1015312

research-article2021
ASMXXX10.1177/10731911211015312AssessmentMcCallum et al.

Article
Assessment

Psychopathy Profiles and Personality

1­–15
© The Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
Assessment Inventory Scores in a Sex sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/10731911211015312
https://doi.org/10.1177/10731911211015312

Offender Risk Assessment Field Setting journals.sagepub.com/home/asm

Katherine E. McCallum1 , Marcus T. Boccaccini2 ,

Jorge G. Varela2, and Darrel B. Turner3

Abstract
A growing body of research suggests there are identifiable psychopathy subtypes among offenders scored on Hare’s
Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003). We used latent profile analysis to examine the generalizability
of these subtype findings to PCL-R scores (N = 615) assigned in a sex offender risk assessment field setting and to
examine how offender subtypes differ on measures of comorbid psychopathology, risk, and treatment amenability from
the Personality Assessment Inventory. Consistent with prior research, we identified four subtypes when using PCL-R
scores from all offenders: Prototypic psychopathy (n = 239, 38.9%), callous-conning (n = 154, 25.0%), sociopathic (n =
96, 15.6%), and general offenders (n = 126, 20.5%). Prototypic and sociopathic subtypes exhibited the highest levels of
comorbid psychopathology and risk for potential violence. We identified classes consistent with primary (n = 66, 36.7%)
and secondary (n = 114, 63.3%) psychopathy among offenders with PCL-R total scores ≥ 25, and found higher levels of
comorbid psychopathology and potential for violence among those in the secondary psychopathy class. Findings provide
support the generalizability of existing PCL-R subtype findings to field scores and show how those with similar PCL-R total
scores may differ on scores from commonly used multiscale inventories.

