Using the PCL-R to Help Estimate the Validity of Two Self-Report Measures of Psychopathy With Offenders
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two self-report measures of psychopathy, Levenson's Primary and Secondary Psychopathy scales (LPSP) and the Psychopathic Personality Inventory (PPI), were administered to a large sample of 1,603 offenders. The most widely researched measure of criminal psychopathy, the Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R), served as a provisional referent for estimating the construct validity of these self-report measures with offenders. Compared with the LPSP, the PPI displayed higher zero-order correlations with the PCL-R, better convergent and discriminant validity, and more consistent incremental utility in predicting PCL-R scores. Furthermore, using a variant of Westen and Rosenthal's approach to evaluating the construct validity of a new measure, compared with the LPSP, the PPI's pattern of associations with measures of 35 external criterion variables was more similar to the pattern observed for the PCL-R. Results generally provide stronger support for the validity of the PPI than the LPSP in offender populations using the PCL-R as a provisional benchmark, particularly for assessing interpersonal and affective features of psychopathy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it