Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Evaluation of the Hare P-SCAN in a non-clinical population§

Cristal E. Elwooda, Norman G. Poythressb,*, Kevin S. Douglasb
a
Honors Program, University of South Florida, USA
b
Department of Mental Health Law & Policy, Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida, 13301 Bruce B.
Downs Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33612-3807, USA

Received 6 September 2002; received in revised form 12 February 2003; accepted 14 March 2003

Abstract
Using 100 university undergraduates as participants, this study examined the structural reliability and
construct validity of Hare and Hervé’s P-SCAN (Hare & Hervé, 1999) a 90-item measure that purports to
serve as an ‘‘. . . early warning system’’ or ‘‘rough screening device’’ (p. 1) for identifying individuals with
substantial psychopathic features. Internal consistency indices (e.g. Cronbach’s a, mean inter-item corre-
lations) for the three P-SCAN subscales (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle) suggested excellent reliability.
Statistically significant, though modest correlations (range 0.21–0.33) were obtained in 5 of 6 comparisons
with the self-report Primary psychopathy and Secondary psychopathy scales developed by Levenson,
Kiehl, and Fitzpatrick (1995) for use with non-institutional populations. Evidence for the external validity
of the P-SCAN was obtained via significant positive correlations (range 0.22–0.24) with participants’ scores
on a self-report measure of antisocial activity. Limitations of this study and interpretations of P-SCAN as
a measure of psychopathic features are discussed.
# 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Psychopathy; Antisocial personality; Forensic assessment; Measurement; Assessment

1. Introduction

1.1. Assessment of psychopathy

Psychopathy is one of the most actively researched constructs in clinical psychology today.
Contemporary conceptualizations of psychopathy are traced directly from the work of Cleckley

§
This study is based on research conducted by the first author in fulfillment of her Honors Thesis requirement at the
University of South Florida.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-813-974-9306; fax: +1-813-974-6411.
E-mail address: poythres@mirage.fmhi.usf.edu (N. G. Poythress).

0191-8869/03/$ - see front matter # 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00156-9
834 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843

(1941), who described a clinical syndrome that included interpersonal (i.e. superficial charm;
deceitfulness; manipulativeness), affective (i.e. callous; guiltless; remorseless) and behavioral (i.e.
lack of realistic plans; violation of social and legal norms) features. Given these core features, one
might well expect to find that many psychopathic individuals are prone to violate the law, and
considerable empirical work regarding this construct has utilized correctional or forensic popu-
lations. With these populations, the leading clinical and research measure of psychopathy clearly
is Hare’s Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R: Hare, 1991), a 20-item clinician-rated symp-
tom rating test that utilizes a two-factor conceptualization of psychopathy. Factor 1 consists of
the core personality (affective and interpersonal) features of psychopathy, while Factor 2 taps
traits (e.g. proneness to boredom; lack of goals) and behaviors (e.g. delinquency history; early
behavior problems) that reflect a deviant lifestyle (though see Cooke and Michie, 2001, who
recently reported a three-factor structure that splits Hare’s Factor 1 into separate ‘‘Deficient
Affective Experience’’ and ‘‘Arrogant and Deceitful Interpersonal Style’’ components, while
retaining a separate ‘‘Impulsive and Irresponsible Behavioral Style’’ component. Seven of the 20
items are dropped in this model.)
Psychopathy, as measured using the PCL-R, has been demonstrated to be important to both
clinical and social policy outcomes. Both box score (Patrick & Zempolich, 1998) and meta-ana-
lytic reviews (Hemphill, Hare, & Wong, 1998; Salekin, Rogers, & Sewell, 1996) have confirmed
that psychopathy is one of the most robust predictors of criminal violence and recidivism, and its
use is highly recommended in risk assessments of males in forensic and corrections settings
(Melton, Petrila, Poythress, & Slobogin, 1997). In other studies psychopathy has been associated
with poor treatment outcomes in a variety of populations (see, e.g. Alterman, Rutherford,
Cacciola, McKay, & Boardman, 1998; Hill, Rogers, & Bickford, 1996; Ogloff, Wong, &
Greenwood, 1990; Rice, Harris, & Cormier, 1992; Seto & Barbaree, 1999).
Although much of the empirical research on psychopathy to date has utilized forensic or
correctional populations, Cleckley (1941) indicated that psychopathic individuals do not always
wind up on the wrong side of the law (see also: Lykken, 1995), and an extensive history of
violence or criminality was not a core element in his description of this syndrome. Hare (1996)
has noted that psychopaths ‘‘. . . are well represented in the business and corporate world . . .’’ (p. 26),
and he has estimated that the incidence of psychopathy in the general population is about 1%
(Hare, 1998). There has been considerably less research investigating psychopathy in non-clinical
populations, in part due to the lack of appropriate measures. However the past decade has seen
the development of several research measures for such use, including a screening version of the
PCL-R (Hart, Cox, & Hare, 1995) and several self-report inventories (e.g. Levenson, Kiehl, &
Fitzpatrick, 1995; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996).

