The Abbreviated Psychopathy Measure (APM): Two Pilot Studies of a Brief Measure of Psychopathy Traits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two studies were undertaken to examine preliminary construct validity of a newly developed, abbreviated measure of psychopathy. The Abbreviated Psychopathy Measure (APM) is a 33-item inventory that is closely modeled on the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM; Patrick, 2010), with a new and more parsimonious set of items. Analyses in Study 1 ( = 126) found that the Boldness, Meanness, and Disinhibition scales of the APM had high internal consistency reliabilities and were highly correlated with their counterpart scales on the TriPM. The APM Total score was very highly correlated with the TriPM Total score (r = .90). Each of the APM scales was also significantly correlated with a measure of Antisocial Intent. In Study 2 (N = 140), the APM was very highly correlated with the Total score of a 36-item version of the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scales (LSRP; Levenson, Kiehl, & Fitzpatrick, 1995). Additionally, the APM scales were associated differentially with normal range personality variables associated with psychopathy (e.g., Boldness was robustly associated with Extraversion, Meanness was highly and inversely associated with Agreeableness, Disinhibition was robustly and negatively associated with Conscientiousness). The APM appeared to differ most significantly from the TriPM in that APM Boldness was moderately correlated with Meanness and Disinhibition. APM Boldness may capture a more maladaptive quality of boldness relative to TriPM Boldness through a greater emphasis on low harm avoidance or fearlessness in comparison to TriPM Boldness. The APM is potentially a promising brief measure of psychopathy; however, further study is needed to determine whether the moderately inter-correlated APM scales can distinguish among conceptually relevant constructs. Directions for future research are discussed.
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 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".