Keywords
psychopathy, PCL-R, PAI, field validity, sex offender

Hare’s PCL-R (Hare, 1991, 2003) is a commonly used mea-
sure for assessing psychopathic traits in forensic evalua-
tions (Neal & Grisso, 2014; Viljoen, et al., 2010), including
sex offender risk assessments (Boccaccini et al., 2017). The
clinician-scored PCL-R includes 20 items that assess affec-
tive, interpersonal, lifestyle, and behavioral traits associated
with psychopathy. Due to the number and variety of traits
measured by the PCL-R, there can be notable differences in
trait profiles among individuals who receive similar total
scores. Researchers have used large data sets of PCL-R
scores to identify replicable psychopathy subtypes (see
Klein Haneveld et al., 2018; Lehmann et al., 2019; Neumann
et al., 2016).
Although these PCL-R subtype findings provide impor-
tant information for psychopathology research, their gener-
alizability to and implications for routine forensic practice
are less clear. There is growing recognition that the psycho-
metric properties of instrument scores assigned for forensic
evaluations can be weaker than the psychometric properties
of scores assigned for research purposes (see Edens &
Boccaccini, 2017), and replication of subtype findings with
field scores assigned for real-world decision making is
needed. Indeed, PCL-R field reliability, field validity, and
the practical implications from subtype study findings have
been key issues in recent disagreements about the use of the
PCL-R for predicting institutional violence in real-world
cases, especially those involving the death penalty (see
DeMatteo et al., 2020; Olver et al., 2020).
Because many subtyping studies have relied on scores
assigned for research purposes, they often provide limited
information about how the subtype groups may differ on
scores from the types of multiscale personality and psycho-
pathology measures commonly used in routine clinical/
forensic practice to inform diagnosis and treatment plan-
ning. In other words, there is limited information available
to practitioners who may want to apply PCL-R subtyping
studies to clinical practice, to help them better understand
how evaluees with different PCL-R profiles may differ with
1
Private Practice, Denver, CO, USA
2
Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX, USA
3
Private Practice, Lake Charles, LA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Marcus T. Boccaccini, Department of Psychology and Philosophy, Sam
Houston State University, Box 2447, Huntsville, TX 77341, USA.
Email: Boccaccini@shsu.edu
2 Assessment 00(0)
respect to comorbid psychopathology and treatment needs.
In the present study, we use latent profile analysis (LPA)
with PCL-R field scores to examine the field validity of
existing PCL-R subtype findings and then compare psy-
chopathy subgroups on scores from the PAI (Morey, 1991),
a commonly used multiscale inventory for assessing a wide
range of diagnostic and treatment characteristics relevant
for clinical decision-making.
Empirical Support for Psychopathy Subtypes
Several lines of research have investigated whether there is
empirical support for specific combinations of psycho-
pathic traits clustering together among identifiable sub-
groups of patients or offenders. Subtype studies focusing on
offenders with high psychopathy scores (e.g., PCL-R total
score ≥ 25) have typically found support for two subtypes,
often described as primary and secondary psychopathy
(Hicks et al., 2010; Olver et al., 2015; Skeem et al., 2007).
In these studies, primary psychopathy is characterized by
elevated interpersonal and affective traits with compara-
tively lower lifestyle and antisocial traits, whereas second-
ary psychopathy is characterized by elevated lifestyle and
antisocial traits, with comparatively lower interpersonal
and affective traits (Klein Haneveld et al., 2018; Neumann
et al., 2016). Similar findings have emerged from subtyping
studies using other psychopathy measures (see Hicks &
Drislane, 2018; Lee & Salekin, 2010).
Others have concluded that there may be three subtypes
among high scorers. In a large (N = 1,451) sample of
offenders with PCL-R total scores of 27 and higher,
researchers identified three subtypes, which they labeled
manipulative, aggressive, and sociopathic (Mokros et al.,
2015). The manipulative subtype exhibited higher interper-
sonal traits and lower antisocial traits. The aggressive sub-
type exhibited the highest antisocial traits, higher levels of
aggressiveness, and a larger number of self-reported crimi-
nal tendencies. The sociopathic subtype exhibited very low
affective traits but high levels of social deviance. The
authors proposed that the manipulative and aggressive sub-
types reflected subtypes of the traditional construct of psy-
chopathy, while the sociopathic subtype was more consistent
with antisocial personality disorder.
Focusing on only those with high psychopathy scores
inevitably omits many individuals from the analyses, and
some researchers have argued for the inclusion of the entire
sample in psychopathy subtype research (Krstic et al., 2018;
Neumann et al., 2016). Using the entire sample provides
researchers the opportunity to examine the possibility of
subtypes among those with high or low levels of psycho-
pathic traits, arguably offering a richer and more complete
discussion of the psychopathy construct. Recent PCL-R
studies using scores from all available participants have
found support for four subgroups, described by the
researchers as: (a) prototypic, (b) callous-conning, (c)
sociopathic, and (d) nonpsychopathic or general offenders
(see Hare et al., 2018; Klein Haneveld et al., 2018; Neumann
et al., 2016).
The prototypic subtype is characterized by high average
scores across all four PCL-R facets: Interpersonal (Facet 1),
Affective (Facet 2), Lifestyle (Facet 3), and Antisocial
Behavior (Facet 4). The callous-conning subtype is charac-
terized by elevated interpersonal and affective traits with
comparatively lower lifestyle and antisocial traits. The
sociopathic subtype is characterized by elevated lifestyle
and antisocial traits with comparatively lower interpersonal
and affective traits. Finally, the nonpsychopathic subtype
includes offenders who exhibit average or lower psycho-
pathic traits across all four facets.
Recent psychopathy subtype studies using self-report
psychopathy measures have identified somewhat different
subtype groups. For example, a recent study of psycho-
pathic traits in the general population identified five sub-
types, which the authors termed psychopathic personality,
impulsive-irresponsible, callous-unemotional, grandiose-
manipulative, and nonpsychopathic (Colins et al., 2017).
Among juvenile offenders, LPA analyses with scores from
self-report psychopathy and anxiety measures revealed four
classes: control, high anxiety, moderate psychopathy, and
high psychopathy (Colins et al., 2018).
External Correlates of Psychopathy Subtypes
Implications for practice from psychopathy subtype studies
come from follow-up validity analyses comparing offend-
ers from different psychopathy subtype groups on external
correlates relevant to clinical practice. In the primary versus
secondary psychopathy literature, researchers have found
that primary psychopathy is characterized by lower stress
reaction, low harm avoidance, higher social dominance,
relatively stable emotional functioning and a lower rate of
internalizing disorders, whereas secondary psychopathy is
characterized by higher levels of emotional instability, neu-
roticism, anxiety, substance use disorders, and a more fre-
quent rate of comorbid psychopathology and co-occurring
disorders (Hicks & Drislane, 2018; Skeem et al., 2007;
Vassileva et al., 2005).
The most consistent finding from studies using all
PCL-R scores is that prototypic offenders differ from those
in the other subtype groups. Prototypic offenders receive
higher scores on measures specifically designed to assess
risk for violence, have a history of committing more violent
offenses, are more likely to be diagnosed with a personality
disorder, and drop out of treatment at a significantly higher
rate than other offenders (Klein Haneveld et al., 2018;
Krstic et al., 2018; Lehmann et al., 2019). Fewer consistent
differences between callous-conning, sociopathic, and gen-
eral offender subtypes have emerged from these studies.
McCallum et al. 3
Existing studies suggest that those in the sociopathic group
tend to show the second highest levels of risk and violence
and those in the callous-conning group tend to have the sec-
ond highest rate of personality disorder diagnoses (Klein
Haneveld et al., 2018; Krstic et al., 2018; Lehmann et al.,
2019). Risk measure scores tend to be lowest for those in
the callous-conning and general offender groups (Lehmann
et al., 2019). Thus, in terms of risk assessment, prototypic
and sociopathic offenders tend receive the highest scores,
whereas callous-conning and general offenders tend to
receive the lowest scores.
Current Study
The current study used a LPA approach to examine the gen-
eralizability of existing PCL-R subtype findings to scores
from a sex-offender risk-assessment field setting and pro-
vides a comparison of LPA-identified psychopathy sub-
groups on scores across the PAI. Our primary goal was to
provide findings that would be useful for practitioners,
who may be interested in the potential implications of
PCL-R subtype findings for clinical practice. Our findings
add to the existing PCL-R subtyping literature by provid-
ing information about how psychopathy subgroups differ
across the broad range of internalizing, externalizing, vio-
lence potential, and treatment amenability measures pro-
vided by the widely available PAI. Existing PCL-R LPA
studies typically provide information about a more limited
range of external correlates. For example, data about
comorbid psychopathology comes from a forensic hospital
sample with information about only psychosis, autism, and
a collapsed category of personality disorder diagnoses
(Klein Haneveld et al., 2018).
The availability of PAI scores allows us to provide infor-
mation about psychopathy subgroup differences on external
correlates using scales and scores familiar to many practi-
tioners. Although not designed specifically for forensic use,
the PAI is often used to assist with diagnosis and treatment
planning in forensic contexts (Douglas et al., 2001; Ruiz &
Ochshorn, 2010) and scores from several scales are predic-
tive of institutional misconduct, treatment program viola-
tions, and postrelease arrests (see Boccaccini et al., 2013;
Gardner et al., 2015; Percosky et al., 2013).
We focused the PAI analyses on composite scores and
indices designed to measure internalizing psychopathology,
externalizing psychopathology, violence potential, suicide
potential, and poor treatment amenability. Based on prior
research, we hypothesized that prototypic and sociopathic
offenders would obtain higher scores across the externaliz-
ing, violence potential, and poor treatment amenability
indices than callous-conning and general offenders. We
hypothesized that callous-conning offenders and prototypic
offenders would display a lower rate of comorbid pathology
and therefore lower scores on the internalizing and suicide
potential indices. Similarly, when the analysis was limited
to only those with high PCL-R scores (> 25) we hypothe-
sized those in the secondary psychopathy subgroup would
have higher scores on these PAI measures of comorbid psy-
chopathology than those in the primary psychopathy
subgroup.
Method
We report how we determined our sample size, all data
exclusions, and all measures in the study. Approval for this
study, based on data collected from deidentified offender
records, was obtained by the institutional review board at
Sam Houston State University.
Offenders and SVP Evaluators
Data for this study come from 615 sexually violent predator
(SVP) evaluations conducted by state-contracted evaluators
in Texas between 1999 and 2018. The mean age among the
offenders at the time of evaluations was 45.47 (SD = 11.65).
Offenders (100% male) were identified in the records pro-
vided to evaluators by the state as White (n = 317, 51.5%),
Black (n = 166, 27.0%), Latino (n = 114, 18.5%), or from
another race/ethnic background (n = 7, 1.1%; missing n =
11, 1.8%). Evaluators identified offenders as having at least
one child victim (n = 402, 65.4%) or no child victims (n =
184, 29.9%; missing n = 29, 4.7%).
The research team collected deidentified data directly
from the SVP evaluators for a series of ongoing projects
examining evaluator differences in PCL-R scoring (see
Boccaccini et al., 2008; Boccaccini et al., 2014). Evaluators
entered PCL-R item scores, PAI scale scores, and basic
demographic and victim information about the offenders
into an Excel worksheet. We contacted all 21 state-con-
tracted evaluators known to have conducted contracted SVP
evaluations (at the onset of the study) and 12 provided data.
The mean number of evaluations per evaluator was 51.25
(SD = 36.17, range = 9 to 139).
Although we do not have detailed information related to
the type or severity of prior offenses, each offender must
have had a history of two or more qualifying sexual offenses
to be considered for civil commitment. Sexual offenses that
may qualify a person as an SVP under Texas statute are the
following: Indecency With a Child (sexual contact), Sexual
Assault, Aggravated Sexual Assault, Aggravated
Kidnapping (with intent to sexually abuse or violate),
Burglary (with intent to commit a sexual offense mentioned
above), a murder that is determined beyond a reasonable
doubt to have been based on sexually motivated conduct, or
an attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation to commit any offense
mentioned above. Qualifying offenses can also include
those under prior state law with elements substantially like
those mentioned above, and offenses under other state law,
4 Assessment 00(0)
federal law, or the Uniform Code of Military Justice with
elements substantially like those mentioned above (Texas
Health and Safety Code, Title 11, § 841, 2010).
Measures
Psychopathy Checklist–Revised. The Hare (1991, 2003)
PCL-R is a 20-item, clinician-scored measure of interper-
sonal, emotional, and behavioral traits scored on the basis
offender records and (if possible) a semistructured inter-
view. Item scores range from 0 to 2, with higher scores
reflecting a higher level of the psychopathic trait. The 20
item scores are summed to yield a total score that reflects
the overall degree of psychopathic characteristics. Eighteen
items are used to calculate facet scores that identify indi-
vidual components of psychopathy. The Interpersonal
(Facet 1) and Affective (Facet 2) facet scores are each based
on four items, whereas the Impulsive Lifestyle (Facet 3)
and Antisocial Behavior (Facet 4) facet scores are each
based on five items. The PCL-R can be scored based on a
combination of information obtained from file-review and
interview, or file-review alone. Although we did not ask
evaluators to identify cases in which they scored the PCL-R
based on file-review alone, our experience with Texas SVP
cases is that evaluators rarely score the PCL-R without
interviewing the offender.
We had access to PCL-R item scores for all 615 offend-
ers. If item scores were missing, we used prorating proce-
dures described in the manual to assign values to missing
items (i.e., prorated facet score minus the sum of the avail-
able item scores = prorated item score). The mean PCL-R
total score in the sample was 19.99 (SD = 7.33): Facet 1 (M
= 3.49, SD = 2.36), Facet 2 (M = 4.98, SD = 2.18), Facet
3 (M = 4.55, SD = 2.36), Fact 4 (M = 4.77, SD = 2.59).
The reliability of PCL-R scores is strong within research
contexts, with the PCL-R manual (Hare, 2003) reporting
interrater reliability values (ICC1) from .86 for male inmates
to .88 for male forensic psychiatric patients. Research
within the SVP evaluation sample used for the current study
has revealed much lower levels of rater agreement (e.g.,
ICCA,1 ≈ .40 to .50 for PCL-R total scores), with some eval-
uators assigning scores that are, on average, more than 15
points higher than other evaluators (see Boccaccini et al.,
2012; Boccaccini et al., 2014). Researchers have reported
similarly low levels of rater agreement for PCL-R scores
assigned in other SVP field settings (e.g., Florida), with
facet level ICCA,1 values of .28 (Facet 1), .39 (Facet 2), .56
(Facet 3), and .75 (Facet 4; Miller et al., 2012).
Personality Assessment Inventory.  The PAI is a 344-item self-
report inventory of personality and psychopathology. The
PAI includes 11 clinical scales, 4 validity scales, 5 treatment
consideration scales, and 2 interpersonal scales. Although
we provide data for all 22 scales in the appendices, our
analyses focused on index and composite scores that
describe performance across the PAI. Composite scores
include the Mean Clinical Elevation, which is the mean
score across the 11 clinical scales, as well as Internalizing
(INT) and Externalizing (EXT) composite scores developed
using correctional samples (Ruiz & Edens, 2008). INT is
the mean score across six scales (Anxiety, Depression,
Somatic Complaints, Schizophrenia, Anxiety-Related Dis-
orders, Suicidal Ideation), and EXT is the mean score across
seven scales (Antisocial Features, Borderline Features
(BOR), Alcohol Problems, Drug Problems, Aggression,
Mania, Paranoia). We also report effects for Violence Poten-
tial Index (VPI), Treatment Process Index (TPI), and Sui-
cide Potential Index (SPI). Each of these index scores is
based on the presence of theoretically or empirically derived
profile characteristics associated with future violence (VPI),
a difficult treatment process (TPI), or suicidality (SPI; see
Morey, 2007). VPI and SUI scores are based on 20 profile
characteristics, whereas TPI scores are based on 12 profile
characteristics.
Finally, we report effects for the Antisocial Features
(ANT) and BOR clinical scales due to their associations
with institutional misconduct and treatment compliance in
forensic settings (see Gardner et al., 2015). ANT is a mea-
sure of personality and behavioral traits associated with
antisocial personality and psychopathy, whereas BOR is a
broad measure of severe personality disorder symptoms,
including borderline personality disorder (see Morey,
2007). In forensic settings, ANT scores are more strongly
correlated with PCL-R Factor 2 scores than Factor 1 scores
and are predictive of institutional misconduct and reoffend-
ing after treatment (see Gardner et al., 2015; Ruiz et al.,
2014). BOR scores are associated with both treatment pro-
gram violations and noncompliance in forensic settings
(Boccaccini et al., 2013; Percosky et al., 2013).
In Texas SVP cases, the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice administers the PAI to offenders prior to their SVP
evaluations and includes computerized reports of the PAI
results in the records they provide to SVP evaluators. PAI
scale scores were available for 484 of the 615 offenders
(78.7%) in this study, but we used scores from only 475
offenders due to concerns about the possibility of random
responding (Inconsistency or Infrequency ≥ 80T) for nine
offenders. One evaluator did not provide clinical subscale
scores for 47 offenders. Because these scores are needed to
calculate PAI index scores, the sample size for SPI, TPI, and
VPI analyses was 428. Although we do not know why PAI
scores were unavailable for any individual offender, prior
research with PAI scores in Texas SVP evaluation cases
indicated that some offenders refuse the PAI evaluation,
others are considered to be too severely ill to complete the
measure, and scores are sometimes not provided to evalua-
tors when the computerized PAI report suggests that the
scores are invalid (see Boccaccini et al., 2010).
McCallum et al. 5