1.2. Non-clinical evaluation of psychopathic features: Hare’s P-SCAN

Hare and Hervé (1999) recently introduced a novel measure for the evaluation of psychopathic
features and advocated its use in a variety of settings. Available only in a research form, potential
users of the Hare P-SCAN include ‘‘Prosecutors, judges, law enforcement officers, school coun-
selors, parole and probation officers, hostage negotiators, nurses and workers in civil and forensic
psychiatric facilities, social workers, corrections officers, therapists and case management
personnel, among others . . . ’’ (p. 1), or ‘‘. . . a human resources manager or personnel selection
 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843 835

officer . . .’’ (p. 2) in certain hiring situations. The user ‘‘should know something about the clinical
construct of psychopathy and its assessment’’ (p. 2), and ratings are based on ‘‘. . . whatever
information about the individual the user happens to have at the time of the assessment’’ (p. 3)
[although concerns about insufficient information and the desire to have multiple sources of
information available are discussed in the manual].
The user rates the individual (e.g. defendant, probationer, job applicant, etc.) on 90 items, each
of which reflects some aspect of psychopathic behavior (see Section 2.2). The P-SCAN is ‘‘not a
psychological test, nor does it provide a clinical diagnosis or an assessment’’ (p. 1), and no
formal, systematic, or structured data collection is required. Rather, it is described as an ‘‘. . . early
warning system’’ or ‘‘rough screening device’’ (p. 1) for use on ‘‘occasions in which a formal assess-
ment is not feasible, but in which it would be extremely helpful to have some idea about whether or
not an offender, suspect, client, or patient might be a psychopath, or might have an appreciable
number of psychopathic features’’ (p. 1). The manual asserts that such conclusions or judgments
‘‘could put a whole new perspective on how to evaluate and deal with the individual’’ (p. 1), and
suggestions for use by hostage negotiators, prosecutors seeking to negotiate plea agreements,
probation officers with large and heterogeneous offender caseloads, and others are provided.
Despite the far-reaching claims about the need for and potential value of the P-SCAN, the
manual provides no empirical data regarding the properties of this tool, nor are any data
presented regarding the relationship of P-SCAN scores to any criterion measures. Therefore, the
present study was undertaken to examine the psychometric properties and construct validity of
the P-SCAN in a non-clinical population. To evaluate the construct validity of the P-SCAN, we
examined whether indices of self-reported psychopathic features correlated positively with
P-SCAN scores provided by a third-party who knew the participant reasonably well. To examine
the external validity of the measure, we examined whether P-SCAN scores correlated positively
with a self-report measure of antisocial activity.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Fifty pairs of undergraduate students (total N=100) at a large university in west-central

Florida were recruited as research participants. Thirty-eight participants were male, and the
average age of the sample was 20 years (range 18–27). Of the 50 pairs, 18 were male–male, 30
were female–female, and 2 were male–female. Most (n=82) participants described their counterpart
as a ‘‘good friend’’ or ‘‘very close friend,’’ with the remainder being described as roommates (n=6),
acquaintances (n=6), or classmates (n=2); there were four missing descriptions of the nature of the
relationship. Self-reported data on race and ethnicity revealed that the sample was 54% Caucasian,
16% Hispanic, 15% African-American, 5% Asian, 3% American Indian, and 7% ‘‘other.’’

