07 (.13)
11 1.12 (.08) ⫺.38 (.07) .96 (.08) 2.66 (.11)
12 1.05 (.08) ⫺.68 (.07) 2.38 (.11) 3.50 (.15)
13 1.56 (.11) 1.39 (.10) 2.85 (.14) 4.22 (.20)
14 1.12 (.09) 1.11 (.08) 2.37 (.11) 3.57 (.16)
15 1.03 (.08) ⫺.23 (.07) 1.33 (.08) 3.18 (.13)
16 1.06 (.08) .23 (.07) 1.59 (.09) 3.37 (.14)
AIC ⫽ 41,826; BIC ⫽ 42,155 (Chi-square test not available)

18 .72 (.08) ⫺1.93 (.09) ⫺.52 (.07) 1.17 (.07)

Secondary psychopathy 19 .56 (.08) ⫺.76 (.07) 1.25 (.07) 2.86 (.12)
20 .88 (.10) ⫺1.29 (.08) .20 (.07) 1.99 (.10)
21 1.39 (.15) ⫺1.84 (.12) .44 (.08) 2.68 (.16)
22 .91 (.08) ⫺.93 (.07) .57 (.07) 2.26 (.10)
23 .63 (.08) ⫺1.10 (.07) 1.02 (.07) 2.65 (.11)
24 1.01 (.14) ⫺.79 (.08) .62 (.07) 2.17 (.12)
25 1.17 (.15) ⫺.78 (.08) .65 (.08) 2.39 (.14)
26 .73 (.08) .24 (.06) 1.26 (.08) 2.53 (.11)
AIC ⫽ 28,151; BIC ⫽ 28,346; ␹2 (26,1624) ⫽ 24,361, p ⫽ 1.00
Note. ␣ ⫽ estimated slope parameters; ␤1, ␤2, and ␤3 ⫽ estimated category threshold parameters. Standard
errors of the estimated parameters are presented in parentheses.
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT 7

Table 4
PAI ANT Estimated Parameters From GRM

Factor Item ␣ ␤1 ␤2 ␤3

Antisocial behavior 1 1.25 (.10) .23 (.07) 2.12 (.11) 4.04 (.19)
2 1.65 (.12) .41 (.09) 2.16 (.12) 3.07 (.15)
3 1.83 (.12) ⫺2.70 (.14) .12 (.09) 1.19 (.10)
4 1.29 (.09) ⫺1.27 (.09) 1.10 (.08) 2.14 (.10)
5 1.21 (.09) ⫺.49 (.07) 1.73 (.09) 2.94 (.13)
6 1.22 (.11) 1.60 (.10) 1.87 (.11) 2.19 (.12)
7 1.33 (.10) .57 (.08) 1.20 (.09) 1.93 (.10)
8 1.42 (.10) ⫺.03 (.08) .78 (.08) 1.79 (.10)
AIC ⫽ 20,637; BIC ⫽ 10,801; ␹2 (65,373) ⫽ 12,468, p ⫽ 1.00

Stimulus seeking 17 3.07 (.18) ⫺.27 (.12) 3.24 (.19) 5.13 (.26)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

18 5.96 (.70) ⫺.73 (.23) 4.96 (.57) 8.48 (.91)

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

19 2.07 (.12) ⫺.84 (.10) 1.92 (.12) 3.42 (.16)

20 .73 (.07) .37 (.07) 1.80 (.09) 2.97 (.13)
21 .70 (.08) 1.16 (.07) 2.20 (.10) 3.01 (.13)
22 .82 (.07) ⫺2.00 (.09) ⫺.21 (.07) .94 (.07)
23 1.44 (.09) ⫺.53 (.08) 1.70 (.10) 3.31 (.14)
24 1.15 (.08) ⫺2.37 (.11) ⫺1.04 (.08) .98 (.08)
AIC ⫽ 20,665; BIC ⫽ 20,830; ␹2 (65,379) ⫽ 10,410, p ⫽ 1.00
Note. ␣ ⫽ estimated slope parameters; ␤1, ␤2, and ␤3 ⫽ estimated category threshold parameters. Standard
errors of the estimated parameters are presented in parentheses. Results for the egocentricity subscale is not
available as the subscale did not meet the unidimensional assumption for IRT analyses.

inating across individuals with varying trait levels. With respect to
the ␤ parameters, there were substantial differences between items
loaded on different factors, H (3) ⫽ 22.84, p ⬍ .001; H (3) ⫽
24.98, p ⬍ .001; H (3) ⫽ 25.75, p ⬍ .001; H (3) ⫽ 25.38, p ⬍
.001; H (3) ⫽ 22.77, p ⬍ .001; H (3) ⫽ 16.41, p ⬍ .001, for ␤1,
␤2, ␤3, ␤4, ␤5, and ␤6, respectively. Items in the C and DI factors
had, on average, higher ␤ parameters than those in the IP and F.
These findings suggest that coldheartedness and disinhibition/
impulsivity features of psychopathy are less frequently endorsed
than interpersonal and fearlessness features among participants in
this study.
Test Information
The TIFs of each factor in the four self-report measures of
psychopathy across the latent trait continuum are shown in Table
7, and the corresponding TICs are presented in Figures 1 to 4. The
TICs reflect the amount of information provided by the subscales
across the whole range of the latent trait continuum. The latent trait
is estimated with relative precision at the peak of the TIC, where
a maximum amount of information is provided by the subscale. A
TIC with a narrow peak indicates that the scale is relatively precise
around the corresponding latent trait levels, but not as precise at
the extremes. On the other hand, a TIC that is smooth and flat
indicates that the scale is able to measure respondents across a
wide range of latent trait level with similar, albeit less, precision.
LSRP. The TIFs of the PP factor varied across the latent
trait continuum, as reflected in the relatively steep TIC in
Figure 1a. Such variation indicates that the primary psychopa-
thy trait is measured with unequal precision at varying latent
trait levels. In comparison, the TIC of the SP factor was
relatively flat over the range ␪ ⫽ ⫺1 to 1.5 (Figure 1b),
suggesting that the latent trait of secondary psychopathy is
measured with similar precision within this range, whereas
measurement precision decreases outside the range. Overall, the
TIFs of the PP factor were higher than those of the SP factor
across the latent trait continuum, meaning that the latent pri-
mary psychopathy trait is measured with greater precision than
characteristics indicative of the latent secondary psychopathy
construct.
PAI ANT. As shown in Figure 2a, the TIC of the ANT-A is
relatively symmetric around ␪ ⫽ 0.5 to 1.5, suggesting that the
latent antisocial behavior trait is estimated with some precision
around moderate to moderately high levels of the latent trait. A
spike in test information was observed in the TIC for the
ANT-S in the range of ␪ ⫽ ⫺1 and 2 (Figure 2b), indicating that
relative precise estimation of the stimulus seeking trait may also
be limited to individuals with moderate to moderate high levels
of stimulus seeking. Of note, the maximum values of TIFs were
much higher in the ANT-S than those in the ANT-A, suggesting
that the assessment of stimulus seeking is relatively more
precise than antisocial behavior.
PPI-SF. The TICs for the BE and F factors had the highest
peaks (Figures 3a and 3d), suggesting that the estimation of
these two latent traits are relatively precise, especially within
the range of ␪ ⫽ ⫺1.5 to 2.5 and ␪ ⫽ ⫺1 to 1.5, respectively.
There are relatively flat TIC peaks for the SP, ME, and SI
factors (␪ ⫽ ⫺2 to 1, ␪ ⫽ ⫺1 to 2, and ␪ ⫽ ⫺2 to 1.5 in Figures
3b, 3c, and 3g, respectively), meaning that the corresponding
latent traits are measured with similar precision within these
ranges, but decrease rapidly beyond them. In comparison, the
TICs of the C and IN factors were relatively flat (Figures 3e and
3f), indicating that these respective latent traits are measured
with similar precision. However, the relatively low levels of
TIFs indicate that the C and IN factors yield small amount of
information, suggesting that these two corresponding traits are
estimated with limited precision.
 This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Table 5
PPI-SF Estimated Parameters From GRM