Table 1.  Latent Class Enumeration for Psychopathy Checklist Scores.

Number of Bootstrap, N(%) of

Sample/model Log likelihood parameters BIC Entropy L-M-R, LRT (p) LRT (p) smallest class
Full sample (N = 615)
 One-class −5566.72 8 11184.80  
 Two-class −5340.64 13 10764.76 .76 438.50 (<.01) 452.16 (<.01) 247 (40)
 Three-class −5306.07 18 10727.73 .67 67.05 (.03) 69.14 (<.01) 141 (23)
 Four-class −5273.84 23 10695.38 .68 62.51 (.13) 64.45 (<.01) 96 (16)
 Five-class −5256.32 28 10692.44 .70 34.03 (.70) 35.09 (<.01) 79 (13)
PCL-R total score ≥ 25 (N = 180)
 One-class −1307.48 8 2656.49  
 Two-class −1286.67 13 2640.84 .72 40.08 (<.01) 41.62 (<.01) 66 (37)
 Three-class −1276.05 18 2645.57 .75 20.44 (.09) 21.23 (<.01) 24 (13)

Note. BIC = Bayesian Information Criterion; L-M-R LRT = Lo–Mendell–Ruben adjusted Likelihood Ratio Test; PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–
Revised. Bold = Model selected for interpretation.

Latent Profile Analysis classes, and the Lo–Mendell–Ruben adjusted Likelihood

We used LPA with PCL-R facet scores to identify offender
subtypes, which has been a common analytic approach in
recent psychopathy subtype research (Colins et al., 2018;
Mokros et al., 2015; Neumann et al., 2016). We conducted
one set of analyses using all offenders to examine the gen-
eralizability of the four-class solution identified in previous
research (see Neumann et al., 2016), and a separate set of
analyses using only those offenders with PCL-R total scores
≥25 to examine the generalizability of primary and second-
ary subtype findings among high scorers. PCL-R subtyping
studies have used somewhat different PCL-R cut scores as
inclusion criteria for analyses of high-scoring offenders,
including 25 (Olver et al., 2015), 27 (Mokros et al., 2015),
29 (Skeem et al., 2007), and 30 (Blackburn et al., 2008). We
used a cut score of ≥ 25 because it resulted in a subsample
that included 29% of the full sample (180 of 615), which is
generally consistent with previous studies (e.g., 27% to
33%; Mokros et al., 2015; Skeem et al., 2007).
LPA is a statistical method of sorting individuals into
similar groups (latent classes) based on a set of observed
(manifest) continuous variables as measures of an underly-
ing (latent) categorical variable. In an LPA, class probabili-
ties (the probability that a specific individual belongs to the
emerging latent class) are measured for each individual case
in the data set. For comparative and comprehensive pur-
poses, analyses were structured to begin with a one-class
model, and add additional classes to subsequent models,
similar in structure to the procedure followed by Miller
et al. (2009). To determine the number of classes in these
data, multiple models (one-class, two-class, three-class . . . )
were compared using the fit indices of these models such as
the Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), entropy of the
Ratio Test (L-M-R LRT). The best model fit can be deter-
mined by information criteria (e.g., the BIC) as well as
LRTs. Overall, a model with lower BIC, higher entropy, and
significant L-M-R LRT and bootstrap LRT tests indicates
better fit. When fit indices are incompatible, many suggest
relying on information criteria as the primary means for
deciding model fit. According to Nylund-Gibson and Masyn
(2016), the BIC is the best indicator of the correct number
of latent classes, when compared with other fit indices. All
models described were estimated using Mplus, Version 7
(Muthén & Muthén, 1998-2008), which uses the
Expectation-Maximization (EM) algorithm under the
assumption that data are missing at random (MAR) to com-
pute maximum likelihood estimates of the model parame-
ters (Muthén & Shedden, 1999).
Results
Full Sample
Latent Profile Analysis Results.  Table 1 provides fit indices for
the LPA models using data from all offenders (N = 615).
We considered both these fit values and model selection
procedures from existing PCL-R LPA studies to identify
the best model for interpretation in this study. The four-
class solution had a significantly lower BIC value when
compared with the three-, two-, and one-class solutions.
Although the five-class solution had the lowest BIC value
in terms of absolute value, the difference in BIC values
between the four-class and five-class models was small (see
Kass & Raftery, 1995) and the five-class solution did not
provide a substantially better model fit. The average prob-
abilities for the most likely latent class membership were
6 Assessment 00(0)
Figure 1.  Four LPA subtype profiles by PCL-R mean item facet score.
Note. Class 1 = prototypic psychopaths (n = 239), Class 2 = callous-conning offenders (n = 154); Class 3 = sociopathic offenders (n = 96), Class 4
= nonpsychopathic general offenders (n = 126). LPA = latent profile analysis; PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist–Revised.
also similar for the four-class (range = .73-.87) and five-
class (range = .75-.85) solutions.
Multiple recent PCL-R LPA studies have reported simi-
lar BIC values for four-class and five-class models, but
based interpretation on only the four-class model for con-
ceptual reasons (Klein Haneveld et al., 2018; Krstic et al.,
2018; Lehmann et al., 2019). We moved forward with the
four-class solution because of both model fit values and the
opportunity to compare the four-class model with those
from other recent studies, but provide PCL-R descriptive
statistics for the five-class solution in Appendix A.
PCL-R Facet Scores for Offender Subtypes.  We assigned each
offender to one class based on most-likely class membership
probabilities from the LPA. We calculated descriptive statis-
tics for the members of these classes by averaging their
PCL-R item scores for the items included on the facet. These
mean item scores are more useful for making comparisons in
this study than summed facet scores because two of the fac-
ets have fewer items (Facets 1 and 2) than the others (Facets
3 and 4). We do, however, provide descriptive statistics for
summed facet scores in Appendix B to allow for compari-
sons with the summed facet scores evaluators use in clinical
practice. We compare facet scores for offenders in the same
class using independent-samples t tests and Cohen’s d as a
measure of effect size. We follow Cohen’s (1992) guidelines
for identifying small (d = 0.20), medium (d = 0.50) and
large (d = 0.80) effects.
Figure 1 provides PCL-R facet score profiles for the
four classes of offenders as identified by the full-sample
LPA model. This facet-score profile is consistent with
previous studies using an LPA approach (Klein Haneveld
et al., 2018; Krstic et al., 2018; Neumann et al., 2016).
Class 1 offenders (n = 239, 38.9%) exhibited an average
PCL-R total score of 27.22 (SD = 3.59) and the highest
elevations across all facets (see Table 2), similar to the
prototypic class discussed in prior studies. Similarly,
Class 4 offenders (n = 126, 20.5%) exhibited low eleva-
tions across all four facets and had an average PCL-R
total score of only 9.93 (SD = 3.25), similar to the gen-
eral offenders subtype from prior research.
Offenders in Class 2 (n = 154, 25.0%) and Class 3 (n =
96, 15.6%) had nearly identical mean PCL-R total scores
(M = 18.12 and 18.22, respectively), but notable differ-
ences in their facet score profiles (see Figure 1 and Table 2).
Similar to the callous-conning class from prior research,
Class 2 offenders had significantly higher Facet 1 (Cohen’s
d = 0.98) and Facet 2 mean item scores (d = 2.09) than
Class 3 offenders. Similar to the sociopathic class from
prior research, Class 3 offenders had significantly higher
Facet 3 (d = 0.58) and Facet 4 (d = 2.25) mean item scores
than Class 2 offenders.
 Table 2.  Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Facet Scores and Personality Assessment Inventory Composite and Index Scores for Offenders Each Psychopathy Class.