2.2. Measures

Each participant completed a brief social history/demographics questionnaire that provided

information such as age, race, gender, religious preference, and current grade point average.
836 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843

2.2.1. Hare P-SCAN

Three facets of psychopathy are evaluated using the 90-item P-SCAN. Items 1–30 assess inter-
personal features such as manipulativeness (‘‘Looks for weak spots, buttons to push’’), lying
(‘‘Lies easily while looking you in the eye’’), and glibness (‘‘Has the gift of gab or is a very smooth
talker’’). Items 31–60 assess affective features such as lacking depth of emotion (‘‘Discusses
emotions in concrete terms—e.g. love is sex’’), difficulty establishing or maintaining meaningful
relationships (‘‘No strong emotional ties to family, others’’), and absence of anxiety (‘‘Seems
unusually cool under pressure’’). Items 61–90 assess lifestyle features of the individual such as
being a risk taker (‘‘Likes to do things that are exciting, risky’’), having poor impulse control
(‘‘Does things on the spur of the moment’’), and being aggressive (‘‘Described as a bully’’). The
person rating the target individual assigns a score of 0 (Item does not apply), 1 (Item applies
somewhat), or 2 (Item definitely applies) to each item.1 The reader will recognize the similarity
between the P-SCAN item scoring system and that used by the PCL-R. Individual facet scores are
calculated by adding item scores and can range from 0 to 60. A Total score is also calculated by
averaging the three facet scores. ‘‘Preliminary Guidelines’’ in the manual indicate that scores in
(roughly) the 32–44 range should be considered ‘‘High’’ and ‘‘should be a cause for serious con-
cern’’ (Hare & Hervé, 1999, p. 6).2 Scores (roughly) 45 and above are considered ‘‘Very High.’’
We note that it was not feasible in the present study to educate raters about the nature of
psychopathy, as is suggested in the manual.

2.2.2. Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy measure (LSRP: Levenson et al., 1995)

The LSRP was used to obtain an index of the target individual’s psychopathic features. This
measure was developed using an undergraduate sample and was designed for the assessment of
psychopathic features in non-institutional populations. Tailored largely to the personality
dimensions of the PCL-R, this 26-item self-report measure contains two, factor-analytically
derived scales. The Primary scale consists of 16 items designed to assess the core personality
features described by Cleckley (1941), while the Secondary scale is conceptually related more to
PCL-R Factor 2 and consists of 10 items.
In six studies that employed the LSRP with nine samples of college undergraduates [Ferrigan,
Valentiner, & Berman, 2000; Levenson et al., 1995; Lynam, Whiteside, & Jones, 1999; McHos-
key, Worzel, & Szyarto, 1998 (4 samples); Ross & Bailley, 2000; Ross & Rausch, 2001], the
internal consistency (Cronbach’s a) for the Primary scale has ranged from 0.81 to 0.88
(mdn=0.84). Somewhat lower indices have been reported for the Secondary Scale, with as
ranging from 0.57 to 0.74 (mdn=0.64). In the present study, coefficient as were 0.73 for the
Primary Scale and 0.68 for the Secondary Scale.
In terms of validity, Lynam et al. (1999) replicated the two-factor structure of the LSRP using
confirmatory factor analysis with a large undergraduate (n=1852) sample and reported
1
When insufficient information is available, a score of ‘‘?’’ is assigned. The authors assert that a score of ‘‘?’’ for
more than five items on any individual facet, or for 15 items overall, may compromise the validity of the P-SCAN.
However, no validity data are presented to illustrate the putative adverse impact of missing scores on judgments,
predictions, or decisions derived from the measure.
2
However, no empirical data is provided as a basis for this (or any other) classification range or the associated score
interpretation. At present, score ranges and interpretations provided in the manual appear to reflect the reasoned
judgments of the P-SCAN authors.
 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843 837

additional evidence for the construct validity of the measure in terms of expected correlations
with self-report measures of other constructs. They also reported response modulation deficits in
psychopathic undergraduates similar to those observed in incarcerated psychopaths. LSRP scores
have also been shown to correlate with self-reported antisocial behavior in undergraduate sam-
ples. Significant positive correlations with self-reported lifetime antisocial activity have been
reported by Levenson et al. (r=0.44 for Primary, 0.29 for Secondary), Lynam et al. (r=0.32 for
Primary, 0.20 (men) and 0.32 (women) for Secondary), and McHoskey et al. (Study 2: r=0.47 for
Primary, 0.40 for Secondary).