Factor Item ␣ ␤1 ␤2 ␤3 Factor Item ␣ ␤1 ␤2 ␤3

Blame externalization 1 2.63 (.17) ⫺1.60 (.13) 2.27 (.15) 4.49 (.23) Coldheartedness 1 1.09 (.11) ⫺.31 (.07) 1.90 (.10) 3.92 (.19)
2 2.73 (.17) ⫺1.99 (.14) 2.12 (.15) 4.47 (.23) 2 1.25 (.12) .54 (.08) 2.69 (.13) 3.93 (.19)
3 1.90 (.12) ⫺.55 (.09) 2.13 (.12) 3.69 (.17) 3 1.20 (.11) ⫺.67 (.08) 1.90 (.10) 3.77 (.18)
4 1.11 (.08) ⫺1.18 (.08) 1.20 (.08) 2.49 (.11) 4 1.12 (.11) .49 (.07) 2.19 (.11) 3.66 (.17)
5 1.44 (.09) ⫺.47 (.08) 1.25 (.09) 2.49 (.11) 5 .45 (.07) ⫺.92 (.07) .92 (.07) 2.35 (.10)
6 1.58 (.09) ⫺1.62 (.10) 1.32 (.09) 3.06 (.13) 6 1.03 (.10) ⫺.92 (.08) 1.26 (.08) 3.16 (.14)
7 1.32 (.08) ⫺2.20 (.10) .53 (.08) 2.21 (.10) 7 .52 (.08) ⫺2.27 (.10) ⫺1.00 (.07) .48 (.06)
AIC ⫽ 19,278; BIC ⫽ 19,422; ␹2 (16,286) ⫽ 8,144, p ⫽ 1.00 AIC ⫽ 19,543; BIC ⫽ 19687; ␹2 (16,304) ⫽ 7,838, p ⫽ 1.00

Social potency 1 1.59 (.11) ⫺5.21 (.27) ⫺3.00 (.14) .62 (.08) Impulsive 1 1.04 (.10) ⫺.07 (.07) 1.98 (.10) 3.49 (.16)
nonconformity
2 1.70 (.11) ⫺3.51 (.16) ⫺.99 (.09) 1.66 (.10) 2 1.19 (.10) ⫺1.11 (.08) 1.32 (.09) 2.95 (.14)
3 1.64 (.11) ⫺3.23 (.15) ⫺.70 (.09) 1.85 (.11) 3 1.16 (.09) ⫺1.50 (.09) .79 (.08) 2.87 (.13)
4 1.79 (.11) ⫺2.68 (.13) ⫺.77 (.09) 1.49 (.10) 4 1.36 (.11) ⫺1.52 (.10) .76 (.08) 2.79 (.13)
5 1.90 (.12) ⫺3.19 (.15) ⫺1.26 (.10) 1.18 (.10) 5 1.26 (.12) .59 (.08) 1.89 (.11) 3.29 (.16)
6 1.27 (.09) ⫺3.34 (.14) ⫺1.05 (.08) 1.46 (.09) 6 1.13 (.11) .47 (.07) 1.52 (.09) 2.45 (.12)
7 1.10 (.08) ⫺2.55 (.11) ⫺.85 (.08) 1.43 (.08) 7 .37 (.07) ⫺1.24 (.07) .57 (.06) 2.00 (.09)
AIC ⫽ 19,734; BIC ⫽ 19,878; ␹2 (16,291) ⫽ 7,339, p ⫽ 1.00 AIC ⫽ 20,169; BIC ⫽ 20,313; ␹2 (16,291) ⫽ 10,264, p ⫽ 1.00

Machiavellian 1 1.94 (.14) ⫺2.08 (.13) 1.19 (.10) 3.67 (.19) Stress immunity 1 1.89 (.11) ⫺1.97 (.11) ⫺.10 (.09) 2.66 (.13)
2 1.84 (.13) ⫺1.30 (.10) 1.54 (.11) 3.70 (.18) 2 2.33 (.14) ⫺3.44 (.17) ⫺.78 (.11) 2.65 (.15)
3 .88 (.08) ⫺1.51 (.08) .72 (.07) 2.83 (.12) 3 2.16 (.13) ⫺4.22 (.20) ⫺1.36 (.11) 2.10 (.13)
4 .68 (.07) ⫺2.08 (.09) ⫺.17 (.06) 2.03 (.09) 4 1.26 (.08) ⫺2.27 (.10) ⫺.38 (.07) 1.85 (.09)
5 .99 (.09) .11 (.07) 1.89 (.09) 3.37 (.15) 5 1.47 (.09) ⫺3.41 (.15) ⫺1.40 (.09) 1.42 (.09)
TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX

6 1.08 (.08) ⫺1.31 (.08) 1.21 (.08) 2.70 (.12) 6 1.07 (.07) ⫺2.02 (.09) ⫺.17 (.07) 1.84 (.09)
7 1.23 (.09) ⫺1.57 (.09) .97 (.08) 3.23 (.14) 7 1.02 (.07) ⫺.96 (.07) .85 (.07) 2.88 (.12)
AIC ⫽ 20,255; BIC ⫽ 20,399; ␹2 (16,281) ⫽ 7,937, p ⫽ 1.00 AIC ⫽ 20,422; BIC ⫽ 20,566; ␹2 (16,286) ⫽ 8,088, p ⫽ 1.00

Fearlessness 1 .93 (.07) ⫺.82 (.07) .14 (.07) 1.45 (.08)

2 2.06 (.14) ⫺.65 (.10) .82 (.10) 2.74 (.15)
3 1.52 (.10) ⫺.93 (.09) .23 (.08) 1.76 (.10)
4 1.21 (.09) ⫺.01 (.07) 1.16 (.08) 2.57 (.12)
5 1.47 (.10) ⫺1.33 (.09) ⫺.01 (.08) 1.60 (.09)
6 1.90 (.13) ⫺.61 (.09) .61 (.09) 1.82 (.11)
7 1.09 (.08) ⫺1.01 (.08) .73 (.07) 2.57 (.11)
AIC ⫽ 21,691; BIC ⫽ 21,835; ␹2 (16,330) ⫽ 14,900, p ⫽ 1.00
Note. ␣ ⫽ estimated slope parameters; ␤1, ␤2, and ␤3 ⫽ estimated category threshold parameters. Standard errors of the estimated parameters are presented in parentheses. Results for the carefree
nonplanfulness subscale is not available as the subscale did not meet the unidimensional assumption for IRT analyses.
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT 9