Class 1: Class 2: Callous- Class 3: Class 4:

Prototypic Conning Sociopathic General C1 vs. C2 C1 vs. C3 C1 vs. C4 C2 vs. C3 C2 vs. C4 C3 vs. C4

PCL-R/PAI Score M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) d d d d d d

PCL-R: Mean item score n = 239 n = 154 n = 96 n = 126  
  Facet 1: Interpersonal 1.26 (0.50) 0.94 (0.48) 0.50 (0.39) 0.35 (0.41) 0.65 1.61 1.93 0.98 1.31 0.37
  Facet 2: Affective 1.64 (0.28) 1.47 (0.29) 0.83 (0.33) 0.54 (0.35) 0.60 2.74 3.60 2.09 2.92 0.85
  Facet 3: Lifestyle 1.31 (0.30) 0.74 (0.32) 0.93 (0.34) 0.38 (0.28) 1.85 1.22 3.17 −0.58 1.19 1.79
  Facet 4: Antisocial 1.31 (0.39) 0.53 (0.32) 1.24 (0.31) 0.55 (0.38) 2.14 0.19 1.97 −2.25 -0.06 1.96
PCL-R Total (mean item) 1.36 (0.18) 0.91 (0.17) 0.91 (0.14) 0.50 (0.16) 2.55 2.65 4.96 <0.01 2.48 2.70
PCL-R Total (sum) 27.22 (3.59) 18.11 (3.35) 18.22 (2.82) 9.93 (3.27) — — — — — —
PAI Composite/Index n = 175 n = 115 n = 74 n = 111  
  Mean Clinical Elevation 55.50 (7.36) 51.43 (7.08) 53.58 (7.71) 50.34 (7.04) 0.56 0.26 0.71 −0.29 0.15 0.44
 Internalizing 53.63 (9.11) 50.36 (8.66) 51.16 (9.26) 48.55 (7.36) 0.59 0.36 0.60 −0.09 0.22 0.32
 Externalizing 57.06 (7.67) 52.33 (7.04) 55.60 (7.53) 51.83 (7.88) 0.64 0.19 0.67 −0.45 0.07 0.49
  Violence Potential Index 59.22 (13.92) 51.48 (11.31) 57.44 (13.43) 51.84 (11.20) 0.60 0.13 0.57 −0.43 −0.01 0.46
  Treatment Process Index 59.95 (14.89) 52.50 (10.84) 57.94 (11.63) 54.26 (10.84) 0.56 0.14 0.42 −0.49 −0.16 0.33
  Suicide Potential Index 57.23 (13.13) 51.11 (11.00) 54.00 (12.73) 49.73 (10.56) 0.50 0.25 0.61 −0.25 0.13 0.37
PAI Scale
  Antisocial Features 59.53 (8.86) 54.37 (7.51) 58.47 (7.92) 54.24 (8.55) 0.62 0.12 0.61 −0.53 0.01 0.51
  Borderline Features 56.42 (10.81) 51.13 (9.22) 53.85 (9.77) 50.16 (9.75) 0.52 0.25 0.60 −0.29 0.10 0.38

Note. Cohen’s d values in bold are statistically significant at p < .05. d values in bold and italics are statistically significant at p ≤ .01. n = 160, 107, 66, 95 for the Violence Potential Index, Treatment
Process Index, and Suicide Potential Index. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; PAI = Personality Assessment Inventory.

7
8 Assessment 00(0)
Given the generally large differences between the classes
across the PCL-R, it is notable that the only instances of
nonsignificant differences between the classes at the PCL-R
facet level were for Facet 4 (Antisocial) scores (Table 2).
Mean item scores for Facet 4 were similarly high for proto-
typic (M = 1.31) and sociopathic (M = 1.24) offenders (d
= 0.19), and similarly low for callous-conning (M = 0.53)
and general offenders (M = 0.55; d = −0.06).
PAI Scores for Offender Subtypes.  Table 2 provides PAI com-
posite and index scores for offenders in the four psychopa-
thy subtype groups (Appendix C provides descriptive
statistics for individual PAI scales). There were a number of
moderate-sized and statistically significant differences
between the subtype groups, especially between the proto-
typic and general offender groups (d = 0.42-0.71). Proto-
typic offenders reported more distress and impairment than
general offenders across the PAI, including both external-
izing psychopathology (d = 0.67) and—contrary to our
expectations—internalizing (d = 0.60) psychopathology.
They also reported higher levels of antisocial (d = 0.62)
and borderline (d = 0.52) traits.
Prototypic and sociopathic groups obtained the highest
index and composite scores across the PAI (see Table 2).
Both groups also had the highest ANT and BOR scores. In
terms of absolute value, the composite and index scores
from prototypic offenders were always larger than those
from sociopathic offenders, but the differences between
these groups were small (d = 0.13 to 0.36). The largest dif-
ferences between these groups was for internalizing psy-
chopathology, with prototypic offenders reporting slightly
higher levels of internalizing psychopathology than socio-
pathic offenders (d = 0.36, p = .05). Overall, prototypic
and sociopathic offenders received generally similar scores
across the PAI indices and composites, despite large differ-
ences between their PCL-R total scores (d = 2.79).
Although sociopathic and callous-conning offenders had
similar PCL-R total scores (d = −0.04), they responded dif-
ferently to the PAI. Callous-conning offenders had signifi-
cantly lower externalizing psychopathology (d = −0.45),
violence potential (d = −0.43), and problematic treatment
process (d = −0.49) scores, suggesting lower levels of risk
for violence and higher levels of treatment amenability.
Callous-conning offenders also had lower ANT scores (d =
−0.53) than sociopathic offenders, which is consistent with
callous-conning offenders having lower Facet 3 and Facet 4
PCL-R scores than sociopathic offenders.
Overall, callous-conning offenders reported relatively
low levels of impairment and distress. As indicated in Table
2, they did not differ significantly from general offenders on
any of the PAI indices or composites, despite large differ-
ences between their PCL-R total scores (d = 2.47).
High Psychopathy Subsample Results
Latent Profile Analysis Results.  There were 180 offenders with
a PCL-R total score of 25 or higher. All but one of these
offenders (i.e., 179 of 180) had been classified in the proto-
typic subgroup in the full-sample analyses (one offender had
been classified by the LPA into the callous-conning sub-
group). We used LPA analysis with scores from these 180
offenders to examine whether there was evidence for pri-
mary and secondary psychopathy subtypes among high
scorers. BIC values from the LPA analysis indicated that the
two-class model best fit the data (Table 1).
PCL-R Facet Scores for Offender Subtypes.  The PCL-R facet
score profiles of the two emerging latent profiles are
depicted in Figure 2. This facet score pattern is generally
consistent with previous research regarding primary and
secondary psychopathy subtypes, but is also consistent with
the manipulative (instead of primary) and aggressive
(instead of secondary) subtypes identified in some studies
(Mokros et al., 2015). Those in the primary class (n = 66,
36.7%) had higher interpersonal (d = 0.84) and affective (d
= 0.48) facet scores than those in the secondary class (n =
114, 63.3%). Those in the secondary class had higher life-
style facet (d = 0.41) scores and much higher antisocial
facet (d = 3.00) scores than those in the primary class.
This two-class solution suggests a more nuanced picture
of our sample, beyond the LPA findings using the entire
sample. Our full sample analysis evidenced one unitary
class of prototypic offenders with an average PCL-R score
of 27.22. However, when considering only offenders with a
PCL-R score at or above 25, two classes emerged, with
those in the primary class having lower (d = 0.78) PCL-R
total scores (M = 27.26, SD = 1.90) than those in the sec-
ondary class (M = 29.93, SD = 3.11).
PAI Composite and Index Scores for Offender Subtypes. 
Table 3 provides PAI composite and index scores for
offenders in the primary and secondary psychopathy sub-
type groups (Appendix D provides descriptive data for indi-
vidual PAI scales). Those in the primary class reported
significantly lower levels of externalizing psychopathology
(d = −0.54) and had significantly lower scores on the vio-
lence potential (d = −0.74) and treatment process (d =
−0.55) indices. They also had somewhat higher Suicide
Potential Index scores (d = −0.38), although there was not
a statistically significant difference between the classes for
internalizing psychopathology (d = −0.24) or BOR scores
(d = −0.29). ANT scores were significantly lower for those
in the primary psychopathy group (d = −0.47), which is
consistent with them also having lower scores on PCL-R
Facets 3 (Lifestyle) and 4 (Antisocial)
Discussion
Our goal was to add to the PCL-R subtyping research litera-
ture by providing findings with a clear connection to clini-
cal practice. We used PCL-R scores from a field setting
with well-documented concerns related to evaluator differ-
ences in scoring tendencies, adversarial allegiance, and
attenuated predictive validity (Boccaccini et al., 2014;
McCallum et al. 9