2.2.3. Antisocial Action Scale (AAS)

Levenson et al. (1995) developed a 24-item self-report scale to assess the frequency of antisocial
behaviors that might be typical of a student population (e.g. cheating on exams; stealing; vand-
alism; promiscuity). We selected this measure because of its applicability to our sample and
because it had previously been used with the LSRP scale. To control for response set, the measure
also contains prosocial items (e.g. doing volunteer work; tutoring students who are having
academic difficulty), which are reverse coded, and contribute to the overall AAS score. Each item
has four endorsement options for indicating the frequency (‘‘never,’’ ‘‘once or twice,’’ ‘‘a few
times,’’ or ‘‘frequently’’) with which the action has been performed. Levenson et al. reported
reasonable reliability in a sample of 487 university students (a=0.70).

2.3. Procedure

Prospective participants were approached by the first author at regularly scheduled dormitory
unit meetings and at sorority and fraternity meetings. Written informed consent was obtained
from each participant using procedures approved by the university’s Institutional Review Board.
Participants were informed that only pairs of students who knew each other fairly well were
eligible to participate. Pairs were advised that the study involved a comparison of self-report and
other-report measures of personality features, and that each would provide self-report ratings
about their own personality features (LPS; AAS) and separate ratings (P-SCAN) about the
personality of their ‘‘partner.’’ Members of dyads were asked not to confer with one another.
After informed consent was obtained, participants were given the research protocol to complete.
Upon completion of the protocol, participants were offered milk and cookies as compensation for
research participation.

3. Results

3.1. Mean scores on measures of psychopathic features

The upper portion of Table 1 provides the mean scores and standard deviations, by gender, for
the P-SCAN. Not surprisingly, given a presumptively well-socialized sample of undergraduates,
mean scores on all three subscales and on the Total score are in the Very Low (0–10) or Low (12–
20) range for both males and females, with very few participants scoring in the High (n< 5) or
Very High (n=1) ranges on any given subscale. Mean scores on the LSRP, shown in the lower
838 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843

portion of Table 1, were generally slightly lower than or comparable with those reported in
previous studies (see Section 4).

3.2. P-SCAN reliability

Reliability indicators for the P-SCAN scales are presented in Table 2. Each scale had excellent
internal consistency; Cronbach’s a was at 0.90 or higher, and mean inter-item correlations ranged
from 0.24 to 0.29 for the three scales.
For the interpersonal scale, an inspection of item-level data suggested that one item (no. 4.
‘‘Attempts to portray self in a good light’’) worked more poorly than did the other 29 items. It
had the lowest corrected item-to-total correlation (0.15; the next lowest was 0.22). Item no. 4 also
correlated poorly with other items on the scale; correlations with eight items were negative (range:
0.079 to 0.001), and with an additional eight items the inter-item correlations were <0.10.
However, due to the relatively large number of items on this scale (30), removal of this item from
the interpersonal scale would increase scale alpha only slightly (from 0.897 to 0.901).
For the affective scale, inspection of item-level data revealed that one item (no. 52. ‘‘No
apparent anxiety, nervousness, or distress’’) performed poorly. It had by far the lowest corrected
item-to-total correlation (0.13, the next lowest was 0.25). It also correlated poorly with other

Table 1
Mean (S.D.) scores on the P-SCAN and LSRP

Measure Males (n=38) Females (n=62)

Mean S.D. Mean S.D.

P-SCAN
Interpersonal 19.39 9.80 11.87 8.93
Affective 12.26 10.39 6.70 6.29
Lifestyle 13.20 10.44 7.51 7.59
Total 14.45 9.50 8.76 6.70

LSRP
Primary 31.32 6.37 29.90 6.50
Secondary 18.58 3.94 19.65 4.95

LSRP=Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy scale; P-SCAN=the Hare P-SCAN.

Table 2
Reliability of the P-SCAN scales

P-SCAN scale Alpha MIC CITC

M Range

Interpersonal 0.90 0.24 0.46 0.15–0.63

Affective 0.90 0.27 0.49 0.13–0.73
Lifestyle 0.92 0.29 0.51 0.37–0.65

MIC=Mean inter-item correlation; CITC=Corrected item-total correlation; P-SCAN=the Hare P-SCAN.

 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843 839

items on the scale, negatively with five items (range: 0.01 to 0.070) and <0.10 with 11
additional items. Again, removal of this item from the affective scale would increase a only
slightly (from 0.902 to 0.907).
An inspection of item-level data revealed no suspect items on Scale 3, lifestyle. There was only one
negative correlation in the inter-item correlation matrix, and corrected item-to-total correlations for
all items were substantial.