Table 6
SRP-II Estimated Parameters From GRM

Factor Item ␣ ␤1 ␤2 ␤3 ␤4 ␤5 ␤6

Interpersonal 1 1.16 (.07) ⫺3.10 (.13) ⫺1.93 (.09) ⫺1.41 (.08) ⫺.44 (.07) .99 (.08) 2.35 (.10)
2 1.29 (.08) ⫺1.06 (.08) ⫺.11 (.07) .44 (.07) 1.37 (.08) 2.25 (.10) 3.28 (.14)
3 2.10 (.11) ⫺3.19 (.15) ⫺1.96 (.11) R1.16 (.10) .04 (.09) 2.02 (.12) 3.75 (.16)
4 1.38 (.08) ⫺3.02 (.13) ⫺1.79 (.10) ⫺.87 (.08) .05 (.08) 1.61 (.10) 3.07 (.13)
5 1.86 (.10) ⫺3.08 (.14) ⫺1.68 (.10) ⫺.97 (.09) .15 (.09) 1.81 (.10) 3.34 (.14)
6 .68 (.06) ⫺2.98 (.13) ⫺2.09 (.09) ⫺1.40 (.08) ⫺.33 (.06) .85 (.07) 2.10 (.09)
7 .94 (.07) ⫺2.56 (.11) ⫺1.45 (.08) ⫺.64 (.07) .20 (.66) 1.68 (.08) 2.89 (.12)
8 1.36 (.08) ⫺2.84 (.12) ⫺1.80 (.09) ⫺.86 (.08) .22 (.08) 1.52 (.09) 2.86 (.12)
9 .72 (.07) ⫺2.61 (.11) ⫺1.66 (.08) ⫺1.02 (.07) ⫺.03 (.06) .89 (.07) 2.04 (.09)
10 .83 (.07) ⫺2.32 (.10) ⫺1.46 (.08) ⫺.77 (.07) .17 (.07) 1.30 (.08) 2.63 (.11)
11 1.11 (.07) ⫺1.49 (.09) ⫺.45 (.07) .18 (.07) 1.09 (.08) 2.00 (.10) 3.08 (.13)
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

12 .69 (.06) ⫺1.69 (.08) ⫺.88 (.07) ⫺.32 (.06) .77 (.07) 1.41 (.08) 2.19 (.10)
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

13 1.19 (.07) ⫺1.72 (.09) ⫺.51 (.07) .28 (.07) 1.17 (.08) 2.07 (.10) 3.30 (.14)
14 1.31 (.08) ⫺1.49 (.09) ⫺.59 (.08) .03 (.07) .89 (.08) 2.20 (.10) 3.39 (.14)
15 .84 (.07) ⫺1.93 (.09) ⫺.90 (.07) ⫺.04 (.07) .64 (.07) 1.26 (.08) 2.43 (.11)
16 1.75 (.09) ⫺1.95 (.11) ⫺.55 (.09) .49 (.09) 1.58 (.10) 2.97 (.13) 4.43 (.19)
AIC ⫽ 68,839; BIC ⫽ 69,412 (Chi-square test unavailable)

Disinhibition/Impulsivity 17 .79 (.07) ⫺1.07 (.07) .05 (.06) .72 (.07) 1.67 (.08) 2.75 (.12) 4.00 (.19)
18 .67 (.06) ⫺1.76 (.08) ⫺.38 (.06) .79 (.07) 1.39 (.08) 2.32 (.10) 3.26 (.13)
19 1.99 (.12) .15 (.09) 1.40 (.11) 2.06 (.12) 2.62 (.13) 3.34 (.15) 4.16 (.18)
20 1.19 (.08) ⫺.53 (.07) .37 (.07) .84 (.08) 1.44 (.09) 2.53 (.11) 3.43 (.14)
21 1.39 (.10) .83 (.09) 1.36 (.09) 1.68 (.10) 2.06 (.11) 2.67 (.12) 3.28 (.14)
22 4.57 (.44) 1.75 (.24) 3.37 (.34) 4.48 (.41) 5.81 (.50) 7.29 (.59) 8.39 (.67)
23 1.61 (.10) ⫺.53 (.08) .67 (.09) 1.38 (.10) 2.26 (.11) 3.30 (.14) 4.36 (.19)
24 1.56 (.10) .41 (.09) 1.22 (.09) 1.72 (.10) 2.58 (.12) 3.58 (.15) 4.49 (.21)
25 1.44 (.10) .82 (.09) 1.41 (.10) 1.89 (.11) 2.58 (.12) 3.31 (.15) 4.00 (.18)
AIC ⫽ 31,527; BIC ⫽ 31,849 (Chi-square test unavailable)

Fearlessness 26 .76 (.07) ⫺1.85 (.09) ⫺1.32 (.08) ⫺.99 (.07) ⫺.45 (.07) .39 (.06) 1.57 (.08)
27 3.10 (.30) ⫺2.28 (.20) ⫺.91 (.14) ⫺.00 (.12) 1.07 (.15) 2.69 (.23) 4.57 (.35)
28 1.35 (.09) ⫺2.96 (.13) ⫺1.97 (010) ⫺1.16 (.08) ⫺.22 (.08) 1.16 (.09) 2.67 (.12)
29 1.05 (.08) ⫺2.02 (.10) ⫺1.14 (.08) ⫺.51 (.07) .20 (.07) 1.02 (.08) 2.15 (.10)
30 1.47 (.10) ⫺1.24 (.09) ⫺.17 (.08) .45 (.08) 1.24 (.09) 2.25 (.11) 3.40 (.15)
AIC ⫽ 22,243; BIC ⫽ 22,422; ␹ (16725) ⫽ 14556, p ⫽ 1.00
2

Coldheartedness 31 2.42 (.16) ⫺.76 (.11) 1.40 (.12) 2.76 (.16) 3.90 (.20) 4.74 (.24) 5.57 (.28)
32 1.90 (.12) ⫺.51 (.09) 1.74 (.11) 2.70 (.14) 3.60 (.17) 4.39 (.21) 5.21 (.25)
33 .97 (.07) ⫺1.21 (.08) .08 (.07) .85 (.07) 1.67 (.09) 2.58 (.11) 3.67 (.17)
34 1.35 (.09) ⫺1.16 (.09) .21 (.08) 1.39 (.09) 2.25 (.11) 2.94 (.13) 3.82 (.17)
35 1.90 (.12) ⫺1.19 (.10) .69 (.09) 1.85 (.11) 2.96 (.15) 3.73 (.17) 4.78 (.22)
36 1.35 (.10) .73 (.08) 1.59 (.10) 2.03 (.11) 3.03 (.14) 3.72 (.17) 4.39 (.21)
AIC ⫽ 21,131; BIC ⫽ 21,346; ␹2 (117356) ⫽ 11387, p ⫽ 1.00
Note. ␣ ⫽ estimated slope parameters; ␤1, ␤2, ␤3, ␤4, ␤5, and ␤6 ⫽ estimated category threshold parameters. Standard errors of the estimated parameters
are presented in parentheses.