Figure 2.  Two LPA subtype profiles by PCL-R mean item facet score.
Note. Class 1 = primary psychopathy (n = 66); Class 2 = secondary psychopathy (n = 114). LPA = latent profile analysis; PCL-R = Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised.

Table 3.  Psychopathy Checklist Revised Mean Item Scores and Personality Assessment Inventory Composite and Index Scores for
Offenders Each Psychopathy Class in the High Psychopathy Sample: PCL-R Total Score ≥ 25.

Class 1: Primary Class 2: Secondary

PAI Composite/Index M (SD) M (SD) Comparison Cohen’s d

PCL-R: Mean facet score n = 66 n = 114  
  Facet 1: Interpersonal 1.62 (0.32) 1.27 (0.46) t(178) = 5.46, p < .001 0.84
  Facet 2: Affective 1.76 (0.23) 1.63 (0.29) t(178) = 3.12, p = .002 0.48
  Facet 3: Lifestyle 1.27 (0.28) 1.39 (0.30) t(178) = 2.65, p = .009 −0.41
  Facet 4:Antisocial 0.97 (0.21) 1.62 (0.22) t(178) = 19.42, p < .001 −3.00
PCL-R Total (mean item) 1.36 (0.10) 1.47 (0.16) t(178) = 5.04, p < .001 −0.78
PCL-R Total (sum) 27.26 (1.90) 29.93 (3.11)  
PAI Composite/Index n = 51 n = 82  
  Mean Clinical Elevation 53.41 (5.63) 56.30 (7.07) t(131) = 2.48, p = .02 −0.44
 Internalizing 52.18 (7.72) 54.29 (9.45) t(131) = 1.34, p = .18 −0.24
 Externalizing 54.43 (5.91) 57.99 (7.04) t(131) = 3.00, p = .003 −0.54
  Violence Potential Index 54.73 (10.89) 61.16 (12.71) t(120) = 2.83, p = .005 −0.74
  Treatment Process 55.09 (11.55) 62.78 (15.14) t(120) = 2.94, p = .004 −0.55
Index
  Suicide Potential Index 53.49 (10.29) 57.78 (11.87) t(120) = 2.02, p = .05 −0.38
PAI Scale
  Antisocial Features 57.55 (8.58) 61.49 (8.38) t(131) = 2.61, p = .01 −0.47
  Borderline Features 54.33 (9.24) 57.24 (10.74) t(131) = 1.60, p = .12 −0.29

Note. Cohen’s d values in bold are statistically significant at p < .05. d values in bold and italics are statistically significant at p ≤ .01. n
= 45 and 77 for the Violence Potential Index, Treatment Process Index, and Suicide Potential Index. PAI = Personality Assessment
Inventory; PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.
10 Assessment 00(0)
Murrie et al., 2009, 2012). Our identification of prototypic,
callous-conning, sociopathic, and general offender subtypes
in the overall sample points to the robustness of the PCL-R-
based typology from existing subtype studies (see
Falkenbach et al., 2014; Neumann et al., 2016) and is
exactly the type of cross-validation research clinicians
should look for to support real-world assessment practices
(Edens & Boccaccini, 2017).
The availability of PAI scores for many of the offenders
in this study allows for a detailed examination of how these
PCL-R subtype findings may be potentially useful for prac-
tice. The PAI is one of the more commonly used multiscale
inventories in forensic practice (Neal & Grisso, 2014) with
a large and established forensic-sample research literature
(see e.g., Boccaccini & Hart, 2018; Gardner et al., 2015;
Hawes & Boccaccini, 2009; Ruiz & Ochshorn, 2010) and
interpretation resources for practitioners (see, e.g., Blais
et al., 2010; Morey, 2007; Morey & Hopwood, 2007).
Moreover, the PAI scores in this study are also field scores.
Offenders completed the PAI knowing that the results
would be available to decision makers, and, thus, represent
the types of scores that evaluators can expect to see in real-
world sex offender risk assessment contexts.
Score Differences and Implications for Practice
Several aspects of our findings are consistent with using the
PCL-R as a dimensional measure. Those with the highest
PCL-R scores reported the most pathology across the PAI
and those with the lowest PCL-R scores reported the least
pathology across the PAI. Overall, these findings suggest
that prototypic offenders are at the highest risk for a broad
range of negative outcomes, including violence, miscon-
duct, suicidality, and poor treatment outcomes. In terms of
absolute value, there was no instance of the prototypic
offenders obtaining a lower PAI composite or index score
than offenders from any other group (see Table 3).
At the facet level, those in subtypes with higher Facet 4
scores (i.e., prototypic, sociopathic subtypes) reported more
pathology than those with lower scores. Facets 1 and 2, and
to some extent Facet 3, were only associated with higher
pathology among those who also had elevated Facet 4
scores.
Perhaps the most clinically useful PAI findings relate to
differences between the callous-conning and sociopathic
subgroups. Although these two subgroups had nearly iden-
tical PCL-R total scores (M = 18.11 vs. 18.22), they
scored differently on the PAI. Those in the sociopathic
subgroup had PAI scores that were similar to those in the
prototypic psychopathic subgroup, whereas those in the
callous-conning subgroup had scores that were similar to
those in the general offender subgroup. The clear implica-
tion for practice from these findings is that practitioners
need to go beyond the PCL-R total score when thinking
about comorbid psychopathology, risk, and treatment
needs for an offender with a mid-range PCL-R score.
Those with midrange PCL-R total scores and profiles
marked by elevated Facet 4 scores (sociopathic subtype)
will likely be at a higher risk for violence, misconduct,
suicidality, and poor treatment outcomes. Those with mid-
range PCL-R total scores marked by elevated Facet 1 and
2 scores (callous-conning subtype) will likely be at a lower
risk for these outcomes.
PAI findings with higher scorers (PCL-R ≥ 25) provide
more nuanced information for the highest scoring offend-
ers. Although nearly all of these offenders (179 of 180)
were classified into the prototypic subgroup in the full-sam-
ple analyses, the two subgroups that emerged from the
higher scorer LPA still differed somewhat on the PAI. Those
in the primary and secondary subgroups that emerged from
the LPA all had relatively high scores across the PAI, but
those with elevated PCL-R Facet 4 scores (secondary)
appeared to be most at risk for violence, misconduct, suicid-
ality, and poor treatment outcomes as measured by the PAI.
Although prior psychopathy subtyping research has doc-
umented clear differences between classes on measures of
internalizing and externalizing symptoms (Hicks et al.,
2004; Skeem et al., 2007; Swogger & Kosson, 2007), we
observed smaller differences in internalizing symptoms
than externalizing symptoms on the PAI. For example, the
most notable differences (i.e., d > .35) for scores on mea-
sures of internalizing symptoms were between the proto-
typic offenders—who scored higher across the PAI—and
other offenders. These findings are consistent with recent
subtyping research suggesting that higher psychopathy
scores are associated with lower emotion regulation
(Garofalo et al., 2020). The callous-conning and sociopathic
subgroups did not differ significantly on the internalizing
composite, nor did the primary and secondary subgroups.
In prior research, the largest differences for internalizing
behaviors are between primary and secondary subtypes (see
Hicks & Drislane, 2018). For example, researchers have
found secondary variants to display higher levels of anxiety
and internalizing features than primary variants in both men
and women (Falkenbach et al., 2017). Others have found
that although primary and secondary subtypes both display
high levels of externalizing behavior, the secondary subtype
exhibits comparatively higher rates of internalizing symp-
toms, such as depression, anxiety, and somatization
(Drislane et al., 2014). These types of differences were not
readily apparent on the PAI in our study.
The subtypes in the high-scoring subsample were also
similar to the aggressive and manipulative subtypes iden-
tified in some subtyping studies using only those with
high scores, although we did not identify a class consis-
tent with the third class (sociopaths) from those studies
(Mokros et al., 2015). It could be that the high-scoring
sociopath class, which is characterized by especially low
Facet 2 scores, requires especially large samples to detect.
Indeed, the sociopathic class was the smallest in size in
prior studies, including fewer than 15% of offenders
(Mokros et al., 2015).
McCallum et al. 11

