Capturing the Four-Factor Structure of Psychopathy in College Students Via Self-Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of self-report psychopathy scales have been used successfully in both clinical and nonclinical settings. However, their factor structure does not adequately capture the four factors (Interpersonal, Affective, Lifestyle, and Antisocial) recently identified in the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R; Hare, 2003) and related measures. This deficit was addressed by upgrading the Self Report Psychopathy Scale (SRP-II; Hare, Hemphill, & Harpur, 1989). In Study 1 (N = 249), an exploratory factor analysis of this experimental version revealed oblique factors similar to those outlined by Hare (2003). In Study 2 (N = 274), confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) confirmed this structure, that is, four distinct but intercorrelated factors. The factors exhibited appropriate construct validity in a nomological network of related personality measures. Links with self-reports of offensive activities (including entertainment preferences and behavior) also supported the construct validity of the oblique four-factor model.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".