SRP-II. The TIC of the DI factor showed a tall, narrow peak
between ␪ ⫽ 0 and 2 (Figure 4b), indicating that this latent trait is
measured very precisely within this range of the disinhibition/
impulsivity trait continuum. Beyond this narrow range, measure-
ment precision of the disinhibition/impulsivity trait decreases
markedly. As for the IP, F, and C factors, the TICs are relatively
flat over ␪ ⫽ ⫺1.5 to 2, ␪ ⫽ ⫺1 to 1.5, and ␪ ⫽ ⫺0.5 to 2.5,
respectively (Figures 4a, 4c, and 4d). Results suggest that these
respective latent traits are measured with similar precision within
the flat TIC ranges, and decrease as the TIC slopes decrease
toward both ends of the corresponding latent trait continuums.
Comparison Among Measures
Of the 1,257 participants in this study, 1,065 respondents com-
pleted all four self-report measures of psychopathy with no miss-
ing data. For these participants, two estimates of the latent trait
underlying each subscale were available: the total score (Ts) and
the estimate from the GRM (␪s). We used these estimates to
examine the extent to which the factors are associated with one
another. In Table 8, the correlation coefficients among Ts (rT) are
presented in the lower diagonal, and those among ␪s (r␪) are
displayed in the upper diagonal.
The two factors in the LSRP were moderately correlated with
each other (rT ⫽ .43; r␪ ⫽ .42). The correlations among the two
PAI ANT factors were moderate (rT ⫽ .56; r␪ ⫽ .59). Among the
seven PPI-SF factors, the associations varied (rs ⫽ ⫺.19 to .43),
suggesting that some of the factors may not be tapping the same
underlying construct of psychopathy as the others. Most of the
correlations among the SRP-SF factors were moderate to strong
(rs ⫽ .32 to .61), with the exception of the weak association
between F and C.
 10 TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX

Table 7
Information Functions Across the Latent Trait Continuum

Information at different levels of latent trait (␪)

Measure ⫺3.0 ⫺2.5 ⫺2.0 ⫺1.5 ⫺1.0 ⫺.5 0 .5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

LSRP
Primary psychopath 1.71 2.17 2.86 3.89 5.47 7.88 10.32 11.03 11.36 11.16 11.06 9.26 6.91
Secondary psychopath 1.88 2.20 2.55 2.88 3.09 3.21 3.27 3.30 3.28 3.25 3.17 2.95 2.63
PAI ANT
Antisocial behavior 1.44 1.85 2.47 3.14 3.76 4.45 5.16 5.56 5.53 5.15 4.50 3.68 2.91
Stimulus seeking 1.54 1.73 2.01 2.51 3.65 9.14 13.86 10.03 14.57 14.90 6.22 3.38 2.32
PPI⫺SF
Blame externalization 1.52 1.94 2.70 4.17 6.44 7.41 6.72 7.47 8.30 8.29 7.02 4.56 2.83
Social potency 3.58 4.60 5.51 5.86 5.87 5.88 5.80 5.78 5.39 4.31 3.08 2.16 1.61
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Machiavellian 1.72 2.11 2.72 3.48 4.03 4.07 4.07 4.29 4.39 4.38 4.29 3.77 3.05
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

Fearlessness 1.42 1.74 2.29 3.14 4.27 5.32 5.79 5.83 5.60 4.92 3.82 2.82 2.14
Coldheartedness 1.40 1.57 1.80 2.09 2.40 2.66 2.84 2.94 3.00 3.04 3.06 3.05 2.97
Impulsive 1.50 1.78 2.16 2.55 2.88 3.13 3.34 3.50 3.58 3.60 3.54 3.35 2.98
nonconformity
Stress immunity 2.61 3.77 5.14 6.02 6.32 6.42 6.03 5.86 6.16 5.44 3.92 2.72 2.02
SRP-II
Interpersonal 4.12 5.44 7.02 8.33 8.99 9.20 9.19 9.09 9.07 8.95 8.44 7.27 5.81
Disinhibition/Impulsivity 1.37 1.54 1.84 2.35 3.19 4.57 7.82 11.95 12.57 12.52 10.61 6.30 4.61
Fearlessness 1.80 2.10 2.51 3.30 4.83 5.77 5.91 5.81 5.69 5.37 3.97 2.79 2.17
Coldheartedness 1.30 1.54 1.99 2.82 4.14 5.49 6.04 6.32 6.57 6.68 6.64 6.08 4.80
Note. LSRP ⫽ Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale; PAI ANT: Personality Assessment Inventory—Antisocial Features Scale; PPI-SF ⫽ Psycho-
pathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; SRP-II ⫽ Self- Report Psychopathy Scale-II.

There are some noteworthy associations between the four self-
report measures. For example, LSRP PP is strongly associated with
PPI-SF ME, SRP-II IP, SRP-II DI, and SRP-II C (rs ⫽ .54 to .60),
suggesting that these features may be indicative of primary psychop-
athy. Participants who endorsed positively on ANT-S also had high
levels of F and DI on the SRP-II (rs ⫽ .40 to .62). The moderate to
strong correlations between ANT-A, PPI-SF IN, and SRP-II DI (rs ⫽
.36 to .62) suggest that antisocial behavior endorsed by these respon-
12
dents may mostly be impulsive actions. The F and C factors in the
PPI-SF are moderately associated with the corresponding SRP-II
factors (rs ⫽ .33 to .58), indicating that there are some differences in
the latent traits measured by the PPI-SF and SRP-II items.
Inspection of Table 8 reveals that the directions of the associ-
ations among factors are the same between the Ts and the ␪s.
However, there are differences in the correlation magnitudes be-
tween some factors. Fisher’s z tests were used to compare the two