Overall, the PCL-R and PAI findings from this study
show how LPA-identified psychopathy subgroups differ on
scores from a commonly used measure of personality and
psychopathology. What we do not know is whether clini-
cians can take the findings in our tables and figures, look at
an individual offender’s PCL-R scores, and accurately place
the offender into the “correct” PCL-R subtype group.
Although there will be some offenders with facet scores that
come close to matching the profiles plotted in our figures
(or those from other studies), it seems likely that many oth-
ers will be difficult to classify. There is a clear need for this
type of clinician-accuracy research, which we view as an
important next step for examining the clinical utility of
PCL-R LPA subtype findings.
Limitations
Data for this study were provided by psychologists from one
state, who reviewed their records and reported data from
their completed SVP evaluations. Because each offender
was evaluated by only one evaluator, there was no way to
evaluate interrater reliability or check for scoring or data
entry errors. Because PAI data came from records sent to
evaluators, as opposed to scores obtained at the evaluation
site (i.e., department of corrections), we do not know why
PAI scores were missing for some offenders. Furthermore,
we have incomplete information about offender characteris-
tics, including race and ethnicity, and only limited informa-
tion about their offending history. The focus on scores from
sex offender evaluations in one state necessarily limits the
generalizability of study findings. Although our LPA find-
ings were consistent with a larger body of PCL-R research,
the extent to which our PAI findings generalize to other
offender or patient samples is a question that should be
answered through future replication research.
Because we sought to examine the generalizability of
existing PCL-R subtype findings, many of our analysis (e.g.,
using LPA as opposed to cluster analysis) and interpretation
(e.g., subtype labels) decisions were guided by prior
research. Although our findings were consistent with those
from prior studies, they also point to issues that require more
research. For example, consistent with prior research (Krstic
et al., 2018; Lehmann et al., 2019), BIC values were slightly
smaller for five-class model than the four-class model, rais-
ing questions about the most appropriate model. Just as a
three-class model has only emerged very large samples of
high scorers, it may be that larger samples may eventually
reveal support for a five-class model when using all scores.
Conclusion
Consistent with a growing body of research, the present
study suggests there are four identifiable PCL-R score sub-
types among sex offenders evaluated in the field, distin-
guishable by profiles of facet scores. These subtypes were
further differentiated by levels of comorbid psychopathol-
ogy as measured by the PAI. These findings should help
assuage concerns about the generalizability of PCL-R sub-
typing findings to scores assigned for routine clinical/foren-
sic practice and help translate these findings to practice by
showing how those falling into the subtype groups differ on
measures of comorbid psychopathology, treatment amena-
bility, and risk for violence from the widely used PAI.

Appendix A.  Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Mean Item and Summed Scores for Offenders in Each Class: Alternate Five-Class
Solution.
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3 Class 4 Class 5
PCL-R/PAI Score M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)
Mean facet scores
PCL-R: Mean facet score n = 79 n = 112 n = 168 n = 164 n = 92
  Facet 1: Interpersonal 1.31 (1.67) 2.12 (1.58) 4.57 (1.99) 4.98 (2.01) 2.57 (1.76)
  Facet 2: Affective 1.38 (1.04) 3.54 (1.15) 6.52 (1.05) 6.49 (1.12) 4.44 (1.10)
  Facet 3: Lifestyle 2.05 (1.54) 4.35 (1.83) 5.12 (1.69) 6.62 (1.53) 2.39 (1.47)
  Facet 4: Antisocial 3.13 (1.80) 5.94 (1.50) 3.63 (1.43) 7.37 (1.33) 2.01 (1.53)
  PCL-R Total 9.29 (3.48) 17.68 (3.05) 21.57 (3.49) 27.65 (3.49) 12.27 (3.13)
Mean item score
PCL-R: Mean item score n = 79 n = 112 n = 168 n = 164 n = 92
  Facet 1: Interpersonal 0.33 (0.42) 0.40 (0.40) 1.14 (0.51) 1.25 (0.53) 0.64 (0.44)
  Facet 2: Affective 0.35 (0.26) 0.88 (0.29) 1.63 (0.26) 1.62 (0.28) 1.11 (0.28)
  Facet 3: Lifestyle 0.41 (0.31) 0.87 (0.29) 1.02 (0.37) 1.32 (0.37) 0.48 (0.29)
  Facet 4: Antisocial 0.63 (0.36) 1.19 (0.30) 0.73 (0.29) 1.47 (0.31) 0.40 (0.31)
  PCL-R Total 0.46 (0.17) 0.88 (0.15) 1.08 (0.17) 1.38 (0.17) 0.64 (0.16)

Note. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised; PAI = Personality Assessment Inventory.

12 Assessment 00(0)

Appendix B.  Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Summed Facet Scores for Offenders in each Class: Full Sample and High Psychopathy
Subsample.
Class 1: Prototypic Class 2: Callous-Conning Class 3: Sociopathic Class 4: General

PCL-R M (SD) M (SD) M (SD) M (SD)

Full sample (N = 615)
PCL-R n = 239 n = 154 n = 96 n = 126
  Facet 1: Interpersonal 5.04 (2.00) 3.76 (1.91) 2.01 (1.55) 1.40 (1.62)
  Facet 2: Affective 6.56 (1.12) 5.89 (1.16) 3.30 (1.32) 2.16 (1.39)
  Facet 3: Lifestyle 6.54 (1.51) 3.69 (1.62) 4.64 (1.71) 1.88 (1.42)
  Facet 4: Antisocial 6.54 (1.95) 2.67 (1.60) 6.22 (1.60) 2.76 (1.91)
  Class 1: Primary Class 2: Secondary  
  M (SD) M (SD)  
PCL-R total ≥ 25 subsample (N = 180)
PCL-R: Mean item score n = 66 n = 114  
  Facet 1: Interpersonal 6.48 (1.28) 5.10 (1.85)  
  Facet 2: Affective 7.01 (0.93) 6.48 (1.15)  
  Facet 3: Lifestyle 6.33 (1.40) 6.94 (1.50)  
  Facet 4:Antisocial 4.87 (1.07) 8.12 (1.08)  

Note. PCL-R = Psychopathy Checklist-Revised.

Appendix C.  PAI Scale Scores for Psychopathy Subtypes: Full Sample.