3.3. Concurrent validity

To assess the utility of the P-SCAN for indexing psychopathic features, correlations between
the P-SCAN and self-reported psychopathic features on Levenson et al.’s (1995) LSRP were
computed. We first performed a logarithmic transformation of the P-SCAN and LSRP scale data
because they were non-normal. These correlations are reported in Table 3.
Except for the correlation between the P-SCAN interpersonal scale with the LSRP Secondary
Scale, all correlations between these two measures were statistically significant, although of low to
moderate magnitude. The P-SCAN Lifestyle Scale correlated most strongly with LSRP indices,
with correlations in the 0.28–0.37 range. The largest correlation was observed between the
P-SCAN Lifestyle Scale and the LSRP Primary Scale.
Multiple regression using the ENTER method with SPSS-11 was used to predict LSRP scale
scores using P-SCAN scores as predictors (again, using log-transformed data). For the Primary
Scale, the three P-SCAN scores explained 19.1% of the variance in Primary scores (adjusted
R2=0.165), R=0.44 [F(3, 92)=7.26, P<0.001). To evaluate whether each P-SCAN Scale
explained unique variance in LPRS scores, we conducted three parallel regression analyses in
which each of the P-SCAN subscales was forced to enter the model last (after the other two
subscales), and examined change in R2. Results showed that each P-SCAN Scale resulted in a
significant increase in the variance explained in LPRS scores by the other two P-SCAN Scales.
For the Lifestyle scale, R2 was 0.09 (P<0.01); for the Interpersonal scale, R2 was 0.049
(P<0.05); for the Affective scale, R2 was 0.039 (P< 0.05).
We repeated these analyses using the Secondary Scale of the LSRP scale as the dependent
measure. P-SCAN scores explained 8% of the variance in Secondary scores (adjusted R2=0.05),
R=0.28 [F(3, 92)=2.66, P<0.05). Further analyses revealed that, unlike analyses using the

Table 3
Correlation of the P-SCAN with self-reported psychopathy

P-SCAN measure Levenson’s Self-Report Psychopathy scale

Primary scale Secondary scale

Interpersonal 0.32c 0.20a

Affective 0.22b 0.24b
Lifestyle 0.37c 0.28b

P-SCAN=the Hare P-SCAN.

* P< 0.05.
** P< 0.01.
*** P< 0.001.
840 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843

Primary LSPR scale as the outcome measure, none of the P-SCAN subscales explained unique
variance in Secondary scores.

3.4. External validity

To examine the external validity of the P-SCAN, we computed correlations between its scales
with the AAS, a self-report measure of antisocial activity (again, using log-transformations).
Correlations for the interpersonal, affective, and lifestyle components of the P-SCAN were all
significantly and positively correlated with AAS scores, 0.23, 0.23, and 0.28, respectively (all
Ps <0.01). Multiple regression using the ENTER method with SPSS-11 was used to predict AAS
scores using P-SCAN scores as predictors. The multiple R (R=0.30) was significant [F(3,
92)=2.99, P<0.05) and explained 8.9% of the variance in AAS scores (adjusted R2=0.059).
Further analyses revealed that none of the P-SCAN scores accounted for unique variance in AAS
scores.

4. Discussion

The construct of psychopathy has been demonstrated to have important social and clinical
policy implications, particularly within correctional and forensic settings. Within these settings,
the Hare PCL-R (Hare, 1991) is the gold standard of measurement. It has been shown
in numerous studies to predict a variety of types of antisocial outcomes and lack of treatment
progress. In non-criminal, non-institutional settings, other measurement strategies have been
proposed, including self-report tests (Levenson et al., 1995; Lilienfeld & Andrews, 1996). Another
approach is represented by the P-SCAN (Hare & Hervé, 1999), which was introduced as an index
of the degree of psychopathic features present in a given individual, as determined by some
non-clinical rater. Although no research has been published using this instrument, it has been
proposed for use in a variety of settings (prison, court, employment) to help inform decisions
about individuals.
The present study evaluated the structural reliability and validity of the P-SCAN, defined by its
authors as an ‘‘early warning system’’ or ‘‘rough screening device’’ for the disorder of psycho-
pathy, rather than a formal psychometric test. The present study of college students formed the
basis for a rather conservative evaluation of the P-SCAN. Prior studies have indicated that
relatively few undergraduates display high levels of psychopathic features, thus restriction of
range on psychopathy-related measures is likely to contribute to minimize correlations with other
measures. Because it was impractical in this context to educate our P-SCAN raters about
psychopathy, they had no information available to them about psychopathic features other than that
which could be gleaned from item content. The P-SCAN manual recommends that raters have
some degree of familiarity with the construct of psychopathy, perhaps having read Hare’s (1993)
Without conscience. On the other hand, our requirement that participant pairs knew each other
fairly well in order to be eligible for the study insured a level of interpersonal familiarity between
rater and target that exceeds that which is likely to be present in many projected P-SCAN situations.
Structural reliability indices revealed excellent scale internal consistency and item-level
reliability. All alpha values were 50.90. There also were few individual items that performed
 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843 841