12
10

10
8

8
Information

Information
6

6
4

4
2

2
0

−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4

(a) Primary Psychopathy (b) Secondary Psychopathy

Figure 1. Test information curves for LSRP subscales. See the online article for the color version of this figure.
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT
15
10
Information
5
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
−4 −2 0 2 4 −4
(a) Antisocial behavior
Figure 2. Test information curves for PAI ANT subscales. See the online article for the color version of this
figure.
correlation coefficients (rT and r␪); significant differences are
illustrated in bold in Table 8. Such differences suggest that the
associations between sum scores (rT) may not represent the rela-
tions between underlying latent traits (r␪) estimated by different
factors.
Discussion
The current study investigated how well the latent construct of
psychopathy is measured among a large undergraduate sample, in
which the levels of psychopathy are presumably quite low. The
LSRP, PPI-SF, PAI ANT, and the SRP-II were initially developed
to assess the underlying psychopathy construct by tapping differ-
ent components of the latent psychopathy trait. Although it has
been argued that these measures are best suited for nonforensic
community samples, this is the first study to investigate and
compare how well these self-report items assess the varying di-
mensions of the psychopathy construct among undergraduate stu-
dents using IRT models.
Overall, items in the LSRP PP factor were moderately to highly
discriminating (all ␣s ⬎ .8; Baker, 2001), suggesting that LSRP
items indicative of primary psychopathy features (e.g., emotional
detachment, selfishness, manipulativeness) are relatively good at
distinguishing among individuals with varying levels of the latent
primary psychopathy trait. The PP factor showed high levels of test
information at moderate to moderately high levels of the latent
trait, indicating that the latent primary psychopathy trait is esti-
mated with relative precision among individuals with moderate to
moderately high levels of the trait.
On the other hand, five out of the nine LSRP SP items (Items 20,
21, 22, 24, and 25) were at least moderately discriminating, sug-
gesting that some of the SP items may not be sensitive enough to
distinguish individuals with different levels of the latent secondary
psychopathy trait. The general low levels of information provided
11
15
10
Information
5
0
−2 0 2 4
( b ) Stimulus seeking
by the SP factor suggest that the underlying trait of secondary
psychopathy is estimated with limited precision among undergrad-
uate students in the current study.
One possible explanation is that behavior identified to be char-
acteristic of secondary psychopathy (e.g., impulsivity and antiso-
cial behavior) is normative behavior among young adults, and thus
are heavily endorsed by normal college students. It is possible that
these behavioral characteristics are not particularly sensitive in
distinguishing among individuals with varying levels of secondary
psychopathy, especially among college students who may endorse
these behaviors regardless of their underlying psychopathic ten-
dencies. Taken together, it is questionable whether the LSRP SP
factor is an informative measure of secondary psychopathy
traits within an undergraduate student sample such as the cur-
rent one.
Results showed moderate to high discrimination ability for the
items in the PAI ANT (all ␣s ⬎ 1.21 for ANT-A; all ␣s ⬎ .70 for
ANT-S). The frequencies at which items are endorsed are rela-
tively similar between the two factors, suggesting that the PAI
ANT items are informative in the assessment of their respective
underlying traits within similar trait levels. However, the two PAI
ANT factors estimate their respective latent trait levels with dif-
fering degrees of precision, even within the trait range at which the
amount of test information is at maximum. The general level of the
TIF is the highest for ANT-S, suggesting that the latent trait is
estimated with relative precision across varying levels of stimulus
seeking trait. This corresponds to the observation that ANT-S
contains some of the most discriminating items measuring thrill-
pursuing behavior (e.g., Items 17 and 18). The low general TIF
level for ANT-A indicates that the items may not be as precise in
assessing the construct of social deviance among individuals with
different levels of antisocial behavior. In fact, many of the behav-
ior assessed in ANT-A may be normative adolescent behavior
 12 8
TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX

8
6

6
Information

Information

Information
4

4
2

2
0

0
−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

(a) Blame externalization (b) Social potency (c) Machiavellian

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

8
6

6
Information

Information

Information
4

4
2

2
0

0
−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4

(d) Fearlessness (e) Coldheartedness (f) Impulsive nonconformity

8
6
Information

4
2
0

−4 −2 0 2 4

(g) Stress immunity

Figure 3. Test information curves for PPI-SF subscales. See the online article for the color version of this
figure.

(e.g., Items 3 and 4), which the majority of the college students in
this study may have endorsed in the past.
Given that the seven factors in the PPI-SF were developed to tap
different aspects of the latent psychopathy construct, results re-
vealing differences in item discrimination and category threshold
levels suggest that the factors vary in their ability to assess their
respective underlying latent traits. With higher discrimination, the
BE and SP factors are more effective in distinguishing among
respondents who differ in their respective trait levels; the C factor
is less effective in doing so as it showed lower discrimination. The
items in the SP and SI factors are more frequently endorsed,
whereas those in the CN and C are less frequently endorsed. The
TIC graphs show that the PPI-SF factors are informative at varying
levels along their corresponding latent trait continuums, meaning
that the respective latent traits are estimated with different degrees
of precision. Across the PPI-SF factors, the PPI-SF C factor, with
all reverse-scored items, had the smallest TIFs, indicating that the
coldheartedness construct is estimated with relatively low accuracy.
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT 13
12

12
10

10
8

8
Information

Information
6

6
4

4
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

2
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

0
−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4

(a) Interpersonal (b) Disinhibition/Impulsivity

12

12
10

10
8

8
Information

Information
6

6
4

4
2
2

0
0

−4 −2 0 2 4 −4 −2 0 2 4

(c) Fearlessness (d) Coldheartedness

Figure 4. Test information curves for SRP-II subscales. See the online article for the color version of this
figure.

These findings have theoretical implications. Assuming that the
latent construct of psychopathy is made up of the eight dimensions
assessed by the PPI-SF factors, the current results indicate that
some components (e.g., blame externalization, social potency)
may be more effective in distinguishing individuals who differ in
the latent trait levels. At best, the subscales were only moderately
correlated with each other, providing further evidence that the
PPI-SF is a multidimensional measure of psychopathy. In addition,
extending the current study of the PPI-SF to forensic and other
nonforensic samples may help delineate why differential correlates
between the PPI-SF subscales in offenders (Neumann, Malterer, &
Newman, 2008) and college students (Lilienfeld, 1990) were pre-
viously reported. With the development of the revised versions of
the PPI and PPI-SF, the PPI-R (Lilienfeld & Widows, 2005) and
the PPI-R-40 (Eisenbarth, Lilienfeld, & Yarkoni, 2015), further
research is needed to examine the item properties of these revised
measures, and whether the items in different subscales vary in their
ability to assess the different components of psychopathy.
Items in the four SRP-II factors have similar ability to distin-
guish among respondents with different levels of the respective
latent traits. Results provide some evidence that the rationally
derived four factors for the SRP-II (Lester et al., 2013) are equally
good at discriminating across individuals with different levels of
the respective latent traits. Items in the IP and F factors are more
frequently endorsed than those in the C and DI factors, indicating
that some features (e.g., coldheartedness) of the psychopathy con-
 14 TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX

Table 8
Correlation Matrix of Total Scores and Estimated Latent Traits (␪) Between Subscales of Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy

LSRP PAI PPI-SF SRP-II

PP SP ANT-A ANT-S BE SP ME F C IN SI IP DI F C

LSRP
PP .42ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .59ⴱⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .59ⴱⴱⴱ .54ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .55ⴱⴱⴱ
SP .43ⴱⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .42ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .33ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.20ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱⴱ
PAI
ANT-A .49ⴱⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱⴱ .59ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .50ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱⴱ .05 .48ⴱⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ
ANT-S .46ⴱⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱⴱ .59ⴱⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱⴱ .71ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ
PPI-SF
BE .31ⴱⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱⴱ .31ⴱⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.03 .32ⴱⴱⴱ .06 ⫺.06ⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.19ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ
SP .04 ⫺.06 .09ⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.05 .02 .13ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .01 .23ⴱⴱⴱ .14ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .01
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

ME .56ⴱⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.01 .11ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.12ⴱⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ
.20ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱⴱ .06ⴱ .13ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .12ⴱⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .29ⴱⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱⴱ
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