Class 1: Prototypic Class 2: Callous-conning Class 3: Sociopathic Class 4: General

(n = 175) (n = 115) (n = 74) (n = 111)

PAI Scale T-Scores M SD M SD M SD M SD

Inconsistency (INC) 55.43 9.40 51.50 8.76 53.44 8.31 50.48 8.98
Infrequency (INF) 56.47 9.58 55.83 8.56 56.76 9.71 53.60 8.70
Negative Impression (NIM) 54.44 13.32 50.61 9.89 50.85 11.05 48.52 7.12
Positive Impression (PIM) 48.45 10.19 53.25 9.20 51.32 10.09 53.23 9.81
Somatic Complaints (SOM) 53.93 10.91 51.50 9.65 50.57 10.26 49.41 8.96
Anxiety (ANX) 52.31 10.62 49.35 9.97 50.35 10.60 47.52 8.84
Anxiety-Related Disorders (ARD) 55.33 11.41 52.36 11.18 53.66 11.50 50.71 10.66
Depression (DEP) 54.98 10.86 51.00 9.84 52.43 9.66 49.94 8.74
Mania (MAN) 49.01 10.98 47.56 10.02 48.00 10.18 45.57 8.98
Paranoia (PAR) 56.94 11.87 51.52 9.06 52.15 8.94 49.70 10.23
Schizophrenia (SCZ) 51.61 11.85 47.58 10.00 48.78 11.16 45.17 8.66
Borderline Features (BOR) 56.42 10.81 51.13 9.22 53.85 9.77 50.16 9.75
Antisocial Features (ANT) 59.53 8.86 54.37 7.51 58.47 7.92 54.24 8.55
Alcohol Problems (ALC) 58.91 15.64 53.93 11.88 59.59 15.19 55.40 14.52
Drug Problems (DRG) 61.57 15.26 55.46 12.72 61.53 13.90 55.93 13.82
Aggression (AGG) 50.39 10.37 45.56 8.46 50.53 8.48 45.65 9.28
Suicide Ideation (SUI) 52.69 12.05 49.71 10.69 51.39 11.03 48.59 10.99
Stress (STR) 55.55 9.85 53.25 9.94 53.19 9.29 51.58 9.87
Nonsupport (NON) 55.45 12.93 49.39 10.13 51.96 11.06 47.37 10.10
Treatment Rejection (RXR) 41.53 9.03 45.16 10.14 42.16 9.10 44.52 9.31
Dominance (DOM) 49.50 9.17 50.67 9.53 49.27 9.68 50.19 8.08
Warmth (WRM) 48.27 10.21 50.32 9.86 48.35 10.71 52.51 8.63

Note. PAI = Personality Assessment Inventory.

McCallum et al. 13

Appendix D.  PAI Scale Score Descriptive Statistics for Primary and Secondary Psychopathy Subtypes Among Offenders With PCL-R
Total Scores ≥ 25.
Class 1: Primary (n = 51) Class 2: Secondary (n = 82)

PAI Scale T-Scores M SD M SD

Inconsistency (INC) 54.82 8.75 55.99 9.081
Infrequency (INF) 54.76 9.14 56.82 9.19
Negative Impression (NIM) 51.92 10.50 54.94 12.34
Positive Impression (PIM) 49.67 9.75 47.56 10.30
Somatic Complaints (SOM) 54.75 9.92 54.32 11.32
Anxiety (ANX) 50.59 8.98 53.09 11.36
Anxiety-Related Disorders (ARD) 52.94 10.05 56.00 11.90
Depression (DEP) 52.69 10.04 55.85 11.14
Mania (MAN) 48.12 9.69 49.11 10.38
Paranoia (PAR) 54.78 11.24 57.82 11.65
Schizophrenia (SCZ) 49.92 9.78 52.18 11.54
Borderline Features (BOR) 54.33 9.24 57.24 10.74
Antisocial Features (ANT) 57.55 8.58 61.49 8.38
Alcohol Problems (ALC) 55.27 10.48 59.23 15.87
Drug Problems (DRG) 56.55 13.03 63.02 15.74
Aggression (AGG) 47.73 9.11 51.50 9.77
Suicide Ideation (SUI) 50.12 8.50 54.51 14.23
Stress (STR) 53.69 8.84 56.30 9.98
Nonsupport (NON) 51.27 11.80 57.34 12.44
Treatment Rejection (RXR) 45.27 9.34 40.05 8.18
Dominance (DOM) 49.29 8.43 50.26 9.84
Warmth (WRM) 49.20 9.69 48.88 10.39

Note. PAI = Personality Assessment Inventory.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests References

