MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2902021559 · doi:10.5539/ass.v14n12p184

The Dimensional Structure of the Self Report Psychopathy Scale

2018· article· en· W2902021559 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rizal Abu Bakar, Wan Nurul Izza Wan Husin

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychopathyPsychologyContext (archaeology)Scale (ratio)Mental healthSample (material)Clinical psychologyDark triadSocial psychologyPersonalityPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health issue is becoming increasingly prevalent in Malaysia. However, the country still lacks valid measures in assessing mental illness which includes psychopathy. The present study investigates the factorial structure of the Self Report Psychopathy Scale (SRPS). Specifically, it examines the feasibility of its use with Malaysian community. The SRPS was administered to a sample of undergraduate students. Result of principal components analysis yielded a four-factor solution. The obtained result was inconsistent with the proposed conceptual framework of this scale which captured only two factors (primary psychopathy and secondary psychopathy factors). The psychometric features of SRPS showed less support on its feasibility as a sound and reliable research instrument to measure students’ psychopathic attributes in the Malaysian context. Other implications of the findings 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Social Science→Same topicPsychopathy, Forensic Psychiatry, Sexual Offending→French-language works237,207→