F .15
C .21ⴱⴱⴱ .00 .11ⴱⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.10ⴱⴱⴱ .06ⴱ .01 .07ⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱⴱ
IN .18ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .46ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .02 .15ⴱⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱ .05 .30ⴱⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱⴱ .36ⴱⴱⴱ .23ⴱⴱⴱ
SI .03 ⫺.18ⴱⴱ .06ⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.21ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ .03 .18ⴱⴱⴱ .09ⴱⴱ
SRP-II
IP .57ⴱⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱⴱ .45ⴱⴱⴱ .44ⴱⴱⴱ .28ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱⴱ .25ⴱⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ .24ⴱⴱⴱ .16ⴱⴱⴱ .41ⴱⴱⴱ .49ⴱⴱⴱ .35ⴱⴱⴱ
DI .54ⴱⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .10ⴱⴱ .39ⴱⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱⴱ .05 .38ⴱⴱⴱ .42ⴱⴱⴱ .61ⴱⴱⴱ
F .33ⴱⴱⴱ .27ⴱⴱⴱ .40ⴱⴱⴱ .69ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .20ⴱⴱⴱ .58ⴱⴱⴱ .08ⴱ .33ⴱⴱⴱ .22ⴱⴱⴱ .48ⴱⴱⴱ .03ⴱⴱⴱ .19ⴱⴱⴱ
C .54ⴱⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .38ⴱⴱⴱ .30ⴱⴱⴱ .17ⴱⴱⴱ .04 .36ⴱⴱⴱ .13ⴱⴱⴱ .33ⴱⴱⴱ .21ⴱⴱⴱ .11ⴱⴱⴱ .32ⴱⴱⴱ .62ⴱⴱⴱ .15ⴱⴱⴱ
Note. Correlation coefficients between total scores (rT) are presented in the lower diagonal; correlation coefficients between estimated underlying latent
traits (r␪) are presented in the upper diagonal. Bolded values indicate significant differences between rT and r␪. LSRP ⫽ Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy
Scale; PP ⫽ Primary Psychopathy; SP ⫽ Secondary Psychopathy; PAI ⫽ Personality Assessment Inventory; ANT-A ⫽ Antisocial Features Scale,
Antisocial Behavior; ANT-S ⫽ Antisocial Features Scale, Stimulus Seeking; PPI ⫽ Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Short Form; BE ⫽ Blame
Externalization; SP ⫽ Social Potency; ME ⫽ Machiavellian; F ⫽ Fearlessness; C ⫽ Coldheartedness; IN ⫽ Impulsive Nonconformity; SI ⫽ Stress
Immunity; SRP-II ⫽ Self-Report Psychopathy Scale-II; IP ⫽ Interpersonal; DI ⫽ Disinhibition/Impulsivity.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01. ⴱⴱⴱ p ⬍ .001.