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iDs
Katherine E. McCallum https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2011-
2371
Marcus T. Boccaccini https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1590-4905
Public Significance Statement
We replicated existing Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R)
subtype findings using field scores, which often have weaker psy-
chometric properties than scores assigned for research. Differences
between the subtype groups on measures of psychopathology,
risk, and treatment amenability from the Personality Assessment
Inventory (PAI) highlight the utility of psychopathy subtype find-
ings for broader clinical decision making.
Blackburn, R., Logan, C., Donnelly, J. P., & Renwick, S. D. (2008).
Identifying psychopathic subtypes: Combining an empirical
personality classification of offenders with the Psychopathy
Checklist-Revised. Journal of Personality Disorders, 22(6),
604-622. https://doi.org/10.1521/pedi.2008.22.6.604
Blais, M. A., Baity, M. R., & Hopwood, C. J. (2010).
Clinical applications of the Personality Assessment
Inventory. Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. https://doi.
org/10.4324/9780203856604
Boccaccini, M. T., Chevalier, C., Murrie, D. C., & Varela, J. G.
(2017). Psychopathy Checklist–Revised use and reporting
practices in sexually violent predator evaluations. Sexual
Abuse: A Journal of Research and Treatment, 29(6), 592-614.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1079063215612443
Boccaccini, M. T., & Hart, J. R. (2018). Response style on the per-
sonality assessment inventory and other multiscale invento-
ries. In R. Rogers & S. D. Bender (Eds.), Clinical assessment
of malingering and deception (4th ed., pp. 280-300). Guilford
Press.
Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Hawes, S. W., Simpler,
A., & Johnson, J. (2010). Predicting recidivism with the
Personality Assessment Inventory in a sample of sex offenders
screened for civil commitment as sexually violent predators.
14 Assessment 00(0)
Psychological Assessment, 22(1), 142-148. https://doi.org/
10.1037/a0017818
Boccaccini, M. T., Murrie, D. C., Rufino, K. A., & Gardner, B.
O. (2014). Evaluator differences in Psychopathy Checklist-
Revised factor and facet scores. Law and Human Behavior,
38(4), 337-345. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000069
Boccaccini, M. T., Rufino, K. A., Jackson, R. L., & Murrie, D.
C. (2013). Personality Assessment Inventory scores as pre-
dictors of misconduct among civilly committed sex offend-
ers. Psychological Assessment, 25(4), 1390-1395. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0034048
Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D. B., & Murrie, D. C. (2008). Do
some evaluators report consistently higher or lower PCL-R
scores than others? Findings from a statewide sample of sexu-
ally violent predator evaluations. Psychology, Public Policy,
and Law, 14(4), 262-283. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014523
Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D., Murrie, D. C., & Rufino, K. A.
(2012). Do PCL-R scores from state or defense experts best
predict future misconduct among civilly committed sex
offenders? Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 159-169. https://
doi.org/10.1037/h0093949
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1),
155-159. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Colins, O. F., Fanti, K. A., Salekin, R. T., & Andershed, H.
(2017). Psychopathic personality in the general popula-
tion: Differences and similarities across gender. Journal of
Personality Disorders, 31(1), 49-74. https://doi.org/10.1521/
pedi_2016_30_237
Colins, O. F., Fanti, K. A., Salekin, R. T., Mulder, E., & Andershed,
H. (2018). Psychopathy in detained boys: The search for pri-
mary and secondary variances in a clinical setting. Personality
Disorders: Theory, Research, and Treatment, 9(5), 408-419.
https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000277
DeMatteo, D., Hart, S. D., Heilbrun, K., Boccaccini, M. T.,
Cunningham, M. D., Douglas, K. S., Dvoskin, J. A., Edens,
J. F., Guy, L. S., Murrie, D. C., Otto, R. K., Packer, I. K.,
& Reidy, T. J. (2020). Statement of concerned experts on
the use of the Hare Psychopathy Checklist—Revised in
capital sentencing to assess risk for institutional violence.
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(2), 133-144. https://
doi.org/10.1037/law0000223
Douglas, K. S., Hart, S. D., & Kropp, P. R. (2001). Validity of
the Personality Assessment Inventory for forensic assess-
ments. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative Criminology, 45(2), 183-197. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0306624X01452005
Drislane, L. E., Patrick, C. J., Sourander, A., Sillanmäki, L.,
Aggen, S. H., Elonheimo, H., Parkkola, K., Multimäki, P., &
Kendler, K. S. (2014). Distinct variants of extreme psycho-
pathic individuals in society at large: Evidence from a popula-
tion-based sample. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 5(2), 154-163. https://doi.org/10.1037/
per0000060
Edens, J. F., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2017). Taking forensic mental
health assessment “out of the lab” and into “the real world”:
Introduction to the special issue on the field utility of foren-
sic assessment instruments and procedures. Psychological
Assessment, 29(6), 599-610. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0
000475
Falkenbach, D. M., Reinhard, E. E., & Larson, F. R. R. (2017).
Theory based gender differences in psychopathy subtypes.
Personality and Individual Differences, 105(15), 1-6. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.09.023
Falkenbach, D. M., Stern, S. B., & Creevy, C. (2014).
Psychopathy variants: Empirical evidence supporting a sub-
typing model in a community sample. Personality Disorders:
Theory, Research, and Treatment, 5(1), 10-19. https://doi.
org/10.1037/per0000021
Gardner, B. O., Boccaccini, M. T., Bitting, B. S., & Edens, J. F.
(2015). Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predic-
tors of misconduct, recidivism, and violence: A meta-analytic
review. Psychological Assessment, 27(2), 534-544. https://
doi.org/10.1037/pas0000065
Garofalo, C., Neumann, C. S., & Daniel, M. (2020). Associations
between psychopathy and the trait meta-mood scale in incar-
cerated males. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 47(3), 331-
351. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854819891460
Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist.
Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. (2003). Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R):
2nd edition. Multi-Health Systems.
Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., & Mokros, A. (2018). The PCL-R
assessment of psychopathy: Development, structural proper-
ties, and new directions. In C. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of psy-
chopathy (2nd ed., pp. 39-79). Guilford Press.
Hawes, S. W., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2009). Detection of over-
reporting of psychopathology on the Personality Assessment
Inventory: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Assessment,
21(1), 112-124. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015036
Hicks, B. M., Vaidyanathan, U., & Patrick, C. J. (2010). Validating
female psychopathy subtypes: Differences in personality,
antisocial and violent behavior, substance abuse, trauma, and
mental health. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and
Treatment, 1(1), 38-57. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018135
Hicks, B. M., & Drislane, L. E. (2018). Variants (“subtypes”) of
psychopathy. In C. J. Patrick (Ed.), Handbook of Psychopathy
(2nd ed., pp. 297-332). Guilford Press.
Hicks, B. M., Markon, K. E., Patrick, C. J., Krueger, R. F., &
Newman, J. P. (2004). Identifying psychopathy subtypes on
the basis of personality structure. Psychological Assessment,
16(3), 276-288. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.16.3.276
Kass, R., & Raftery, A. E. (1995) Bayes factors. Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 90(430), 773-795. https://
doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1995.10476572
Klein Haneveld, E., Neumann, C. S., Smid, W., Wever, E., &
Kamphuis, J. H. (2018). Treatment responsiveness of repli-
cated psychopathy profiles. Law and Human Behavior, 42(5),
484-495. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000305
Krstic, S., Neumann, C. S., Roy, S., Robertson, C. A., Knight, R.
A., & Hare, R. D. (2018). Using latent variable- and person-
centered approaches to examine the role of psychopathic traits
in sex offenders. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research,
and Treatment, 9(3), 207-216. https://doi.org/10.1037/
per0000249
McCallum et al. 15
Lee, Z., & Salekin, R. T. (2010). Psychopathy in a noninstitutional
sample: Differences in primary and secondary subtypes.
Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, and treatment,
1(3), 153-169. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019269
Lehmann, R., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D., Biedermann, J., Dahle,
K. P., & Mokros, A. (2019). A latent profile analysis of vio-
lent offenders based on PCL-R factor scores: Criminogenic
needs and recidivism risk. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 10, Article
627. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00627
Miller, H. A., Turner, K., & Henderson, C. E. (2009).
Psychopathology of sex offenders: A comparison of
males and females using latent profile analysis. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 36(8), 778-792. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093854809336400
Miller, C. S., Kimmonis, E. R., Otto, R. K., Kline, S. M., &
Wasserman, A. L. (2012). Reliability of risk assessment
measures used in sexually violent predator proceedings.
Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 944-953. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0028411
Mokros, A., Hare, R. D., Neumann, C. S., Santila, P., Habermeyer, E., &
Nitschke, J. (2015). Variants of psychopathy in adult male offend-
ers: A latent profile analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
124(2), 372-386. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000042
Morey, L. C. (1991). Personality Assessment Inventory:
Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
https://doi.org/10.1037/t03903-000
Morey, L. C. (2007). Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI):
Professional manual (2nd ed.). Psychological Assessment
Resources.
Morey, L. C., & Hopwood, C. J. (2007). Casebook for the
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): A structural sum-
mary approach. Psychological Assessment Resources.
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Rufino, K., & Caperton, J.
(2012). Field validity of the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised
in sex offender risk assessment. Psychological Assessment,
24(2), 524-229. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026015
Murrie, D. C., Boccaccini, M. T., Turner, D., Meeks, M., Woods,
C., & Tussey, C. (2009). Rater (dis)agreement on risk assess-
ment measures in sexually violent predator proceedings:
Evidence of adversarial allegiance in forensic evaluation?
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(1), 19-53. https://doi.
org/10.1037/a0014897
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2008). Mplus user’s guide
(5th ed.). Muthén & Muthén.
Muthén, B., & Shedden, K. (1999). Finite mixture model-
ing with mixture outcomes using the EM algorithm.
Biometrics, 55(2), 463-469. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0006-
341X.1999.00463.x
Neal, T. M. S., & Grisso, T. (2014). Assessment practices and expert
judgment methods in forensic psychology and psychiatry: An
international snapshot. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 41(12),
1406-1421. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854814548449
Neumann, C. S., Vitacco, M. J., & Mokros, A. (2016). Using both
variable-centered and person-centered approaches to under-
standing psychopathic personality. In C. B. Gacono (Ed.), The
clinical and forensic assessment of psychopathy: A practitio-
ners guide (2nd ed., pp. 14-31). Routledge.
Nylund-Gibson, K., & Masyn, K. E. (2016). Covariates and
mixture modeling: Results of a simulation study explor-
ing the impact of misspecified effects on class enumeration.
Structural Equation Modeling, 23(6), 782-797. https://doi.org
/10.1080/10705511.2016.1221313
Olver, M. E., Sewall, L. A., Sarty, G. E., Lewis, K., & Wong, S. C.
P. (2015). A cluster analytic examination and external valida-
tion of psychopathic offender subtypes in a multisite sample of
Canadian federal offenders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,
124(2), 355-371. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000038
Olver, M. E., Stockdale, K. C., Neumann, C. S., Hare, R. D.,
Mokros, A., Baskin-Sommers, A., Brand, E., Folino, J.,
Gacono, C., Gray, N. S., Kiehl, K., Knight, R., Leon-Mayer,
E., Logan, M., Meloy, J. R., Roy, S., Salekin, R. T., Snowden,
R., Thomson, N., . . . Yoon, D. (2020). Reliability and valid-
ity of the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised in the assessment of
risk for institutional violence: A cautionary note on DeMatteo
et al. (2020). Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 26(4), 490-
510. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000256
Percosky, A., Boccaccini, M. T., Bitting, B., & Hamilton, P.
(2013). Personality Assessment Inventory scores as predictors
of treatment compliance and misconduct among sex offend-
ers participating in community-based treatment. Journal of
Forensic Psychology Practice, 13(3), 192-203. https://doi.org
/10.1080/15228932.2013.795425
Ruiz, M. A., Cox, J., Magyar, M., & Edens, J. F. (2014). Predictive
validity of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) for
identifying criminal reoffending following completion of an
in-jail addiction treatment program. Psychological Assessment,
26(2), 673-678. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035282
Ruiz, M. A., & Edens, J. R. (2008). Recovery and replication of inter-
nalizing and externalizing dimensions within the Personality
Assessment Inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment,
90(6), 585-592. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802388574
Ruiz, M. A., & Ochshorn, E. (2010). Clinical applications of the
PAI in criminal justice settings. In M. A. Blais, M. R. Baity, &
C. J. Hopwood (Eds.), Clinical applications of the Personality
Assessment Inventory (pp. 113-134). Routledge/Taylor &
Francis Group.
Skeem, J., Johansson, P., Andershed, H., Kerr, M., & Louden, J. E.
(2007). Two subtypes of psychopathic violent offenders that
parallel primary and secondary variants. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 116(2), 395-409. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-
843X.116.2.395
Swogger, M. T., & Kosson, D. S. (2007). Identifying sub-
types of criminal psychopaths: A replication and extension.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 953-970. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0093807300758
Texas Health and Safety Code, Title 11, § 841. (2010).
Vassileva, J., Kosson, D. S., Abramowitz, C., & Conrod, P. (2005).
Psychopathy versus psychopathies in classifying criminal
offenders. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10(1), 27-
43. https://doi.org/10.1348/135532504X15376
Viljoen, J. L., McLachlan, K., & Vincent, G. M. (2010). Assessing
violence risk and psychopathy in juvenile and adult offenders:
A survey of clinical practices. Assessment, 17(3), 377-395.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191109359587