MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2034916512 · doi:10.1080/14999013.2010.517258

Structure and Correlates of the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11) in Offenders: Implications for Psychopathy and Externalizing Pathology

2010· article· en· W2034916512 on OpenAlexaff
Mark A. Ruiz, Jennifer L. Skeem, Norman G. Poythress, Kevin S. Douglas, Scott O. Lilienfeld

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental Health · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyBarratt Impulsiveness ScaleImpulsivityPsychologyContext (archaeology)Confirmatory factor analysisAntisocial personality disorderClinical psychologyPersonality pathologyConstruct validityScale (ratio)Developmental psychologyPsychometricsPoison controlStructural equation modelingInjury preventionPersonalityPersonality disordersSocial psychologyMedicineBiologyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Based on a large sample of offenders (male, n= 1,316; female, n= 267), we (a) tested the relative fit of alternative factor models for the Barratt Impulsiveness Scale (BIS-11), and (b) assessed the pattern of relationships among BIS-11 scales and theoretically relevant measures of psychopathy and externalizing pathology. Of four alternative factor models, none yielded satisfactory fit to these data in confirmatory factor analyses. Although the BIS-11 subscales generated from models were, as predicted, associated primarily with the socially deviant features of psychopathy, these subscales exhibited a pattern of associations with externalizing pathology that was generally inconsistent with expectations. These results call into question the validity of previously reported BIS-11 factor models. The findings are discussed within the context of the externalizing spectrum of pathology and the construct validation of impulsivity measures.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.330 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Forensic Mental HealthSame topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual OffendingFrench-language works237,207