struct may be rarely endorsed among college students. With the
exception of the weak association between the C and F factors, the
moderate to strong correlations between the SRP-II factors suggest
relative uniformity in factor associations.
There is evidence to suggest that some components of the
psychopathy construct are more associated with each other. For
example, respondents who were estimated to have high levels of
primary psychopathy (in the LSRP) also had high tendencies of
psychopathic features such as egocentricity (in the PAI ANT),
Machiavellian (in the PPI-SF), interpersonal (in the SRP-II), and
coldheartedness (in the SRP-II). The latent trait of stimulus seek-
ing (in the PAI ANT) is associated with characteristics of fear-
lessness and disinhibition/impulsivity (both in the SRP-II), sug-
gesting that individuals who are fearless and impulsive may be
more likely to pursue activities that give them excitement or
“thrills.” Likewise, features of impulsive nonconformity (in the
PPI-SF) and disinhibition/impulsivity (in the SRP-II) may be
strongly associated with the possibly of engaging in social deviant
behavior (in the PAI ANT). Two latent traits, fearlessness and
coldheartedness, are both measured in the PPI-SF and the SRP-II.
The corresponding factors are, at best, moderately correlated.
Thus, it is questionable whether the corresponding subscales are
tapping the same underlying latent constructs, and whether the
estimation of the latent traits can be improved by combining the
respective subscales.
Further examination of the estimated item parameters reveals
that items’ abilities to measure the underlying latent traits, within
each factor, may differ between those that are regular- and reverse-
scored. For instance, the negatively worded items in the LSRP SP
factor (Item 19: “I find that I am able to pursue one goal for a long
time” and Item 23: “Before I do anything, I carefully consider the
possible consequences”) are the least discriminating items as com-
pared to the rest of the items in the factor. Our results raised
questions as to whether these items are working as they intended
to be. The only reverse-scored item in the PPI-SF IN factor
(“Fitting in and having things in common with other people my
age has always been important to me”) is the least discriminating
item in the subscale. All items in the PPI-SF C factor are reverse-
scored; the absence of empathy characteristics is inferred to rep-
resent the latent trait of coldheartedness, yet they are among the
ones with the worst discrimination parameters within the PPI-SF.
The PPI-SF C factor also had the smallest TIF values among all the
factors examined in this study, suggesting that the coldheartedness
trait is estimated with little precision.
A regular-scored item measures the presence of the latent trait,
with higher scores indicating higher levels of the underlying trait,
whereas a reverse-scored is worded negatively, with lower scores
representing higher levels of the latent trait. Our finding that these
reverse-scored items may have limited ability in distinguishing
among respondents with varying levels of the latent trait adds to
the growing body of literature reporting problems with negatively
worded items in personality assessment (e.g., Crego & Widiger,
2014; Ebesutani et al., 2012; Lindwall et al., 2012; Ray, Frick,
Thornton, Steinberg, & Cauffman, 2016; Rodebaugh, Woods, &
Heimberg, 2007; Stansbury, Ried, & Velozo, 2006). These results
raise two practical questions. First, is the absence of a trait (e.g.,
empathy) the same as the endorsement of its supposedly opposing
trait (e.g., coldheartedness)? As both traits are latent constructs, it
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT
is unclear how well the absence of one indicates the presence of
the other (Crego & Widiger, 2014). Second, to what extent is the
different discrimination ability between regular- and reverse-
scored items a method bias? The methodological literature has
identified many potential sources of method bias, such as acqui-
escence and confirmation bias (see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003 for a review). However, whether the observed
difference in the estimated parameters observed between regular-
and reverse-scored items in these self-report psychopathy mea-
sures is due to method bias or true difference in discrimination
ability is not yet known. Considering that many of the items in the
self-report psychopathy measures are worded negatively, studies
investigating whether the response bias is present between differ-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
ently keyed items are much warranted to validate the psychometric
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
properties of these instruments.
In addition to the above findings regarding item properties of the
four self-reported psychopathy measures, our results showed that
two of the subscales (PAI ANT-E and PPI-SF’s CN) were not
unidimensional. The lack of unidimensionality suggests that these
two subscales may not be assessing one underlying construct
(egocentricity and carefree nonplanfulness, respectively). Future
studies should further examine the dimensionality of these sub-
scales to determine whether the items in the subscale were assess-
ing one underlying construct, and whether certain items need to be
excluded for scale refinement. In the meantime, we recommend
caution when interpreting and using composite scores from these
two subscales in clinical and research settings.
This study examined the item functioning of four self-report
psychopathy measures using an IRT framework, however, several
limitations should be noted. The current sample consisted of col-
lege students, in which the average levels of psychopathy are likely
to be relatively low. It is unclear whether some of the more
frequently endorsed features (e.g., impulsiveness, antisocial be-
havior) are indicative of endorsement of certain psychopathic
components or reflect normative young adult behavior. In addition,
some of the items may have different meanings for college stu-
dents versus adults in the community and/or criminal justice-
involved individuals and whether this possibility exists needs
further examination. Replication of this study in offender samples
is much needed, and future studies should consider examining the
item-level psychometric properties of these self-report measures
using forensic and prison samples. Nonetheless, it should be noted
that we identified some items with good discriminating parameters
(e.g., Item 18 in PAI ANT: “Engage in wild activities for fun;”
Item 31 in SRP-II: “Not hurting others’ feelings is important to
me”), which suggests that some items are able to distinguish
respondents with different trait levels, even at the lower end of the
trait continuums.
In conclusion, the current study provides some insight concern-
ing the statements developed to assess different components of the
psychopathy construct among a large college sample, in which the
average levels of psychopathy are assumed to be lower than those
among forensic and offending respondents. Results from the IRT
analyses suggest that the factors in the four self-report psychopa-
thy instruments differ in their ability to measure the respective
latent traits. Considering that the factors were developed to assess
various psychopathy dimensions, different factors within each
instrument may actually complement each other by providing
information at across different latent trait ranges. Our findings
15
reveal that, although some of the latent constructs assessed by the
different factors are correlated with one another, none of the
associations are exceptionally strong, suggesting that the instru-
ments may be measuring different but related domains of psychop-
athy. Thus, it appears that the construct of psychopathy may be
best conceptualized as a multidimensional construct. In practice,
clinicians and researchers may wish to use multiple measures in
order to best tap the broader concept of psychopathy. In addition
to the total scores of the self-report psychopathy measures, indi-
vidual factor scores should be used to better understand how the
different dimensions of psychopathy is associated with one an-
other.
References
Andrich, D. (1978). A rating formulation for ordered response categories.
Psychometrika, 43, 561–573. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02293814
Baker, F. B. (1992). Item response theory: Parameter estimation tech-
niques. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Baker, F. B. (2001). The basics of item response theory. College Park, MD:
ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation.
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Hicks, B. M., Blonigen, D. M., & Krueger,
R. F. (2003). Factor structure of the psychopathic personality inventory:
Validity and implications for clinical assessment. Psychological Assess-
ment, 15, 340 –350. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.15.3.340
Benning, S. D., Patrick, C. J., Salekin, R. T., & Leistico, A. M. (2005).
Convergent and discriminant validity of psychopathy factors assessed
via self-report: A comparison of three instruments. Assessment, 12,
270 –289. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191105277110
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psy-
chological Bulletin, 107, 238 –246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909
.107.2.238
Bolt, D. M., Hare, R. D., Vitale, J. E., & Newman, J. P. (2004). A
multigroup item response theory analysis of the Psychopathy Check-
list—Revised. Psychological Assessment, 16, 155–168. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.2.155
Brinkley, C. A., Diamond, P. M., Magaletta, P. R., & Heigel, C. P. (2008).
Cross-validation of Levenson’s Psychopathy Scale in a sample of federal
female inmates. Assessment, 15, 464 – 482. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
1073191108319043
Brinkley, C. A., Schmitt, W. A., Smith, S. S., & Newman, J. P. (2001).
Construct validation of a self-report psychopathy scale: Does Leven-
son’s self-report psychopathy scale measure the same constructs as
Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised? Personality and Individual Dif-
ferences, 31, 1021–1038. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869
(00)00178-1
Cleckley, H. M. (1941). The mask of sanity an attempt to reinterpret the
so-called psychopathic personality. St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy:
Towards a hierarchical model. Psychological Assessment, 13, 171–188.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.13.2.171
Crego, C., & Widiger, T. A. (2014). Psychopathy, DSM–5, and a caution.
Personality Disorders, 5, 335–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
per0000078
Ebesutani, C., Drescher, C. F., Reise, S. P., Heiden, L., Hight, T. L.,
Damon, J. D., & Young, J. (2012). The Loneliness Questionnaire-Short
Version: An evaluation of reverse-worded and non-reverse-worded
items via item response theory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 94,
427– 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2012.662188
Edens, J. F., Hart, S. D., Johnson, D. W., Johnson, J. K., & Olver, M. E.
(2000). Use of the Personality Assessment Inventory to assess psychop-
athy in offender populations. Psychological Assessment, 12, 132–139.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.2.132
 16 TSANG, SALEKIN, COFFEY, AND COX
Edens, J. F., Poythress, N. G., & Watkins, M. M. (2001). Further validation
of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory among offenders: Personality
and behavioral correlates. Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 403–
415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1521/pedi.15.5.403.19202
Eisenbarth, H., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Yarkoni, T. (2015). Using a genetic
algorithm to abbreviate the Psychopathic Personality Inventory-Revised