poorly, and removal of these items did little to increase scale reliability because of the relatively
large number of items per scale (30).
Validity was evaluated in two ways. First, concurrent validity was evaluated vis-à-vis the LSRP,
a self-report measure of psychopathy that was developed conceptually with Hare’s (1991) model
in mind, but which has been used primarily with college students. First, descriptively, LPRS
scores in the current sample were similar to or slightly lower than in previously published
research. The mean score for males on both the primary and secondary scales of the LSRP were
slightly lower than the mean for undergraduate males reported by Levenson et al. (1995), Lynam
et al. (1999), and Ross and Bailley (2000). Females in this sample obtained a mean score on both
the Primary and Secondary Scales that were within the range of mean scores for female under-
graduates reported by Levenson et al. (1995), Lynam et al. (1999), and Ross and Bailley (2000).
Correlations between the P-SCAN and the LSRP were all positive, although generally low, with
some being moderate in size; the maximum correlation was 0.37 (P-SCAN lifestyle score with
LSRP Primary score), and most (4 of 6) were below 0.30. Although demonstrating a meaningful
association between measures, these correlational analyses, as tests of concurrent validity, cannot
be said to establish that the P-SCAN measures the same construct as LSRP (i.e. psychopathic
features in non-clinical and non-criminal samples). We note that there are several additional
factors that could contribute to this fairly low correspondence between measures, including
factors associated with using different measurement procedures (self- versus other-report) such as
different biases or levels of willingness for self- versus other-reporting of psychopathic-like
features, and insight into self and insight into others’ personality features. We note, however, that
despite these factors, a number of significant correlations emerged.
The other type of validity analysis involved correlations between the P-SCAN and the target
individuals’ own reports of antisocial behavior. Correlations bordered on moderate in magnitude
(0.23–0.28). These correlations demonstrate that persons who were rated high(er) on the P-SCAN
by friends also were more likely to admit having engaged in antisocial behavior. This finding is
consistent with the vast amount of research on psychopathy conducted with the PCL-R (Hemp-
hill et al., 1998; Salekin et al., 1996). It is also consistent conceptually with what one would
predict of a measure of psychopathic tendencies.
The current findings (along with its face validity/item content) suggest that the P-SCAN
measures a construct related to antisocial tendencies. It does so differently than does the LSRP,
which itself does so differently than the PCL-R. As such, the current findings cannot be construed
as evidence that the P-SCAN measures ‘‘psychopathy’’ as conceptualized by Hare (1991).
There are several points to make in conclusion. First, evidence for the validity of the P-SCAN
might have been greater (though it was not negligible) if we had been able to follow the manual’s
suggestion to educate users about psychopathy. In principle, if raters were more familiar with the
construct, their ratings would consist of more trait-relevant variance than was the case with the
present ratings. This potentially would permit larger correlations to emerge with other putative
measures of psychopathy and with correlates of psychopathy. It is unclear to what extent this
feature of the present research affected the results, though it could be safe to say that the present
findings represent lower bounds of validity.
Second, this study was carried out with a sample that, for the most part, is not highly psycho-
pathic. This has several implications. Most research on psychopathy has been carried out in
criminal and forensic samples; its presentation and prevalence in non-criminal samples is less well
842 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843

understood, although it is certainly going to be less common in non-criminal samples than in

