The Utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory in the Assessment of Psychopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To assess the utility of the Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI; Morey, 1991 Morey, L. C. 1991. Personality Assessment Inventory, Tampa: Psychological Assessment Resources. Professional manual [Google Scholar]) in the assessment of psychopathy, 92 male criminal defendants were administered the Psychopathy Checklist Revised (PCL-R; Hare,1991 Hare, R. D. 1991. The Psychopathy Checklist Revised, Toronto, Ontario: Multi-Health Systems. [Google Scholar]) and the PAI. Included were only those defendants who produced valid PAI protocols. Those scoring at least 30 on the PCL-R scored significantly higher on the Antisocial Features subscales ANT-A (Antisocial Behaviors) and ANT-S (Stimulus Seeking) than either the Low (PCL-R; total less than 20) or Moderate (PCL-R; total = 20–29) psychopathy groups. No significant differences between psychopathy groups were observed for ANT-E (Egocentricity). Regression analyses with PCL-R total, factor 1 and factor 2 of the PCL-R as the criteria, and the Antisocial Features subscales as the predictors revealed that only ANT-A significantly correlated with PCL-R total score and ANT-A and ANT-S with Factor 2. None of the Antisocial features scales correlated significantly with PCL-R factor 1. The results demonstrate that the PAI is capable of assessing the behavioral but not the affective/interpersonal aspects 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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.011 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".