(PPI-R). Psychological Assessment, 27, 194 –202. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/pas0000032
Embretson, S. E. (1996). The new rules of measurement. Psychological
Assessment, 8, 341–349. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.8.4.341
Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychol-
ogists. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Publishers.
Gummelt, H. D., Anestis, J. C., & Carbonell, J. L. (2012). Examining the
Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale using a graded response mod-
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
el. Personality and Individual Differences, 53, 1002–1006. http://dx.doi
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
.org/10.1016/j.paid.2012.07.014
Hare, R. D. (1980). A research scale for the assessment of psychopathy in
criminal populations. Personality and Individual Differences, 1, 111–
119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(80)90028-8
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised PCL-R.
Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised PCL-R (2nd
ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., Harpur, T. J., & Hemphill, J. D. (1989). Scoring pamphlet for
the Self-Report Psychopathy Scale: SRP-II. Vancouver, British Colum-
bia, Canada: Simon Fraser University.
Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2010). The role of antisociality in the
psychopathy construct: Comment on Skeem and Cooke (2010). Psycho-
logical Assessment, 22, 446 – 454. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013635
Harpur, T. J., Hare, R. D., & Hakstian, A. R. (1989). Two-factor concep-
tualization of psychopathy: Construct validity and assessment implica-
tions. Psychological Assessment: A Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 1, 6 –17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.1.1.6
Hauck-Filho, N., & Teixeira, M. A. (2014). Revisiting the psychometric
properties of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale. Journal of
Personality Assessment, 96, 459 – 464. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00223891.2013.865196
Karpman, B. (1948). The myth of the psychopathic personality. The
American Journal of Psychiatry, 104, 523–534. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1176/ajp.104.9.523
Kelsey, K. R., Rogers, R., & Robinson, E. V. (2014). Self-report measures
of psychopathy: What is their role in forensic assessments? Journal of
Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 37, 380 –391. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10862-014-9475-5
Lester, W. S., Salekin, R. T., & Sellbom, M. (2013). The SRP-II as a rich
source of data on the psychopathic personality. Psychological Assess-
ment, 25, 32– 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029449
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing
psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 151–158. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-3514.68.1.151
Lilienfeld, S. (1990). Development and preliminary validation of a self-
report measure of psychopathic personality (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Hess, T. H. (2001). Psychopathic personality traits and
somatization: Sex differences and the mediating role of negative emo-
tionality. Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Assessment, 23,
11–24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1011035306061
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Widows, M. R. (2005). Psychopathic Personality
Inventory-Revised: Professional manual. Lutz, FL: Psychological As-
sessment Resources, Inc.
Lindwall, M., Barkoukis, V., Grano, C., Lucidi, F., Raudsepp, L., Liuk-
konen, J., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2012). Method effects: The
problem with negatively versus positively keyed items. Journal of Per-
sonality Assessment, 94, 196 –204. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891
.2011.645936
Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychop-
athy: A validation study. Journal of Personality Assessment, 73, 110 –
132. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA730108
Martínez Arias, R. (1995). Psicometría: Teoría de los tests psicológicos y
educativos [Psychometrics: Educational and psychological test theory].
Madrid, Spain: Síntesis.
Morey, L. C. (1991). The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), Profes-
sional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Morey, L. C. (1996). An interpretative guide to the Personality Assessment
Inventory. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Morey, L. C. (2003). Essentials of PAI Assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Morey, L. C. (2007). The Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI), Profes-
sional manual (2nd ed.). Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Re-
sources.
Muthén, L., & Muthén, B. (1998 –2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Author.
Neumann, C. S., Kosson, D. S., & Salekin, R. T. (2007). Exploratory and
confirmatory factor analysis of the psychopathy construct: Methodolog-
ical and conceptual issues. In H. Hervé & J. C. Yuille (Eds.), The
psychopath: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 79 –104). Mahwah, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Neumann, C. S., Malterer, M. B., & Newman, J. P. (2008). Factor structure
of the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI): Findings from a large
incarcerated sample. Psychological Assessment, 20, 169 –174. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.20.2.169
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.).
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Paulhus, D. L., Neumann, C. S., & Hare, R. D. (in press). Manual for the
Hare Self-Report Psychopathy scale. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-
Health Systems.
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003).
Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the
literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology,
88, 879 –903. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
Ray, J. V., Frick, P. J., Thornton, L. C., Steinberg, L., & Cauffman, E.
(2016). Positive and negative item wording and its influence on the
assessment of callous-unemotional traits. Psychological Assessment, 28,
394 – 404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/pas0000183
Rodebaugh, T. L., Woods, C. M., & Heimberg, R. G. (2007). The reverse
of social anxiety is not always the opposite: The reverse-scored items of
the social interaction anxiety scale do not belong. Behavior Therapy, 38,
192–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beth.2006.08.001
Rosseel, Y. Y. (2012). lavaan: An R Package for structural equation
modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48, 1–36. http://dx.doi.org/10
.18637/jss.v048.i02
Salekin, R. T., Chen, D. R., Sellbom, M., Lester, W. S., & MacDougall, E.
(2014). Examining the factor structure and convergent and discriminant
validity of the Levenson self-report psychopathy scale: Is the two-factor
model the best fitting model? Personality Disorders, 5, 289 –304. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/per0000073
Salekin, R. T., Trobst, K. K., & Krioukova, M. (2001). Construct validity
of psychopathy in a community sample: A nomological net approach.
Journal of Personality Disorders, 15, 425– 441. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1521/pedi.15.5.425.19196
Samejima, F. (1969). Estimation of latent ability using a response pattern
of graded scores. Chicago, IL: Psychometric Society.
Sellbom, M. (2011). Elaborating on the construct validity of the Levenson
Self-Report Psychopathy Scale in incarcerated and non-incarcerated
samples. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 440 – 451. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/s10979-010-9249-x
Siefert, C. J., Sinclair, S. J., Kehl-Fie, K. A., & Blais, M. A. (2009). An
item-level psychometric analysis of the Personality Assessment Inven-
 SELF-REPORT PSYCHOPATHY IRT
tory: Clinical scales in a psychiatric inpatient unit. Assessment, 16,
373–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073191109333756
Skeem, J. L., & Cooke, D. J. (2010). Is criminal behavior a central
component of psychopathy? Conceptual directions for resolving the
debate. Psychological Assessment, 22, 433– 445. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/a0008512
Smith, G. T., McCarthy, D. M., & Anderson, K. G. (2000). On the sins of
short-form development. Psychological Assessment, 12, 102–111. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.12.1.102
Smith, S. T., Edens, J. F., & Vaughn, M. G. (2011). Assessing the external
correlates of alternative factor models of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory-short form across three samples. Journal of Personality As-
sessment, 93, 244 –256. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2011
.558876
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Somma, A., Fossati, A., Patrick, C., Maffei, C., & Borroni, S. (2014). The
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
three-factor structure of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale:
Fool’s gold or true gold? A study in a sample of Italian adult non-clinical
participants. Personality and Mental Health, 8, 337–347. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1002/pmh.1267
Stansbury, J. P., Ried, L. D., & Velozo, C. A. (2006). Unidimensionality
and bandwidth in the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression
(CES-D) Scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 86, 10 –22. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa8601_03
Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An
interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 25,
173–180. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4
Tonnaer, F., Cima, M., Sijtsma, K., Uzieblo, K., & Lilienfeld, S. O. (2012).
Screening for psychopathy: Validation of the Psychopathic Personality
Inventory-short form with reference scores. Journal of Psychopathology
17
and Behavioral Assessment, 35, 153–161. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s10862-012-9333-2
Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum
likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika, 38, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1007/BF02291170
Vitacco, M. J., Roger, R., Neumann, C. S., Harrison, K. S., & Vincent,
G. M. (2005). A comparison of factor models on the PCL-R with
mentally disordered offenders: The development of a four-factor model.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 32, 526 –545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0093854805278414
Williams, K. M., Nathanson, C., & Paulhus, D. L. (2003, August). Struc-
ture and validity of the self-report psychopathy scale-III in normal
populations. Paper presented at the 11th Annual Convention of the
American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada.
Williams, K. M., & Paulhus, D. L. (2004). Factor structure of the Self-
Report Psychopathy scale (SRP-II) in non-forensic samples. Personality
and Individual Differences, 37, 765–778. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j
.paid.2003.11.004
Williams, K. M., Paulhus, D. L., & Hare, R. D. (2007). Capturing the
four-factor structure of psychopathy in college students via self-report.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 88, 205–219. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1080/00223890701268074
Wilson, D. L., Frick, P. J., & Clements, C. B. (1999). Gender, somatiza-
tion, and psychopathic traits in a college sample. Journal of Psychopa-
thology and Behavioral Assessment, 21, 221–235. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1023/A:1022825415137
Received September 23, 2016
Revision received February 24, 2017
Accepted February 27, 2017 䡲