criminal samples. As such, attempts to measure psychopathy in non-criminal samples likely are
being exposed to a limited range of the disorder, and hence are likely measuring primarily less
serious, sub-threshold manifestations of psychopathy, or ‘‘psychopathy-like’’ features. Despite
these challenges, the P-SCAN demonstrated reasonable correspondence to another measure of
‘‘psychopathy-like’’ features and to a measure of antisocial behavior.
In conclusion, the present study observed excellent structural reliability indices for the
P-SCAN, and moderate concurrent and predictive validity indices. Despite the emergence of
correlations between the P-SCAN and a self-report measure of psychopathy (which does not
clearly measure psychopathy) and antisocial behavior, the present findings cannot serve as the
basis for statements that the P-SCAN measures psychopathy. Considerable research remains to
be done with the P-SCAN, preferably using the PCL-R or PCL:SV as concurrent measures (if the
sample setting permits) to support the P-SCAN for actual use in applied settings. The present
study also was unable to address the validity of proposed score cut-offs in the P-SCAN manual.
The construct underlying the P-SCAN remains relatively unknown, as does the nature of the
relationship between the P-SCAN and psychopathy. Nonetheless, the present findings are
consistent with the position that the P-SCAN taps ‘‘psychopathy-like’’ features, and provides
some impetus for further investigation of this instrument.

References

Alterman, A. I., Rutherford, M. J., Cacciola, J. S., McKay, J. R., & Boardman, C. R. (1998). Prediction of 7 months
methadone maintenance treatment responses by four measures of antisociality. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 49, 217–
223.
Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity. St. Louis: Mosby.
Cooke, D. J., & Michie, C. (2001). Refining the construct of psychopathy: towards a hierarchical model. Psychological
Assessment, 13, 171–188.
Ferrigan, M. M., Valentiner, D. P., & Berman, M. E. (2000). Psychopathy dimensions and awareness of negative and
positive consequences of aggressive behavior in a nonforensic sample. Personality & Individual Differences, 28, 527–
538.
Hare, R. D. (1991). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D. (1993). Without conscience: the disturbing world of the psychopaths among us. Toronto, ON: Pocket Books.
Hare, R. D. (1996). Psychopathy: a clinical construct whose time has come. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 23, 25–54.
Hare, R. D. (1998). The Hare PCL-R: some issues concerning its use and misuse. Legal & Criminological Psychology, 3,
99–119.
Hare, R. D., & Hervé, H. F. (1999). Hare P-SCAN. Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hart, S. D., Cox, D. N., & Hare, R. D. (1995). Manual for the Hare Psychopathy Checklist: Screening Version.
Toronto: Multi-Health Systems.
Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and recidivism: a review. Legal & Criminological
Psychology, 3, 139–170.
Hill, C. D., Rogers, R., & Bickford, M. E. (1996). Predicting aggressive and socially disruptive behavior in a maximum
security forensic psychiatric hospital. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 41, 56–59.
Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, C. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized
population. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 68, 151–158.
Lilienfeld, S. O., & Andrews, B. P. (1996). Development and preliminary validation of a self-report measure of
psychopathic personality traits in non-criminal populations. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66, 488–524.
Lykken, D. (1995). The antisocial personalities. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 C.E. Elwood et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 833–843 843

Lynam, D. R., Whiteside, S., & Jones, S. (1999). Self-reported psychopathy: a validation study. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 73, 110–132.
McHoskey, J. W., Worzel, W., & Szyarto, C. (1998). Machiavellianism and psychopathy. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychopathy, 74, 192–210.
Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N., & Slobogin, C. (1997). Psychological evaluations for the courts: a handbook for
mental health professionals and lawyers. New York: Guilford.
Ogloff, J. R. P., Wong, S., & Greenwood, A. (1990). Treating criminal psychopaths in a therapeutic community
program. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 8, 181–190.
Patrick, C. J., & Zempolich, K. A. (1998). Emotion and aggression in the psychopathic personality. Aggression &
Violent Behavior, 3, 303–338.
Rice, M. E., Harris, G. T., & Cormier, C. A. (1992). An evaluation of a maximum security therapeutic community for
psychopaths and other mentally disordered offenders. Law & Human Behavior, 16, 399–412.
Ross, S. R., & Bailley, S. (2000, July). Primary and secondary psychopathy in the Five Factor model. Paper presented at
the 27th International Congress of Psychology. Stockholm, Sweden.
Ross, S. R., & Rausch, M. K. (2001). Psychopathic attributes and achievement dispositions in a college sample.
Personality & Individual Differences, 30, 471–480.
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and
Psychopathy Checklist-Revised: predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science & Practice, 3, 625–
637.
Seto, M. C., & Barbaree, H. E. (1999). Psychopathy, treatment behavior and sex offender recidivism. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 14, 1235–1248.